Which of these 2000s women slam winners would win any slams in the 90s

[grafrules]

We had this thread made for men. I am making it for women but in a very different way. Excluding the 3 obvious great champions- Serena, Venus, Henin who would undoubtably win slams in any era (how many is debateable but not relevant to this thread) how many of other slam winners this decade plus the infamous slamless Safina would win any in the 90s. Here are the options:

Davenport- won 1 slam in the 2000s and 2 in the 90s. This would be based on her 2000s tennis only though.

Pierce- won 1 slam in the 90s and 1 in the 2000s. Again this would be based on her 2000s tennis only.

Mauresmo- won 2 slams in 2006, her only 2.

Sharapova- won 3 slams from 2004-2008.

Myskina- was the surprise French Open winner in 2004.

Kuznetsova- was the surprise U.S Open winner in 2004 and added a long awaited 2nd slam at this years French.

Clijsters- won a long time anticipated first slam finally at the 2005 U.S Open, her only slam title (atleast to date as she is supposably returning).

Ivanovic- won her only thus far slam at the 2008 French Open.

Capriati- after failing to win a slam in many years of tennis in the 90s managed her career 3 slams in 2001-early 2002.

I voted for Davenport and Sharapova as the only two. Pierces best tennis was 1994-1995. OK on 2nd thought I will give Pierce the benefit of doubt to win 1 of the 2000 French, 2005 French, or 2005 U.S Open, though I am probably being kind.

Clijsters no, too many chokes which cost her winning more slam titles this decade, wouldnt have survived to win even one in the 90s which such a feeble mental game and proneness to choking vs the big guns.

Mauresmo no, took too long to finally get there, the opening wouldnt have suddenly come at 27 if you hadnt done it yet in the 90s. Like Clijsters a choker, not quite as much as Kim, but not quite as much game as Kim either.

Ivanovic- NO NO NO

Myskina- NO NO NO

Capriati- NO, she fluked out to win the 3 she did, and she was lucky Venus sucked on slow surfaces every year except 2002, and was injured at the 2002 AO, while Serena also sucked on slow surfaces until 2002 and missed the 02 AO injured too. That plus Davenport missing 2 of the 3 slams she won with injury, super bad luck for Davenport who owns Capriati and should no way be tied in slam wins with her. Hingis being mentally zonked out by then thanks to the true obstacles like Williams and Davenport, to the point she is now losing to people she even shouldnt like Capriati. Almost every often top 5 player of the 90s owns her.

Kuznetsova- NO, she isnt that good. Was lucky to win both her slams vs iffy draws, competition and circumstances. She has no big wins in slams other than a very injured Davenport and injured/tired Dementieva at the U.S Open, and a past her prime Serena on by far her worst surface of clay, plus Safina in a slam final (as if that is a big win, LOL!)

Safina- NO NO NO

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I voted yes for Davenport, Pierce, and Capriati. I think if Capriati would have been able to play her early 2000s style in the 90s, she could have gotten a slam.

The only ones that I really think truly have a shot outside of those are Mauresmo and maybe Sharapova. I think Mauresmo could have managed to win Wimbledon during the 90s, her game suits the faster grass well.

Same w/ Sharapova. I think she'd have a/b the same amt as she has now, 2-3 slams in the 90s. Probably should have voted those two as well, my bad.

 

[flying24]

I voted yes for Davenport, Pierce, and Capriati. I think if Capriati would have been able to play her early 2000s style in the 90s, she could have gotten a slam.

Capriati played better tennis from 1991 to 1993 than she did from 2001 to 2003. She just didnt win a slam from 1991 to 1993 since the competition was alot better (as grafrules said she won slow court slams when the Williams were not excelling there anyway) and she didnt get the luck in the early 90s she got in the early 2000s. Her best achievements were early 2000s, her best tennis was early 90s. She would not do any better in the early 90s with her early 2000s tennis.

 

[flying24]

The only 1 I voted for is Davenport. She was so unlucky to peak at alot of the same slams the Williams were at their all time peak for. She is one of the only players who could have won more slams in the 90s than she did in the 2000s (only 1) due to her timing and bad luck.

