Is Haas the worst player ever to reach Nr.2?

People often debate the worst player to reach number 1. So I thought who is the worst to hold number 2. I ll go and nominate Haas.
0 slams
0 slam finals
4 slam semis
0 Masters wins
1 masters final (Rome))
1 year end top ten (8)

Also his resume during the two seasons ( 2001,20002 )that led to his number 2 position were so pedestrian that you really wonder how he climbed to number 2. In These two Seasons he had these Results
0 Slams
0 slam finals
1 slam semis
1 slam quarter final
0 masters
1 masters final

Has anyone reached number 2 with less impressive stats on the biggest stage?
 
Last edited:
Haas won the Stuttgart Masters in 2001.

I think Magnus Norman (another player who could have accomplished more without injuries) gets the nod over Haas:

Haas: 569-338 (62.73%), 15 titles, 1 Masters Series title, 1 Masters Series final, Olympic final, Grand Slam Cup final, 4 Major SFs; H2H 2-1 over Norman​
Norman: 244-177 (58%), 12 titles, 1 Masters Series title, 1 Major final, 1 Major SF​

Basically, the only thing Norman has over Haas is the Major final. I think he's below Haas in the #2 pecking order.
 
People often debate the worst player to reach number 1. So I thought who is the worst to hold number 2. I ll go and nominate Haas.
0 slams
0 slam finals
4 slam semis
0 Masters wins
1 masters final (Toronto)
1 year end top ten (8)

Also his resume during the two seasons ( 2001,20002 )that led to his number 2 position were so pedestrian that you really wonder how he climbed to number 2. In These two Seasons he had these Results
0 Slams
0 slam finals
1 slam semis
1 slam quarter final
0 masters
1 masters final

Has anyone reached number 2 with less impressive stats on the biggest stage?
Haas made semis in canada but no final. Canas edged him out in 2002.

Haas had a real chance in AO 02 but was unfortunate to have the roof close, where safin is definitely as good as anyone.

Haas also had some very unfortunate illnesses and personal issues with his parents in a crash. Not good enough to be a no1 but one of the better players not to make a slam final, and very elegant to watch.
 
Haas won the Stuttgart Masters in 2001.

I think Magnus Norman (another player who could have accomplished more without injuries) gets the nod over Haas:

Haas: 569-338 (62.73%), 15 titles, 1 Masters Series title, 1 Masters Series final, Olympic final, Grand Slam Cup final, 4 Major SFs; H2H 2-1 over Norman​
Norman: 244-177 (58%), 12 titles, 1 Masters Series title, 1 Major final, 1 Major SF​

Basically, the only thing Norman has over Haas is the Major final. I think he's below Haas in the #2 pecking order.
I think you and op both are Looking in wrong way

When Norman became no 2 his last Four slam performance was ( Wim 1999 to french 2000) 3r, 4r ,Semi, Final.
He won Rome master beating Guga in last 52 weeks and won one ATP 500 level( stuttgart) and 4 atp 250 level, overall six titles in last 52 week

While Haas performance in slam was ( French open 2001 to AO 2002) 2r, 1r, 4r, Semi.
He won three title during that period one master ( Stuttgart) , one ATP 500 ( Vienna) and one ATP 250 level title.

Haas was overall better player but when they both become number two, Norman performance was better in last 52 week as a player
 
Haas made semis in canada but no final. Canas edged him out in 2002.

Haas had a real chance in AO 02 but was unfortunate to have the roof close, where safin is definitely as good as anyone.

Haas also had some very unfortunate illnesses and personal issues with his parents in a crash. Not good enough to be a no1 but one of the better players not to make a slam final, and very elegant to watch.
he is very overrated here. the fact that he never made wtf speaks for itself. also became no 2 in a very weak period of tennis.
 
I think you and op both are Looking in wrong way

When Norman became no 2 his last Four slam performance was ( Wim 1999 to french 2000) 3r, 4r ,Semi, Final.
He won Rome master beating Guga in last 52 weeks and won one ATP 500 level( stuttgart) and 4 atp 250 level, overall six titles in last 52 week

While Haas performance in slam was ( French open 2001 to AO 2002) 2r, 1r, 4r, Semi.
He won three title during that period one master ( Stuttgart) , one ATP 500 ( Vienna) and one ATP 250 level title.

