Sharapova vs Hingis vs Clijsters vs Davenport

[martinezownsclay]

In what order would you rank these 4 players. Some points on each.

Davenport:

-A pretty amazing 4 Year End #1s. She in fact has more Year End #1s than she has slam titles. It should be noted though of those years, only 1998 was she widely regarded as the best, although you could make possible arguments for 2004 and 2005 too. She did not win a single Player of Year award in 3 of her 4 YE#1 years of 2001, 2004, 2005, and in 2001 she ended the Year #1 slamless over 2 seperate 2 slam winners- Venus and Jennifer Capriati. So some would argue her YE#1s is a skewed stat. And the only year of the 4 she won a slam was 1998, her other 2 years winning a slam were not in Year End #1 years.
-55 Career WTA singles titles
-For those who value doubles at all, 3 doubles slams, and 13 doubles slam finals. A lot like her singles career she was a perennial bridesmaid often in doubles.
-3 slam singles titles, all in a relatively short span from 98 US Open to 2000 Australia. 7 total slam finals.
-1 WTA Championship title, and 1 Olympic Gold in singles.


Clijsters:

-4 slam singles titles, 3 of them US Opens. All her slam titles are hard court slams.
-3 YEC titles.
-Although she has no YE#1s, she virtually swept the Player of Year awards in 2005 and 2010 both (Wozniacki I think got 1 award for 2009 only), and was generally seen as the real #1 both years.
-Has only 20 official weeks ranked #1.
-41 career singles titles
-rarely played doubles, but still has 2 doubles slam wins.


Sharapova:

-Her biggest achievement is being 1 of only 9 women in history to complete the Career Slam.
-5 slam singles titles, equal with Hingis for most of these 4 women.
-Just like Clijsters, never a Year End #1.
-Unlike Clijsters was never generally seen at years end as the best player either though. Reflecting this fact, she also has barely any Player of Year Awards, her only one being the WTA Player of Year for 2004, where the Player of Year awards were spread out amongst many women.
-Has 36 WTA singles titles.
-Has no noteable doubles achievements.
-Olympic silver in singles.


Hingis

-3 Year End #1s. Like Davenport, some have been questioned by the public, particularly her 2000 one where Venus finished the year winning 2 slams and ended at #3, and Davenport ended the year with a slam win and 3 overall slam finals, along with consistent tournament results, and finished #2. Hingis without a slam and only 1 slam final still finished at #1. None as criticized as Davenport's 2001 Year End #1 however.
-An astonishing 209 weeks ranked at #1. 5th most all time. Interestingly Davenport despite more YE#1s, has only 98 weeks ranked at #1. Davenport and Hingis are both far above Clijsters and Sharapova in all #1 ranking stats.
-5 singles slams, including 3 in her dominant 1997, which was by a huge margin the best single year any of these 4 women had.
-2 Year End Championship titles.
-43 singles titles, 2nd most of these 4 women, after only Davenport.
-Outstanding doubles career. 13 womens doubles slam wins, and 7 mixed doubles slam wins.

So who would you rank best and worst of these 4. I personally think Hingis is easily #1, even with Maria's Career Slam.

After Hingis I have a hard time ranking them though. I think Clijsters probably should be behind Sharapova, excluding Maria's PED usage. I can see an argument for Davenport to be above both Clijsters and Sharapova, between them, or behind both.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I voted Hingis best and Clijsters worst.

I did consider Sharapova for worst.

 

[Entername]

In terms of ability:

1. Clijsters
2. Davenport
3. Hingis
4. Sharapova

In terms of accolades:

1. Hingis
2. Sharapova
3. Clijsters
4. Davenport

Honestly you could argue Sharapova is #1 here because she's the only one who's won all four slams

 

[martinezownsclay]

In terms of ability:

1. Clijsters
2. Davenport
3. Hingis
4. Sharapova

In terms of accolades:

1. Hingis
2. Sharapova
3. Clijsters
4. Davenport

Honestly you could argue Sharapova is #1 here because she's the only one who's won all four slams

On the bolded part I don't think Sharapova could be seriously argued as #1 in accolades, if almost nobody argues Agassi has having more accolades than Connors or Lendl (ironically a thread I made recently as well). Both have 5 slams, and Maria the Career Slam, but that is her only achievements edge up against Hingis's slew of edges. Literally almost 200 weeks more at #1, 3 YE#1s to 0, a top 15 year in the Open Era and very dominant 3 slam year in 1997 vs Maria who never even had a semi dominant year, more YEC titles, more Tier 1 titles, more titles, and her epic doubles career if you give even a minor bit of credit to that. The Career Slam alone, something even Shirley Fry managed, while significant, is not enough to make up for all of that.