I guess if one of the people who are suited to clay could luck out to the year Majoli won the French then maybe that player. Then again there is no gaurantee of getting Majolis specific draw either, or hitting their own peak that particular year either.

 

[thalivest]

I voted for Davenport and Sharapova as the only ones.

 

[egn]

I don't get why Pierce is an option she one won in the 90s same goes for Davenport..this makes no sense..

you say base on 2000 tennis well they played just as good as they did in the 90s so yes.

Ehhh none of the others outside of Sharapova have a shot.

Mauresmo....no...I can't believe she got two. She benefited from the williams not focus on tennis.

 

[flying24]

I don't get why Pierce is an option she one won in the 90s same goes for Davenport..this makes no sense..

you say base on 2000 tennis well they played just as good as they did in the 90s so yes.

Ehhh none of the others outside of Sharapova have a shot.

Mauresmo....no...I can't believe she got two. She benefited from the williams not focus on tennis.

Pierce did not play as well in the 2000s as the 90s at all. She had only 2 decent years of tennis in the 2000s- 2000 and 2005. The rest of the time she was absent, a journeywomen level basically, often getting wild cards into main tour events. 1994 and 1995 Pierce was better than 2000 or 2005, and 1996-1999 was much better than any other Pierce the remainging years of the 2000s decade.

 

[drwood]

Davenport, Pierce (they DID win slams in the 90s)
Mauresmo (made a slam final in the 90s pre-prime)
Capriati (owned Hingis in slams, would have done well in 97-99 era)
Sharapova, Kuznetsova (would have done well in any era)

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

We had this thread made for men. I am making it for women but in a very different way. Excluding the 3 obvious great champions- Serena, Venus, Henin who would undoubtably win slams in any era (how many is debateable but not relevant to this thread) how many of other slam winners this decade plus the infamous slamless Safina would win any in the 90s. Here are the options:

Davenport- won 1 slam in the 2000s and 2 in the 90s. This would be based on her 2000s tennis only though.

Pierce- won 1 slam in the 90s and 1 in the 2000s. Again this would be based on her 2000s tennis only.

Mauresmo- won 2 slams in 2006, her only 2.

Sharapova- won 3 slams from 2004-2008.

Myskina- was the surprise French Open winner in 2004.

Kuznetsova- was the surprise U.S Open winner in 2004 and added a long awaited 2nd slam at this years French.

Clijsters- won a long time anticipated first slam finally at the 2005 U.S Open, her only slam title (atleast to date as she is supposably returning).

Ivanovic- won her only thus far slam at the 2008 French Open.

Capriati- after failing to win a slam in many years of tennis in the 90s managed her career 3 slams in 2001-early 2002.

I voted for Davenport and Sharapova as the only two. Pierces best tennis was 1994-1995. OK on 2nd thought I will give Pierce the benefit of doubt to win 1 of the 2000 French, 2005 French, or 2005 U.S Open, though I am probably being kind.

Clijsters no, too many chokes which cost her winning more slam titles this decade, wouldnt have survived to win even one in the 90s which such a feeble mental game and proneness to choking vs the big guns.

Mauresmo no, took too long to finally get there, the opening wouldnt have suddenly come at 27 if you hadnt done it yet in the 90s. Like Clijsters a choker, not quite as much as Kim, but not quite as much game as Kim either.

Ivanovic- NO NO NO

Myskina- NO NO NO

Capriati- NO, she fluked out to win the 3 she did, and she was lucky Venus sucked on slow surfaces every year except 2002, and was injured at the 2002 AO, while Serena also sucked on slow surfaces until 2002 and missed the 02 AO injured too. That plus Davenport missing 2 of the 3 slams she won with injury, super bad luck for Davenport who owns Capriati and should no way be tied in slam wins with her. Hingis being mentally zonked out by then thanks to the true obstacles like Williams and Davenport, to the point she is now losing to people she even shouldnt like Capriati. Almost every often top 5 player of the 90s owns her.