Haas was overall better player but when they both become number two, Norman performance was better in last 52 week as a player
Stuttgart wasnt a masters when he won it.
 
People often debate the worst player to reach number 1. So I thought who is the worst to hold number 2. I ll go and nominate Haas.
0 slams
0 slam finals
4 slam semis
0 Masters wins
1 masters final (Rome))
1 year end top ten (8)

Also his resume during the two seasons ( 2001,20002 )that led to his number 2 position were so pedestrian that you really wonder how he climbed to number 2. In These two Seasons he had these Results
0 Slams
0 slam finals
1 slam semis
1 slam quarter final
0 masters
1 masters final

Has anyone reached number 2 with less impressive stats on the biggest stage?

Come on man. Not haas. We don’t need to do this

Did you forget about all the surgeries ?
 
he is very overrated here. the fact that he never made wtf speaks for itself. also became no 2 in a very weak period of tennis.
2001 he finished no 8 but the slam winner rule meant he couldnt play. Had someone withdrawn (rafter or guga both kind of should have with hindsight) then he would have had a chance.

Also that loss to sampras at the uso 02 derailed him. I dont know if he could beat an injured roddick and then schalken but that was a good chance to make up for the ao disappointment.

No one has mentioned his silver medal but that isnt a bad achievement, given he was still quite young. He did make kafelnikov work for the gold too.
 
Haas was such a talented and elegant player. Injuries and personal stuff derailed his career. Multiple injuries/surgeries to his shoulder stopped him in his prime. You have to look at more than just what tournaments he won/didn't win. Injuries can stop you at your peak
 
He did win a M1000, and he was the player whose injuries cost him the most alongside del Potro, at least when talking about top players. Some 2nd tier players like Brian Baker and PimPim Johansson also had it pretty bad.

AO 2002 should have been his. He definitely beats Johansson in the final. And he was beating a well-playing Safin in the first three sets of that semi until the rain.
 
Haas was such a talented and elegant player. Injuries and personal stuff derailed his career. Multiple injuries/surgeries to his shoulder stopped him in his prime. You have to look at more than just what tournaments he won/didn't win. Injuries can stop you at your peak

He was talented but he lacked a single huge weapon to breakthrough. Add to that being mentally fragile, and inconsistent, and if anything he slightly overachieved to ever reach #2, although he could have also reached a slam final atleast, and possibly won a slam, with a bit more luck too.
 
Stuttgart wasnt a masters when he won it.
There were two Stuttgarts back then. Stuttgart Outdoor on clay, which was an ATP 500 equivalent at the time (i.e. 1990s, most of the 2000s). Norman won the 1999 Stuttgart Outdoor, beating Haas in the final from 2 sets down. The Stuttgart Outdoor got downgraded to an ATP 250 in 2009, and in 2015 it became a grass event and was shifted to earlier in the calendar.

The other Stuttgart was Stuttgart Indoor, which was a masters event between 1996-2001, and was won by Haas in 2001. It was replaced from 2002-2008 with the Madrid Indoor, and from 2009 onwards by Shanghai.
 
Haas won the Stuttgart Masters in 2001.

I think Magnus Norman (another player who could have accomplished more without injuries) gets the nod over Haas:

Haas: 569-338 (62.73%), 15 titles, 1 Masters Series title, 1 Masters Series final, Olympic final, Grand Slam Cup final, 4 Major SFs; H2H 2-1 over Norman​
Norman: 244-177 (58%), 12 titles, 1 Masters Series title, 1 Major final, 1 Major SF​

Basically, the only thing Norman has over Haas is the Major final. I think he's below Haas in the #2 pecking order.
I can't agree with that.

