Where does Sharapova rank in the Open Era

Where does Maria rank in the Open Era

  • 12 or 13th best

    Votes: 16 28.6%

  • about 15th best

    Votes: 15 26.8%

  • somewhere from 16th to 20th best

    Votes: 8 14.3%

  • outside the top 20

    Votes: 17 30.4%
  • Total voters
    56
brystone said:
You have Clijsters over Davenport. That is interesting. I am not sure whether to rank Sharapova above or behind either one, but for some reason I always thought it was an easy call to put Davenport over Clijsters.
Click to expand...

Slam wins: 4-3 Clijsters
Slam finals: 8-7 Clijsters
Year-End Championships: 3-1 Clijsters
Tournaments won: 53-44 Davenport
W/L %: 80.5%-79.4% Clijsters
Weeks at #1: 98-20 Davenport
Years in top 10: 10-6 Davenport
H2H: 9-8 Clijsters

It is very close and where Davenport leads, she leads significantly, but I still say Clijsters slightly edges Davenport out based on the above.

I dont agree with Goolagong over any of Henin, Hingis, or Venus at all. No way with 4 of her 7 slams at the joke non slam Aussie Open, going 9 years in her prime between non Australian Open titles, and almost no time at #1 would I put her over any of those, but I respect your opinion. The highest I would ever put Goolagong though on that list is 11th behind all of Henin, Hingis, and Venus.
Click to expand...

Yes, the draw at the Australian Open in the 70s was soft, but 2 of Goolagong's wins at the Aussie were against Evert and Navratilova. Her Wimbledon win was over Court ending Court's run of 6 straight major titles. But Goolagong's really telling statistic was that she made the final of a major 18 times. She got stopped at the AO by Court twice and Wade once. She got stopped in the French final by Billie Jean King once. She got stopped in the Wimbledon final by King twice and Evert once. And in her 4 U.S. Open finals, she lost to Court, King, and Evert twice, and she made each U.S. Open a tough match except when Evert waxed her in her last U.S. Open final. In other words, she made the finals of 10 majors where she lost to 3 of the top 6 players in the Open Era in Court, King, and Evert. I can see an argument for Henin being above her, but Hingis or Venus not so much.
 
Last edited:
One more thing to add about Clijsters: she achieved what she did while taking 2 1/2 years off during her peak years to become a mother. Except maybe on grass, she was clearly a better all-around player than Sharapova.
 
zvelf said:
Yes, the draw at the Australian Open in the 70s was soft, but 2 of Goolagong's wins at the Aussie were against Evert and Navratilova.
Click to expand...

Beating Navratilova in early 75 wasnt that big a deal. She was about the 6th best player in the world at that point. It still doesnt change anything about that being a soft event. I will give you Evert in 74, but 1 big win doesnt mean it was a true slam draw overall, and even here she would far rather play Evert on grass at that point than say King (as she probably would have if it were a real slam).

I rate Venus and probably Hingis over Goolagong for a simple reason. Both were the best players in the world at one point in their careers. Goolagong never was. It may have been a weakish field but Hingis totally dominated 97-early 98 in a way inconsistent Goolagong would have never been dominant for a period in any field. If Goolagong were significantly more accomplished I would go with her despite this but I dont believe she is, with 4 of her 7 slams at basically a fraud slam, and a mere 2 weeks at #1 (even less than Venus, and Venus was considered the best player in the world a lot of times she wasnt ranked #1, but didnt have the schedule). If Court's Australian Opens are lowballed and she roughly is only credited with half of those by most people, then the same should certainly be true of Goolagong who obviously is far less capable of dominating a legit slam than Court would be.

It is the same reason I rate Hingis clearly over Sharapova, and consider having Davenport and Clijsters (who both were considered the best player in the world at one point, Davenport most of 98-99, Clijsters by most people at the end of both 2005 and late 2010/early 2011) over her too.
 
see a lot of you have Maria over Davenport. I guess with the slam count maybe but man Lindsey had 55 overall titles. Maria has 36. Plus Lindsey was ranked #1 for 98 weeks and Maria only 21. I can't rank Maria over Lindsey no way no how.
 
insideguy said:
see a lot of you have Maria over Davenport. I guess with the slam count maybe but man Lindsey had 55 overall titles. Maria has 36. Plus Lindsey was ranked #1 for 98 weeks and Maria only 21. I can't rank Maria over Lindsey no way no how.
Click to expand...