Kuznetsova- NO, she isnt that good. Was lucky to win both her slams vs iffy draws, competition and circumstances. She has no big wins in slams other than a very injured Davenport and injured/tired Dementieva at the U.S Open, and a past her prime Serena on by far her worst surface of clay, plus Safina in a slam final (as if that is a big win, LOL!)

Safina- NO NO NO

Id say everyone except Safina,Myskina,Kuznetsova and Ivanovic, there no way on earth they would win ANY GS in the 90`s

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

We had this thread made for men. I am making it for women but in a very different way. Excluding the 3 obvious great champions- Serena, Venus, Henin who would undoubtably win slams in any era (how many is debateable but not relevant to this thread) how many of other slam winners this decade plus the infamous slamless Safina would win any in the 90s. Here are the options:

Davenport- won 1 slam in the 2000s and 2 in the 90s. This would be based on her 2000s tennis only though.

Pierce- won 1 slam in the 90s and 1 in the 2000s. Again this would be based on her 2000s tennis only.

Mauresmo- won 2 slams in 2006, her only 2.

Sharapova- won 3 slams from 2004-2008.

Myskina- was the surprise French Open winner in 2004.

Kuznetsova- was the surprise U.S Open winner in 2004 and added a long awaited 2nd slam at this years French.

Clijsters- won a long time anticipated first slam finally at the 2005 U.S Open, her only slam title (atleast to date as she is supposably returning).

Ivanovic- won her only thus far slam at the 2008 French Open.

Capriati- after failing to win a slam in many years of tennis in the 90s managed her career 3 slams in 2001-early 2002.

I voted for Davenport and Sharapova as the only two. Pierces best tennis was 1994-1995. OK on 2nd thought I will give Pierce the benefit of doubt to win 1 of the 2000 French, 2005 French, or 2005 U.S Open, though I am probably being kind.

Clijsters no, too many chokes which cost her winning more slam titles this decade, wouldnt have survived to win even one in the 90s which such a feeble mental game and proneness to choking vs the big guns.

Mauresmo no, took too long to finally get there, the opening wouldnt have suddenly come at 27 if you hadnt done it yet in the 90s. Like Clijsters a choker, not quite as much as Kim, but not quite as much game as Kim either.

Ivanovic- NO NO NO

Myskina- NO NO NO

Capriati- NO, she fluked out to win the 3 she did, and she was lucky Venus sucked on slow surfaces every year except 2002, and was injured at the 2002 AO, while Serena also sucked on slow surfaces until 2002 and missed the 02 AO injured too. That plus Davenport missing 2 of the 3 slams she won with injury, super bad luck for Davenport who owns Capriati and should no way be tied in slam wins with her. Hingis being mentally zonked out by then thanks to the true obstacles like Williams and Davenport, to the point she is now losing to people she even shouldnt like Capriati. Almost every often top 5 player of the 90s owns her.

Kuznetsova- NO, she isnt that good. Was lucky to win both her slams vs iffy draws, competition and circumstances. She has no big wins in slams other than a very injured Davenport and injured/tired Dementieva at the U.S Open, and a past her prime Serena on by far her worst surface of clay, plus Safina in a slam final (as if that is a big win, LOL!)

Safina- NO NO NO

Great topic!

Of the choices available, the only serious considerations are Pierce and Mauresmo.

Pierce: her abilities were on and off over the course of her career, but when she entered the right zone, she could be dangerous to just about anyone. That, plus experience playing through two generations would--just for theory's sake--give her the best hope of winning more back in the 90s--though in reality, she suffered.

Mauresmo: as a tactically efficient S&Ver, I think Mauresmo would have had as much success as Novotna, though the latter was--in my opinon--a stronger S&Ver--being a product of an era with more powerful S&V players. Still, I would give her a shot to win at least 1 -2 Wimbledon titles, and possibly 1 U.S. Open, provided she was able to think on her feet when facing a player such as Graf (meaning changing strategy to break Graf's ability to predict).

The rest, not a chance, particularly no-talents such as brainless Ivanovic, the slow-as-glue Kuznetsova and one-dimensional/no "B" game players such as Sharapova.

 

[grafselesfan]

one-dimensional/no "B" game players such as Sharapova.