Norman was 1 match away from being world number 1, i.e. the 2000 French Open final against Kuerten. Norman also led the Race for some of 2000, which Haas didn't in 2002. Early in 2002, Haas was a semi finalist at the Australian Open while Hewitt had chickenpox and lost in the first round, but Haas never got close to Hewitt after Hewitt won San Jose and Indian Wells. It was Agassi who got pretty close to Hewitt later in 2002, actually winning 3 masters that year to Hewitt's 1, but Agassi won no major in 2002, and Hewitt finished 2002 by winning the YEC. This continued into 2003, Agassi winning the Australian Open while Hewitt lost in the fourth round to El Aynaoui put Agassi on the brink of number 1, and Hewitt almost lost the number 1 ranking at 2003 Indian Wells, being down against El Aynaoui but got out of it and won, and went on to win the tournament against Kuerten in the final. Agassi finally overtook Hewitt in late April, then lost it to Hewitt again, and then took it back from Hewitt.

Hewitt started feuding with the ATP at that time in the spring of 2003 as well, suing them after they heavily fined him for skipping a post-match press conference. Hewitt was getting to a bit of burnout by this time. His late 2003 rest, Davis Cup aside, helped sort that out.
 
Last edited:
For men, but combining men and women Jana Novotna is the worst player to ever reach #2. She was totally owned by all the big guns of her era, plus some of the second tier players behind like Date and Huber and Majoli and Rubin owned her, was only a contender for a slam title on grass, but no other surface, unlike say even Majoli who is considered one of the worst 1 slam winners and did not reach any higher than #4 but was a big contender for slam titles on clay and hard courts, and an outside one on grass too. Jana also choked constantly, no real weapons, not a complete game. Just a doubles specialist, no a singles player.
 
I can't agree with that.

Norman was 1 match away from being world number 1, i.e. the 2000 French Open final against Kuerten. Norman also led the Race for some of 2000, which Haas didn't in 2002. Early in 2002, Haas was a semi finalist at the Australian Open while Hewitt had chickenpox and lost in the first round, but Haas never got close to Hewitt after Hewitt won San Jose and Indian Wells. It was Agassi who got pretty close to Hewitt later in 2002, actually winning 3 masters that year to Hewitt's 1, but Agassi won no major in 2002, and Hewitt finished 2002 by winning the YEC. This continued into 2003, Agassi winning the Australian Open while Hewitt lost in the fourth round to El Aynaoui put Agassi on the brink of number 1, and Hewitt almost lost the number 1 ranking at 2003 Indian Wells, being down against El Aynaoui but got out of it and won, and went on to win the tournament against Kuerten in the final. Agassi finally overtook Hewitt in late April, then lost it to Hewitt again, and then took it back from Hewitt.

Hewitt started feuding with the ATP at that time in the spring of 2003 as well, suing them after they heavily fined him for skipping a post-match press conference. Hewitt was getting to a bit of burnout by this time. His late 2003 rest, Davis Cup aside, helped sort that out.
I'm not really sure of the relevance of Norman leading the Race for some of 2000. For me, Norman leading the race for a while before finishing the year #4 is no better than another player finishing a year at #4 after "only" reaching #2, #3, or #4 in the race. Why do you see that stat as important?
 
I'm not really sure of the relevance of Norman leading the Race for some of 2000. For me, Norman leading the race for a while before finishing the year #4 is no better than another player finishing a year at #4 after "only" reaching #2, #3, or #4 in the race. Why do you see that stat as important?
I agree but didn't Norman reach #2 in the official rankings at one point? Not the race but the 52 month rolling rankings? If so he is probably the worst to ever reach #2, even over Haas, despite reaching a slam final when Haas didn't. Since Haas can play well on all surfaces, unlike Norman who only can on clay and slow hard courts, and had more longevity.

So the worst to reach #2 are Novotna for women and Norman for men, I think we can agree on that.
 
I'm not really sure of the relevance of Norman leading the Race for some of 2000. For me, Norman leading the race for a while before finishing the year #4 is no better than another player finishing a year at #4 after "only" reaching #2, #3, or #4 in the race. Why do you see that stat as important?
Haas, when he was world number 2, was nowhere near Hewitt in terms of being world number 1.

Norman was 1 match away from being world number 1. Had he won the 2000 French Open final against Kuerten, he'd have replaced Agassi as world number 1. And let's be honest, Norman at both 2000 Rome and the 2000 French Open played his best two tournaments in his career most likely, and the only slip was making too many close errors (while attacking) in the first 2 sets of the French Open final.