I think it is a close. 55 titles is super impressive. As for her #1 stats it is worth noting a lot of Davenport's time ranked #1 is highly suspect, so I take that with a grain of salt when evaluating things like her 4 YE#1s. She still clearly beats Maria in #1 stats, even considering.
 
brystone said:
I think it is a close. 55 titles is super impressive. As for her #1 stats it is worth noting a lot of Davenport's time ranked #1 is highly suspect, so I take that with a grain of salt when evaluating things like her 4 YE#1s. She still clearly beats Maria in #1 stats, even considering.
Click to expand...
I don't see it as that close. But to each his own. I suppose winning all four slams makes up for a lot. But still overall career and weeks at number #1 and titles she blows Maria away. I mean 19 more titles and 77 more weeks at #1.
 
insideguy said:
I don't see it as that close. But to each his own. I suppose winning all four slams makes up for a lot. But still overall career and weeks at number #1 and titles she blows Maria away. I mean 19 more titles and 77 more weeks at #1.
Click to expand...

I see your point but again a lot of her time at #1 is highly controversial. I take that into account too. I know that is subjective but ranking everyone and their careers is subject in the first place.

Regarding the titles I would need to do a closer examination. If many of Davenport's in comparision to Sharapova are Premier or Premier Mandatory it is big, but if many of them are small international ones much less so.

Sharapova also is 5-1 vs Davenport in head to head. Some dont like head to heads but I do think they are important when the players are close enough. Davenport's only win was a double bagel, Sharapova has one meaningless win over a well past prime Davenport coming back in 08, and the rest are tough 3 set wins for Maria in 2004-2005 when both were relatively close to their primes. Some of those Lindsay choked leads and chances in. I think that shows the key advantage Maria has over Lindsay, she was more clutch and she didnt choke in the big moments; probably the reason she has the edge in slam wins despite being inferior most other places too. I think Lindsay almost certainly has a bit better game, but Maria is definitely mentally tougher.

All that said I do l lean slightly to ranking Clijsters and Davenport just in front of Sharapova, but I struggle with what order to rank those 3. I laugh at the people who try and rank Sharapova over Hingis and in some rare cases even Henin/Venus just due to the Career Slam, but to each their own.
 
brystone said:
I see your point but again a lot of her time at #1 is highly controversial. I take that into account too. I know that is subjective but ranking everyone and their careers is subject in the first place.

Regarding the titles I would need to do a closer examination. If many of Davenport's in comparision to Sharapova are Premier or Premier Mandatory it is big, but if many of them are small international ones much less so.

Sharapova also is 5-1 vs Davenport in head to head. Some dont like head to heads but I do think they are important when the players are close enough. Davenport's only win was a double bagel, Sharapova has one meaningless win over a well past prime Davenport coming back in 08, and the rest are tough 3 set wins for Maria in 2004-2005 when both were relatively close to their primes. Some of those Lindsay choked leads and chances in. I think that shows the key advantage Maria has over Lindsay, she was more clutch and she didnt choke in the big moments; probably the reason she has the edge in slam wins despite being inferior most other places too. I think Lindsay almost certainly has a bit better game, but Maria is definitely mentally tougher.

All that said I do l lean slightly to ranking Clijsters and Davenport just in front of Sharapova, but I struggle with what order to rank those 3. I laugh at the people who try and rank Sharapova over Hingis and in some rare cases even Henin/Venus just due to the Career Slam, but to each their own.
Click to expand...
She has 9 premier 1 titles
And 11 premier 2
Plus Olympic Gold
And one WTA chamionship


She has been in 94 finals. I would argue she may be the most underrated female tennis player of all time.
 
brystone said:
I see your point but again a lot of her time at #1 is highly controversial. I take that into account too. I know that is subjective but ranking everyone and their careers is subject in the first place.

Regarding the titles I would need to do a closer examination. If many of Davenport's in comparision to Sharapova are Premier or Premier Mandatory it is big, but if many of them are small international ones much less so.

Sharapova also is 5-1 vs Davenport in head to head. Some dont like head to heads but I do think they are important when the players are close enough. Davenport's only win was a double bagel, Sharapova has one meaningless win over a well past prime Davenport coming back in 08, and the rest are tough 3 set wins for Maria in 2004-2005 when both were relatively close to their primes. Some of those Lindsay choked leads and chances in. I think that shows the key advantage Maria has over Lindsay, she was more clutch and she didnt choke in the big moments; probably the reason she has the edge in slam wins despite being inferior most other places too. I think Lindsay almost certainly has a bit better game, but Maria is definitely mentally tougher.

All that said I do l lean slightly to ranking Clijsters and Davenport just in front of Sharapova, but I struggle with what order to rank those 3. I laugh at the people who try and rank Sharapova over Hingis and in some rare cases even Henin/Venus just due to the Career Slam, but to each their own.
Click to expand...
Oh sorry also Bry she did really well in doubles if that means anything.
 