I do agree with your rankings on both ability and accolades otherwise. Although I do think Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis, you could make various arguments for ability. Hingis had a special quality to her tennis unlike all those others, and was one of the best strategists ever. Davenport is one of the most gifted ball strikers and cleanest power hitters in history. Clijsters had an incredible mix of power, all time great movement and defense, and consistency at her very best. Sharapova is easily last in pure ability.
I probably agree with your accolades order of the 4 too, even with all of Davenport's YE#1s.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Interesting to see the consensus is Davenport lowest. I kind of guessed it would be Clijsters, but I was wrong.

 

[boredone3456]

Hingis is definitely highest, even if the bulk of her success at the majors was in a single year, her overall achievements are still pretty impressive.

I didn't pick a lowest, because I had a hard time deciding between Sharapova and Davenport. I feel like Sharapova is insanely lucky to have ever won Wimbledon (rain saved her from Lindsay beating her senseless in the SF that year), then she somehow had RG seemingly become her best major? She had these great bursts of peak level that then coincided with horrible crashes, injuries...etc.

Davenport...the fact that she didn't win a major in 2004 or 2005 was just...insane to me. Wimbledon 04 was a shame, the US Open that year she was derailed by injury. AO 05 was sad, and that years Wimbledon final was epic, Venus literally played out of her mind to win that match. Davenport also won all 3 of her majors without dropping a single set. She also had her issues with injuries, when forced to run she looked...well we all know. But then she is also arguably the best pure ball striker to EVER play the game.

I in the end just gave highest to Hingis as that was the obvious choice to me.

 

[skaj]

All great and unique players.
In terms of talent Hingis.
For consistency Davenport.
The most efficient at their peak Clijsters or Sharapova(Kim if I have to choose one).

 

[martinezownsclay]

Hingis is definitely highest, even if the bulk of her success at the majors was in a single year, her overall achievements are still pretty impressive.

I didn't pick a lowest, because I had a hard time deciding between Sharapova and Davenport. I feel like Sharapova is insanely lucky to have ever won Wimbledon (rain saved her from Lindsay beating her senseless in the SF that year), then she somehow had RG seemingly become her best major? She had these great bursts of peak level that then coincided with horrible crashes, injuries...etc.

Davenport...the fact that she didn't win a major in 2004 or 2005 was just...insane to me. Wimbledon 04 was a shame, the US Open that year she was derailed by injury. AO 05 was sad, and that years Wimbledon final was epic, Venus literally played out of her mind to win that match. Davenport also won all 3 of her majors without dropping a single set. She also had her issues with injuries, when forced to run she looked...well we all know. But then she is also arguably the best pure ball striker to EVER play the game.

I in the end just gave highest to Hingis as that was the obvious choice to me.

So I take it you see Clijsters as #2, as you didn't even mention considering her for lowest.

 

[thrust]

Interesting to see the consensus is Davenport lowest. I kind of guessed it would be Clijsters, but I was wrong.

The consensus is wrong. Lindsay ended 4 years at #1, Kim-0. Lindsay has 98 weeks at #1, Kim- 19, Kim won 55 WTA tournaments, Kim-41. One more slam is no big deal, in that Lindsay won OG

 

[skaj]

The consensus is wrong. Lindsay ended 4 years at #1, Kim-0. Lindsay has 98 weeks at #1, Kim- 19, Kim won 55 WTA tournaments, Kim-41. One more slam is no big deal, in that Lindsay won OG

Depends what your criterion is. Davenport played more and was more consistent. Safina for example was the mathematical number one when Serena was the obvious number one. Their head to head is pretty even, and they played quite a few matches when Lindsay was at the peak of her powers while Kim was a developing teen etc.

I would pick Davenport for grass, the rest I would give to Clijsters.

 

[martinezownsclay]

The consensus is wrong. Lindsay ended 4 years at #1, Kim-0. Lindsay has 98 weeks at #1, Kim- 19, Kim won 55 WTA tournaments, Kim-41. One more slam is no big deal, in that Lindsay won OG

I personally put Lindsay over Clijsters probably, but I do think it has to be noted some of Lindsay's YE#1s were very controversial, and her 2001 is widely regarded as the most ridiculous one in history. Even Lindsay laughed it off as a joke, but said she wouldn't apologize for the ridiculous ranking system. Kim swept almost all the Player of Year awards in 2005 and 2010, so while she wasn't technically #1, most regarded her as the true #1 both those years. So the #1 stats gap is kind of skewed in a way, especialy given the long standing criticsm and complaints of the WTA ranking system back then, and I take it with a grain of salt. Kind of similar to Connor's #1 stats.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

All great and unique players.
In terms of talent Hingis.
For consistency Davenport.
The most efficient at their peak Clijsters or Sharapova(Kim if I have to choose one).

true when I think in Davenport i think in #1, not so much with the others..