Look at Norman's runs in those tournaments:

2000 Rome
R64: Magnus Norman def. Sebastien Grosjean (6-3, 7-6)
R32: Magnus Norman def. Carlos Moya (6-4, 6-2)
R16: Magnus Norman def. Andrei Medvedev (7-6, 6-1)
QF: Magnus Norman def. Felix Mantilla (6-4, 6-3)
SF: Magnus Norman def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-0)
F: Magnus Norman def. Gustavo Kuerten (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4)

2000 French Open
R128: Magnus Norman def. Thierry Guardiola (6-4, 6-4, 6-0)
R64: Magnus Norman def. Fabrice Santoro (6-1, 6-4, 6-2)
R32: Magnus Norman def. Sargis Sargsian (6-4, 6-1, 6-2)
R16: Magnus Norman def. Andrei Medvedev (6-0, 6-4, 6-2)
QF: Magnus Norman def. Marat Safin (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
SF: Magnus Norman def. Franco Squillari (6-1, 6-4, 6-3)
F: Gustavo Kuerten def. Magnus Norman (6-2, 6-3, 2-6, 7-6)

That loss in the French Open final also ended Norman's run of winning 8 consecutive tournament finals that he had played in. Waspsting's thread on the match is interesting. Despite Kuerten winning 6-2, 6-3, 2-6, 7-6, which seems a relatively comfortable enough scoreline, Kuerten only won 2 more points in the match than Norman and needed 11 championship points to clinch it.

I can't imagine Haas having a run like this. Can you?
 
Last edited:
I agree but didn't Norman reach #2 in the official rankings at one point?
Yes. Going into the 2000 Italian Open in Rome, Norman was world number 4, and winning that got him up to number 3. Winning the 2000 French Open final would have gotten him to number 1, but losing the final got him to number 2. He spent 6 weeks at number 2.

Not the race but the 52 month rolling rankings? If so he is probably the worst to ever reach #2, even over Haas, despite reaching a slam final when Haas didn't.
How, when Norman was 1 match away from being world number 1 and had an incredible run, while Haas was a distant world number 2?

The Race that Norman led at times in 2000 is just ranking points from the calendar year of 2000, not all the results of the previous 52 weeks that the world rankings are based on. In the earliest years of the 21st century, the powers that be made a big deal of the race as well as the world rankings, which caused confusion with some people. Some people thought that Norman had been a world number 1, when he hadn't.

Since Haas can play well on all surfaces, unlike Norman who only can on clay and slow hard courts, and had more longevity.

So the worst to reach #2 are Novotna for women and Norman for men, I think we can agree on that.
Norman was in the 2000 Australian Open semi final, beating a red hot 18-year-old Hewitt along the way.
 
I'm not really sure of the relevance of Norman leading the Race for some of 2000. For me, Norman leading the race for a while before finishing the year #4 is no better than another player finishing a year at #4 after "only" reaching #2, #3, or #4 in the race. Why do you see that stat as important?
Because it means that Norman had more points than anyone else in that 2000 calendar year at certain times. Haas never did, despite getting a semi final early on at the 2002 Australian Open.
 
I agree but didn't Norman reach #2 in the official rankings at one point? Not the race but the 52 month rolling rankings? If so he is probably the worst to ever reach #2, even over Haas, despite reaching a slam final when Haas didn't. Since Haas can play well on all surfaces, unlike Norman who only can on clay and slow hard courts, and had more longevity.

So the worst to reach #2 are Novotna for women and Norman for men, I think we can agree on that.
Badosa and Kontaveit might have her beat.
 
Because it means that Norman had more points than anyone else in that 2000 calendar year at certain times. Haas never did, despite getting a semi final early on at the 2002 Australian Open.
But I still don't understand why that matters?

Player A has a great first half of the year and is #1 in the race before a weaker second half of the year and finishing year-end #4.

Player B gets off to a somewhat slow start in the first half of the year before a stronger second half of the year catapults him to year-end #4.

IMHO, the fact that Player A led the race for some of the first half of the year doesn't elevate him above Player B, who never led the race, but ended in the same spot.
 
He did win a M1000, and he was the player whose injuries cost him the most alongside del Potro, at least when talking about top players. Some 2nd tier players like Brian Baker and PimPim Johansson also had it pretty bad.