You make some good points. I like Davenport (and Clijsters) a ton more than Sharapova but that is what ultimately makes me a bit skirmish about ranking Davenport over Maria since I dont want to be too biased, LOL! I fight hard to rank them in a way I feel I am being as entirely objective as possible.
 
brystone said:
You make some good points. I like Davenport (and Clijsters) a ton more than Sharapova but that is what ultimately makes me a bit skirmish about ranking Davenport over Maria since I dont want to be too biased, LOL! I fight hard to rank them in a way I feel I am being as entirely objective as possible.
Click to expand...
I just can't rank tennis players and more so women just by slam counts. Nothing against women but they play best of three in all tournaments. And literally winning Indian wells or Miami now a days is basically the same as winning a slam.
 
insideguy said:
I just can't rank tennis players and more so women just by slam counts. Nothing against women but they play best of three in all tournaments. And literally winning Indian wells or Miami now a days is basically the same as winning a slam.
Click to expand...

I can see that argument for players of relatively the same era like Sharapova or Davenport. I dont agree as much if we are comparing players from the 60s or 70s to today, as players back then seem to have always played and won a lot more tournaments (probably since many tournaments then had 3 match draws). I think I read somewhere Virginia Wade has close to 100 titles which is kind of hilarious.
 
brystone said:
I can see that argument for players of relatively the same era like Sharapova or Davenport. I dont agree as much if we are comparing players from the 60s or 70s to today, as players back then seem to have always played and won a lot more tournaments (probably since many tournaments then had 3 match draws). I think I read somewhere Virginia Wade has close to 100 titles which is kind of hilarious.
Click to expand...
Yea no argument there. Arguing eras is impossible to me prior to about 85 or so for the men and ladies. I have no idea what guys like Mac or Conners or Evert would have racked up in slams if they would have played them all. All sports have that issue when trying to rank all time greats. Tennis is maybe the hardest. Although fans of other sports could probably even put up a good argument to that.
 
Top 1.
The first ever wta player who got banned because of doping still has millions of brain dead fans.
Period.
 
brystone said:
Now that is looks increasingly likely Sharapova has almost certainly won her final slam (if people doubt Serena winning more slams, just imagine Maria who is about 20 times less likely to win a future slam than Serena seeing the level of both women right now) where does she rank in the Open Era?

For me she is an intriguing case all around. She is 1 of only something like 9 womens in history with a Career Slam, but that is a feat achieved by someone like Shirley Fry, and which might well be achieved by Angelique Kerber, so it doesnt quite have the same lustre it does in the mens game. And even the feat in the mens game has lost a lot of its prestige in the era of homogenized playing conditions. Her longevity is outstanding, her consistency is so so in her injury plagued career, her dominance sucks and is in fact non existing. Her 5 slams is a pretty good number, her Premier and overall tournament tallies are respectable but not great for a 5 slam winner, her time at #1 sucks but is an overrated stat in the womens game anyway IMO. Add to all that the doping suspicions that now centre around her career, and what impact, if any, those make for people.

Breaking it down where does she fit. These are the players that it looks are clearly going to be above her:

Serena
Navratilova
Graf
Court
Evert
King
Venus
Seles
Henin
Goolagong
Bueno

Those are 11 Open Era players so the best she could possibly be is 12th. Next are the entire list of players who could be argued against her and those would be:

Hingis
Davenport
Clijsters
Sanchez Vicario
Capriati
Austin
Mandlikova


So her rank could be anywhere from a highest of 12th to a lowest of about 20th.

I am pretty sure I would put Hingis over her. Both have 5 slams, but apart from the Career Slam Hingis blows her away in every other department. Far more dominance, far greater consistency, 3 peat the Australian Open vs Maria who never defended a slam, 3 slam year in 97, doubles, eons more time at #1 which is hard to ignore even if I dont value the #1 ranking that much in womens tennis.

Davenport and Clijsters harder for me. Each are well above Sharapova in some ways but clearly behind her in others. Clijsters dominated a slam, was the Worlds best player in both 2005 and 2010 vs Maria who never was, has many more YEC titles, and better overall tournament, consistency, and dominance stats. Maria though has the extra slam and the Career Slam. Both have scant little time as the official #1 ranked. Davenport by contrast has a ton of time #1 ranked, 4 year end #1s, but was only actually the best player in the world in 98 and maybe 99. Maria again though was never the best player in the world. Davenport wins out on all dominance and consistency stats, maybe not longevity stats. I am not really sure how to rank those 3, other than I put all three behind Hingis. Game wise Davenport and Sharapova are very similar, with about equal power and ball striking, both amongst the best groundstroke sluggers in history even if Davenport was through great technique and coaching, and Maria it now appears through steroid use, ultimately arrived at roughly the same result. Both being extremely poor movers, but Davenport has a way better serve for most of her career (Maria only had a good serve in 2004-2006), Davenport having much better volleys but Sharapova mentally being far tougher. Clijsters moves far better, and has a better overall game than either Davenport or Sharapova, but is mentally even weaker than Davenport.

