Sorry dude, I had no point concerning her current ranking. However,in the true spirit of laziness, I will again refer you to what Jon Wertheim has to say on the topic:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jon_wertheim/10/12/mailbag/index.html
Lindsay Davenport just won her 50th career title. This is an impressive feat, but it also contrasts to her low number of Grand Slams. Everyone seems to characterize her as an overachiever, which seems surprising to me when you remember that she hasn't won a major in six years. Don't get me wrong, I like Lindsay and often times I root for her to win. But let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who wins that many tournaments and so few Slams is a chronic underachiever.
-- Jay Lassiter, Philadelphia
Trying to give some context to Davenport's career is a useful exercise that helps us prioritize what it is we look for in a top player. If our criteria are heavily weighted toward Slams, Davenport is certainly on the board -- three, all of them at different events, is nothing to sneeze at. But it places her well below Venus and Serena Williams, Martina Hingis and even Justine Henin-Hardenne. (In Tennis Magazine's "40 Greatest Players" series, Davenport is seeded behind each of the aforementioned, save JHH.) As you note, 50 career titles is impressive. But the percentages of Slams won -- a mere six, if my math is right -- stacks up poorly with most other top players.
On the other hand, if your criteria for greatness includes things like consistency, week-in and week-out excellence, fitness and overall professionalism, Davenport rates much higher. Empirically, 50 titles speaks for itself. But consider that they were won over the course of a decade, all over the world, on variety of surfaces, against all manner of foe, and it becomes still more impressive. At a time when players routinely bail on events for the most dubious reasons, when they retire in their early 20s and often succumb to the grind of the job, Davenport's sustained excellence is really to be commended. To what extent this compensates for such a low number of majors -- and we should point out, that Davenport openly acknowledges this low ratio -- is open to debate. My sense is that she certainly rates above Hingis. I have a harder time ranking Davenport above the Williams sisters, Serena in particular.
Incidentally, I think the "overachiever" label applies much more to her initial prospects as a pro than to her record in finals. One glimpse of Davenport in action and it's clear that she is not the most athletically gifted or naturally graceful player. As a junior, she didn't get one-10th the hype as her peer, Jennifer Capriati. If you had said 10 years ago that Davenport would win 50 titles, three majors and enjoy lengthy stays at No. 1, people would have chased after you with butterfly nets. In the sense that she's had such an expectedly outstanding career, it's easy to see her as an overachiever.