AO 2002 should have been his. He definitely beats Johansson in the final. And he was beating a well-playing Safin in the first three sets of that semi until the rain.
Brian Baker was not second tier
 
But I still don't understand why that matters?

Player A has a great first half of the year and is #1 in the race before a weaker second half of the year and finishing year-end #4.

Player B gets off to a somewhat slow start in the first half of the year before a stronger second half of the year catapults him to year-end #4.

IMHO, the fact that Player A led the race for some of the first half of the year doesn't elevate him above Player B, who never led the race, but ended in the same spot.
Why do you think that Haas was a better world number 2 than Norman? Hewitt was comfortably ahead of Haas at all times at the top, and Haas didn't have a run like Norman. It's a strange stat that while Haas won 4 tournaments in 2001 (i.e. Adelaide, Long Island, Vienna, Stuttgart Indoor), he didn't actually win any tournaments at all in 2002 when he became world number 2 (and only 1 final, in Rome, where Agassi battered him). And in October 2002, Haas' world ranking dropped from 2 to 7 when the Stuttgart Indoor ranking points came off the computer along with Agassi winning a third masters of the year. Haas was then out for quite some time after the family car crash.

Norman won 7 consecutive finals that he played in from April 1999 to May 2000, and I think peaked in Rome and the French Open in the latter year.
 
Why do you think that Haas was a better world number 2 than Norman? Hewitt was comfortably ahead of Haas at all times at the top, and Haas didn't have a run like Norman. It's a strange stat that while Haas won 4 tournaments in 2001 (i.e. Adelaide, Long Island, Vienna, Stuttgart Indoor), he didn't actually win any tournaments at all in 2002 when he became world number 2 (and only 1 final, in Rome, where Agassi battered him). And in October 2002, Haas' world ranking dropped from 2 to 7 when the Stuttgart Indoor ranking points came off the computer along with Agassi winning a third masters of the year. Haas was then out for quite some time after the family car crash.

Norman won 7 consecutive finals that he played in from April 1999 to May 2000, and I think peaked in Rome and the French Open in the latter year.
I think we might be assessing different things. If I understand you correctly, you're analyzing whether Norman or Haas "was a better world number 2," i.e., was/had been better when he reached/was #2.

I'm analyzing which player who reached #2 had the overall better/worse career.

I agree with you that Norman was a better #2 than Haas, but think that Haas had the overall better career, if that makes sense.
 
I think we might be assessing different things. If I understand you correctly, you're analyzing whether Norman or Haas "was a better world number 2," i.e., was/had been better when he reached/was #2.

I'm analyzing which player who reached #2 had the overall better/worse career.

I agree with you that Norman was a better #2 than Haas, but think that Haas had the overall better career, if that makes sense.
Well, Haas had the longevity. Both were injury prone, but Haas' injuries, despite some of them being bad, were more slow burn and he was able to get longevity, while Norman's injuries were much faster in finishing off his tennis playing career, with heart surgery in 1998, and then persistent hip and knee injuries from late 2000 to late 2003 that eventually needed surgery and finished his career off.
 
I can't agree with that.

Norman was 1 match away from being world number 1, i.e. the 2000 French Open final against Kuerten. Norman also led the Race for some of 2000, which Haas didn't in 2002. Early in 2002, Haas was a semi finalist at the Australian Open while Hewitt had chickenpox and lost in the first round, but Haas never got close to Hewitt after Hewitt won San Jose and Indian Wells. It was Agassi who got pretty close to Hewitt later in 2002, actually winning 3 masters that year to Hewitt's 1, but Agassi won no major in 2002, and Hewitt finished 2002 by winning the YEC. This continued into 2003, Agassi winning the Australian Open while Hewitt lost in the fourth round to El Aynaoui put Agassi on the brink of number 1, and Hewitt almost lost the number 1 ranking at 2003 Indian Wells, being down against El Aynaoui but got out of it and won, and went on to win the tournament against Kuerten in the final. Agassi finally overtook Hewitt in late April, then lost it to Hewitt again, and then took it back from Hewitt.