I think overall for me it is very very hard to compare..

Just solely on the way they played I would put Sharapova dead last.

1 Hingis
2 Davenport
3 Clijsters (mostly HC)
4 Sharapova (she won mostly in weak era where there were like 20 different #1 in the WTA)

I have 2-4 extremely close to eachother. It would be for me like asking who is better Agassi, Connors or Lendl.

 

[martinezownsclay]

All great and unique players.
In terms of talent Hingis.
For consistency Davenport.
The most efficient at their peak Clijsters or Sharapova(Kim if I have to choose one).

Just curious how you define being more efficient at your peak?

Sharapova never won 2 slams in the same year, never defended a slam, never even won a slam in back to back years, and never ended a year as either world #1 or best player. So I am genuinely curious to your thought process to her even possibly being the most efficient of the 4 at her peak, or what that means to you exactly.

 

[skaj]

Just curious how you define being more efficient at your peak?

Sharapova never won 2 slams in the same year, never defended a slam, never even won a slam in back to back years, and never ended a year as either world #1 or best player. So I am genuinely curious to your thought process to her even possibly being the most efficient of the 4 at her peak, or what that means to you exactly.

Speaking of being curious about someone's thought process, it's self-explanatory. At her peak. Not the most consistent one.

 

[skaj]

At their best

serve: Davenport = Sharapova > Clijsters > Hingis
return: Clijsters ≈ Hingis ≈ Sharapova ≈ Davenport
forehand: Davenport > Clijsters ≈ Sharapova > Hingis
backhand: Hingis ≈ Sharapova ≈ Davenport > Clijsters
net: Hingis > Clijsters ≈ Davenport > Sharapova
movement: Clijsters ≈ Hingis > Sharapova > Davenport
strategy: Hingis > Clijsters ≈ Davenport > Sharapova
mentality: Sharapova > Clijsters ≈ Hingis > Davenport
clay: Hingis ≈ Sharapova > Clijsters > Davenport
grass: Davenport ≈ Sharapova > Hingis > Clijsters
hard: Clijsters ≈ Hingis ≈ Sharapova ≈ Davenport

 

[martinezownsclay]

Speaking of being curious about someone's thought process, it's self-explanatory. At her peak. Not the most consistent one.

Well even her peak never produced even semi dominant results for a period. It never produced a semi dominant streak at any event or any surface. She is the only one of these 4 you can say that about. And she has horrible head to heads vs most top players (except Davenport, who she won a bunch of 3 setters against entirely due to superior mental toughness and mental edge in the match up, while also having a 6-0, 6-0 loss), and went on a 16 year (end of 2004 to retirement) losing streak to Serena, which no other top player has anything close to like against Serena or anyone. That does not suggest to me the strongest peak level play if that is what you mean by "effecient" at all.

And I think putting Sharapova on the same level as any of the other 3 on hard courts is inflating her, considering all the hard court titles those other 3 have won on the whole. Davenport had some completely dominant summers, and won only 2 hard court slams purely due to bad luck. Hingis won 3 straight Australian Opens. Clijsters 3 straight US Opens she played. Sharapova is easily the weakest of the 4 on hard courts, a level beneath all of the other 3. Your rankings on the other surfaces are about right though. I do think Clijsters at her early 2000s level was atleast comparable to Sharapova on clay, as Maria only won French Opens due to the atrocious clay field for a few years she got super lucky to coincide her clay peak with. Kim's performance in the 2001 French final vs Capriati is probably better than anything I ever saw from Maria on clay. Unfortunately it also didn't last very long.

 

[skaj]

Well even her peak never produced even semi dominant results for a period. It never produced a semi dominant streak at any event or any surface. She is the only one of these 4 you can say that about. And she has horrible head to heads vs most top players (except Davenport, who she won a bunch of 3 setters against entirely due to superior mental toughness and mental edge in the match up, while also having a 6-0, 6-0 loss), and went on a 16 year (end of 2004 to retirement) losing streak to Serena, which no other top player has anything close to like against Serena or anyone. That does not suggest to me the strongest peak level play if that is what you mean by "effecient" at all.

And I think putting Sharapova on the same level as any of the other 3 on hard courts is inflating her, considering all the hard court titles those other 3 have won on the whole. Davenport had some completely dominant summers, and won only 2 hard court slams purely due to bad luck. Hingis won 3 straight Australian Opens. Clijsters 3 straight US Opens she played. Sharapova is easily the weakest of the 4 on hard courts, a level beneath all of the other 3. Your rankings on the other surfaces are about right I guess.

Again, no, at their best and career stats - two different things.

Maybe the fact that peak rhymes with streak confuses you, I don't know.