Sanchez I would have below Sharapova personally. She has only 1 fewer slam than Maria and a more impressive career in many respects, but I think she is a 2 slam winner at best without the Seles stabbing. That is a biggest cast than even the doping allegations.

Capriati I would also have behind Sharapova. Only 14 career titles and no Wimbledon or U.S Open final are big minuses.

Austin and Mandlikova are a difficult comparision as the focus of that era was so different. Austin was arguably the true #1 of either/both 1980 and 1981, and while she technically only won 2 slams given what were really the 4 biggest events those years won more like 5.

I see Maria slotting in around 15th or 16th overall going through everyone.
Click to expand...
That’s a hell of effort for women’s tennis. Kudos to you, unfortunately Sharapova spent much of her time in an era when the best player was a part timer, so she can’t be considered seriously
 
Yes, indeed, the stitch-up of Russian sport caught out Sharapova's use of a placebo. Rodchenkov has a lot to answer for.

Luckydog said:
Top 1.
The first ever wta player who got banned because of doping still has millions of brain dead fans.
Period.
Click to expand...
 
Sara Errani doped herself up with masking agents and then claimed her pharmacist mother's cancer tablets rolled down the bench and into her broth.

Just like the jokey version of 'On Top of Old Smokey!' But no one was interested because she was not Russian.
 
ibbi said:
Her career slam is nice, but nowadays it certainly means a little less than it once did, especially given she completed it during this embarrassing scrub era in the womens game.
Click to expand...
Career slam is a career slam regardless of the era. Only 10 women achieved it, even less during the open era.

But one also probably should take into account her impact on the game in general, which is huge (she along with Serena brought more money in sport, more viewers, more glamour, and every East-European girl wants to bash the ball as hard as possible etc.)
 
zvelf said:
I can't put Bueno in as an Open Era player when she only had one good year in the Open Era. But I'd say the Open Era ranking is this:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Serena Williams
4. Margaret Court
5. Chris Evert
6. Billie Jean King
7. Monica Seles
8. Evonne Goolagong
9. Justine Henin
10. Martina Hingis
11. Venus Williams
12. Kim Clijsters
13. Maria Sharapova
14. Lindsay Davenport
15. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
16. Hana Mandlikova
17. Virginia Wade
with Tracy Austin, Amelie Mauresmo, and Gabriela Sabatini basically tied between 18-20.
Click to expand...
Henin and Venus definitely over Goolagong. Both won 7 slams, against tougher competition at the AO where Evonne won most of her slams. Loved Evonne, but fact are facts. Davenport only won 3 slams but she has 4 YE at #1, Maria has 0 YE at #1, plus many more weeks at #1 and many more tournament wins
 
Sharapova is definitely not a top 20 of all time tour pro player! I think she is definitely in the top 100, however!
 
zvelf said:
Slam wins: 4-3 Clijsters
Slam finals: 8-7 Clijsters
Year-End Championships: 3-1 Clijsters
Tournaments won: 53-44 Davenport
W/L %: 80.5%-79.4% Clijsters
Weeks at #1: 98-20 Davenport
Years in top 10: 10-6 Davenport
H2H: 9-8 Clijsters

It is very close and where Davenport leads, she leads significantly, but I still say Clijsters slightly edges Davenport out based on the above.



Yes, the draw at the Australian Open in the 70s was soft, but 2 of Goolagong's wins at the Aussie were against Evert and Navratilova. Her Wimbledon win was over Court ending Court's run of 6 straight major titles. But Goolagong's really telling statistic was that she made the final of a major 18 times. She got stopped at the AO by Court twice and Wade once. She got stopped in the French final by Billie Jean King once. She got stopped in the Wimbledon final by King twice and Evert once. And in her 4 U.S. Open finals, she lost to Court, King, and Evert twice, and she made each U.S. Open a tough match except when Evert waxed her in her last U.S. Open final. In other words, she made the finals of 10 majors where she lost to 3 of the top 6 players in the Open Era in Court, King, and Evert. I can see an argument for Henin being above her, but Hingis or Venus not so much.
Click to expand...
YE at #1- Davenport-4, Clijsters-0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

deacsyoga
Where does Sharapova rank amongst women of the last 15 years if she retired tommorow
2
Replies
90
Views
6K
deacsyoga
deacsyoga
R
  • Poll Poll
Best and worst career- Hingis, Davenport, and Sharapova
Replies
24
Views
1K
Xavier G
X
clout
  • Poll Poll
Meldonium aside, where does Maria Sharapova rank in open era?
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
trownjeff
T
T
Where does Osaka rank all time in the open era? She's a weird case...
Replies
37
Views
1K
zvelf
zvelf
Djokovic2011
Where does Serena's '99 US Open run rank?
Replies
15
Views
729
Adi1987
A
Back
Top