Hewitt started feuding with the ATP at that time in the spring of 2003 as well, suing them after they heavily fined him for skipping a post-match press conference. Hewitt was getting to a bit of burnout by this time. His late 2003 rest, Davis Cup aside, helped sort that out.
I often think that if Agassi had won that 2002 US Open Final against Sampras, he would've gotten the #1 ranking from Hewitt. But Hewitt winning the YEC (in a terrific 5-setter vs JCF) sealed Hewitt's #1 spot for the year
 
He was third then, but he absolutely was not first tier.
First in terms raw talent and ceiling. Career absolutely ruined by injuries, like Haas’s. For the brief period that he was “un-injured” after already having gone through so many surgeries, he ascended the rankings so fast, there was little doubt he could have been top 10, maybe even top 5, had his body remained healthy.
 
Badosa and Kontaveit might have her beat.

Novotna isn't even the worst player to reach #2 in her own era. :-D Conchita reached #2 and Jana is a better player than Conchita. Conchita is better on clay of course (although even on clay despite Conchita being clearly better there are still some top players Jana did better against than Conchita, like Pierce, Seles, Majoli, Kournikova, while I am not totally sure I think Huber too, which shows Conchita's limitations in general against top opponents) but Jana is definitely better on every other surface. Jana came closer to winning the 91 Australian Open, potentially the 94 US Open, the 98 US Open, than Conchita ever did winning a hard court slam including the one she reached a final but was never winning at the 98 Australian Open. And on grass and carpet both it is no contest at all despite Conchita's bizarre Wimbledon title. Lastly of little importance but also emphasizing the point a bit more, Jana is 5-1 lifetime vs Conchita, and the only loss being their match right after Wimbledon 94 where I believe Jana had a big injury, and was in terrible form, and having recently lost to a 37 year old Navratilova at Wimbledon. In fairness to Conchita though 0 clay matches, where Conchita probably would have won everytime.

Anyway there are a bunch of crumy players who reached #2 and even #1 the last 20 years who are way worse than both Conchita and Jana, including world joke world #1s Dinara Safina and Jankovic, and even Ivanovic probably falls into that.

Not sure what insideoutforehands is smoking on the Novotna pick.

PS- if you are evaluating the performances at the times they reached #1 it is even more a blowout for Jana over Conchita. Conchita did not even have a single slam final or something like a YEC title on record at the time she reached #2 on the computer for the only times she was even there. Again neither are even in the top 10 worst to reach #2 though, and both are much better than a bunch of crappy women who reached #1 somehow.
 
Last edited:
As for Haas vs Norman, Norman probably had a marginally higher peak but a WAY weaker career average, and a way shorter career of any relevance. Haas overall is easily better, unless you are evaluating on your 6 month peak and nothing else. I am someone that does value peak play very highly but not to the point nothing else matters to the extent it would require to even be thinking of putting Norman above Haas.
 
As for Haas vs Norman, Norman probably had a marginally higher peak but a WAY weaker career average, and a way shorter career of any relevance. Haas overall is easily better, unless you are evaluating on your 6 month peak and nothing else. I am someone that does value peak play very highly but not to the point nothing else matters to the extent it would require to even be thinking of putting Norman above Haas.
This is basically where I stand.
 
I feel like there's a lot of defence of Haas' injuries and surgeries and none of Norman keeping in mind this is a guy who was a French QFist in 97, beat Ivanisevic at Wimbledon on his least favourite surface; then needed heart surgery not long after, had 2 years as a very solid top 5 player before being brought down by knee and hip injuries in a way quicker time than Haas - idk its hard to really call Norman weak in the time he was at the top, but Haas was able to hang around longer/comeback because his injuries weren't as severe. Haas is more like if Dimitrov got to #2, where Norman was certainly at least for a time the 2nd best player week in week out on the tour - but the whole things very subjective and depends how you're looking at the idea of what makes a good #2 - to me, if we're talking about when they were #2 and who deserved to get there... then Norman is above Haas, but Haas had a longer career
 
Last edited:
Norman was "weak" in the sense that his body broke down to the point that he had to end his playing career at age 27, after 3 years of injury issues. Haas, despite his injuries history, had incredible longevity, i.e. around 20 years of playing on the tour.

However, when they were actually playing at their peaks, Norman seemed like steel and the epitome of hard-nosed discipline, while Haas still seemed a bit fragile.
 
This is basically where I stand.

I think you summed it up well. If we are speaking of worst #2 in terms of how they got to #2 and their performances at the time of being #2, Haas could easily be the worst over Norman, and all other candidates, and probably was. If you are talking about worst as overall as players it is Magnus Norman by a lot, amongst the men.
 
I'd also add that Norman was part of a winning Davis Cup team in 1998 as an additional thing to add to his credits over Haas.
But yes, Norman could probably only be said to have had the worst career by virtue of injury and health taking him out in record time because his career lasted basically for 6 years total on the main tour
 
Last edited:
I'm puzzled by the disdain for Novota. She won what, 4 titles in '97 (including a great win over Seles on clay in Madrid as well as the YEC) and reached the Wimbledon Final. She had won 2 or 3 titles going into Wimbledon '98, including winning Eastbourne the previous week. She knocked out Venus in the QFs, World #1 and defending champ Hingis in the Semis, then surprise Finalst Tauziat to win it all. Then won the very next week in Prague (not a star-studded field, but still). She played wonderfully in '97-'98 and wasn't some random, horridly ranked #2 player
 
I'm puzzled by the disdain for Novota. She won what, 4 titles in '97 (including a great win over Seles on clay in Madrid as well as the YEC) and reached the Wimbledon Final. She had won 2 or 3 titles going into Wimbledon '98, including winning Eastbourne the previous week. She knocked out Venus in the QFs, World #1 and defending champ Hingis in the Semis, then surprise Finalst Tauziat to win it all. Then won the very next week in Prague (not a star-studded field, but still). She played wonderfully in '97-'98 and wasn't some random, horridly ranked #2 player

She choked in every slam final she ever played in, including somewhat even in the one she won. Lets go through each.

1991 Australian Open- She got to 7-5, 3-3 in the final vs Seles. To her credit, Seles played some great points from 15-30 down to hold in the 3-3 game to get to 4-3, so I can't fault her there. However she played 2 horrible games at 3-4 but still on serve to lose serve from 30-0 up, then another horrible one with Seles serving for the set at 5-3. She lost 7 of the 8 points she lost with an unforced error, one with a forced error that was still a sloppy shot that was very playable. Then a horrendous, godawful 3rd set where she lost almost point with an unforced error. Seles played well and very solidly but didn't have to do much, Jana didn't make her do much, as she basically gave away the final 8-9 games of the match. Then she made the excuse she played super badly the last set and half since she had a "sore leg", LOL. And from here it gets only worse.

1993 Wimbledon- The worst choke of ALL TIME. Just embarassing. I shouldn't even have to explain much, one game she hit 4 double faults in a row, she put 8 serves out of play in a row. She hit a bunch of unforced errors the ball was about 5 feet out or landed in the bottom of the net, something you rarely see from a professional, never mind a top 5 player. Graf did hit some good shots, and raised her game overall some ,but lets be real she was still mostly gifted the match more than winning it or legitimately making the comeback on her own, something even Ann Jones who is a big Graf fanatic admits. The video is up all over the youtube so watch the final 5 games of it if you need you memory refreshed, plus the final 8-10 games of the 91 Australian Open final where she was also just terrible, even if not as terrible as this, or the final 7 games of the 97 Wimbledon final where she also played very poorly (not as poor as Wimbledon 93 or even Australia 91, but still very subpar) from 2-0 up in the 3rd set of the Wimbledon final vs Hingis to lose 6-3, including losing her own serve 4 straight times which is just humiliating for a big serve and volleyer with a very big first serve and big forehand. Which leads me to the next example.

1997 Wimbledon- The least bad of the first 3 but still a legit choke/collapse of sorts. She played an impeccable 1st set, one of the best sets ever seen in a Wimbledon final, to easily win the first set vs the then dominant #1 Hingis. Hingis did raise her game plus adjust her tactics in the 2nd set, but Jana's own game also fell way down, even if she didn't outright collapse at any point in the 2nd, just wound up getting outplayed. The 3rd was where the real collapse came, where as I said she was up 2-0, but wound up losing 6 of the last 7 games from that spot, including losing her own serve 4 straight times. A big serve and volleyer with a very big serve whose favorite surface is grass, playing on grass, the surface most condusive to holding serve. No excuses at all, even if she tried to make a slew (so called stomach injury that she claims affected her serve more and more as the match went on, blah blah). This wasn't as bad as the 93 Wimbledon choke/collapse, or even the 91 Australian Open one, but it still wasn't nothing and worthy of criticism. Last.

1998 Wimbledon- Yeah she did win but she basically choked and won anyway. Against a crummy final opponent- Tauziat, played by far her worst match of the tournament, came out super scared and nervous and almost went down 3-0, then when serving for the title at 5-4 in the 2nd choked and let Tauziat almost win the set, but snuck it out in the final set tiebreaker.

That isn't to mention all the slam semi finals she had pretty obvious displays of choking:

96 French- Was up a break in both sets vs Sanchez, and fell apart at the end of both sets, losing 4 or 5 games in a row in both, with a bunch of bad shots.

94 US Open- Was up 5-2 and had set points in the 2nd set vs Graf, but fell apart and lost the set and match 7-5.

91 French quarters- Lost to Sabatini from up a set and a huge lead in the 2nd, and a bunch of match points.

97 US Open quarters- Lost to Davenport after having a match point, where she missed a very easy approach shot that would have been a clean winner as Davenport wasn't even moving towards it, but she hit inches out. Then fell apart after that. In fairness to her Davenport was her worst opponent on tour, even over Graf, and she never beat her, but she still would have this down but choked again from a winning spot.

98 US Open- Huge choke vs Hingis in the semis, blowing a double break lead, losing the final 5 games, including losing her serve 3 times in a row. The #1 ranking would have been on the line vs Davenport in the final had she won.

So yes I think she is deservedly the worst #2 ever since she is an embarassing choker and displayed it in all 4 slam finals she ever played, including the 1 she won, most of the slam semis she ever played, many of the slam quarters she played, many other tour matches she played. She lost to Rubin from 5-0, 40-0 in the 3rd round of the French once too, a pretty irrelevant match, but still a historic choke. I think she is still the only player in history to lose a slam match from 5-0, 40-0 up in the deciding set, in any round, oh and btw once again she was serving and she was known for having a big first serve, making it even worse. So worst #2 ever easily,
 
Last edited:
Here is Jane Choke-vot-na losing that famous match from 5-0, 40-0 up in the 3rd round vs Rubin at the 95 French:

Here is her blowing a 4-1 double break lead in the final set vs Hingis at the 98 US Open, completely falling apart:

Here is her worst and most famous choke of all the 93 Wimbledon final vs Graf:

Here is her terrible 3rd set after giving away the end of a close 2nd set vs Seles in the 91 Australian Open final:

Here is her collapse vs Sabatini in the 91 French where she blew a gigantic lead in their quarter final, and Sabatini was not even playing well at all that day, making it even worse:

Here is her playing very badly in the 3rd set of the 96 Olympic semi final vs Sanchez, after winning the 2nd set 6-1, and having all the momentum for the decisive 3rd set, but still losing it all and the match:

If I posted all her chokes and collapses I would run out of bandwich, so will leave it at that, but that is why she is the worst #2 ever easily.
 
I'm actually aware of all of that, I just don't get the utter disdain for her. She choked, many times (the Rubin match at the '95 French is the biggest in tennis history IMO), that doesn't make her some horrid person or "the worst #2 ever" LOL. That's being very overdramatic (especially in a timeline where we've had Jankovic, Wozniacki, and others at that spot). And it's not like she was losing to Coco Vandewegh or Melanie Oudin in those Slam Finals--she was losing to Seles, Graf, and Hingis. Sure, she should've won Wimbledon '93, USO '98 SFs, etc (I don't really count Australia '91 as a 'choke' persay....she was in the lead and Seles made a comeback, that happens all the time in tennis)
 
A topic on the main made me think of this. Worst #2 is Casper Ruud pretty easily. Not sure why we are even debating Norman or Haas. Yeah 3 slam finals but in by far the most terrible field in tennis history. And huge luck circumstances even outside the terrible field- Djokovic's Covid ban, etc....And achievements are dog outside those 3 slam finals.
 
Back
Top