A thread like this is refreshing to see that there are many others who are not awed by Marias IMO overrated abilities. Maybe not as many people overrate her as I thought. I always thought she was a one dimensional basher who is plain stupid on court, has no variety of shots other than the standard drives, volleys horrendously, is nearly as slow as Pierce, and isnt even as great at her one dimension of the game as some others are at their best.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

A thread like this is refreshing to see that there are many others who are not awed by Marias IMO overrated abilities. Maybe not as many people overrate her as I thought. I always thought she was a one dimensional basher who is plain stupid on court, has no variety of shots other than the standard drives, volleys horrendously, is nearly as slow as Pierce, and isnt even as great at her one dimension of the game as some others are at their best.

I agree. Maybe I did overrate her a bit saying she could win a slam in the 90s. She's got no skills at the net, not a great mover, she'd be lunch for people like Graf, whose variety would kill her, and Seles, who could angle her off the court.

 

[TennisNinja]

I said Davenport.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I said Davenport.

Any reason why? I only ask because aside from her forehand, she lacks so many weapons against players with greater variety/movement, etc. In the 90's, she would have additional good or great movers to deal with, so i'm wondering how she would survive....

 

[drwood]

Any reason why? I only ask because aside from her forehand, she lacks so many weapons against players with greater variety/movement, etc. In the 90's, she would have additional good or great movers to deal with, so i'm wondering how she would survive....

Davenport is underrated, b/c everyone knows what she couldn't do. Here's what she could do:
1. Serve -- near the top of women's tennis
2. Backhand -- one of the best
3. Return of serve -- one of the best of all time
4. Good at the net -- remember, she was also #1 in doubles as well as singles

Slams in the 90s prime Lindsay could have won:
1990 US Open (won by Sabatini)
1994 Wimbledon
1996 Aus Open

Slams in the 90s Lindsay should have won:
1997 French (up a set and 4-0 against eventual champion Majoli)
1999 Australian (let SF slip against Mauresmo)

Slams in the 90s she did win
1998 US Open
1999 Wimbledon

 

[flying24]

Any reason why? I only ask because aside from her forehand, she lacks so many weapons against players with greater variety/movement, etc. In the 90's, she would have additional good or great movers to deal with, so i'm wondering how she would survive....

Well she actually DID win 2 slams in the 90s, and she was playing atleast as well in the 2000s than the 90s. Often it was only a Williams sister standing between her and the big title. Unlike some luckier ones like Kuznetsova and Capriati she always seemed to peak at the same time as the Williams did.

So why wouldnt she win a slam in the 90s when she actually did win 2 slams in the 90s. You have to remember the entire 90s was not Graf and/or Seles around. From 97-99 Graf was virtually finished by injuries though she made a brief mini resurgence in late 98-99 to some success but still nothing like she was in her prime, Seles was never the same after the horrific stabbing, Sanchez Vicario was burnt out by then. All 97-99 had was Hingis of course, Novotna in 97-98, Davenport herself, Venus and Serena threats in 99, a past her prime Seles a threat in 97-98, a past her Sanchez a threat in 98, and a past her prime Graf a threat in 99 too. That is it. The winners from 97-99 were Majoli, Hingis a whopping five times, a past her prime Graf once, a past her prime Sanchez once, Davenport herself twice, a pre prime 18 year old Serena once, and a 30 year old Novotna winning her first and only slam. Slam finalists those 3 years included a pre prime Mauresmo, Tauziat (LOL), and a past her prime Conchita Martinez on a hard court.

 

[flying24]

Davenport is underrated, b/c everyone knows what she couldn't do. Here's what she could do:
1. Serve -- near the top of women's tennis
2. Backhand -- one of the best
3. Return of serve -- one of the best of all time
4. Good at the net -- remember, she was also #1 in doubles as well as singles

Slams in the 90s prime Lindsay could have won:
1990 US Open (won by Sabatini)
1994 Wimbledon
1996 Aus Open

Slams in the 90s Lindsay should have won:
1997 French (up a set and 4-0 against eventual champion Majoli)
1999 Australian (let SF slip against Mauresmo)

Slams in the 90s she did win
1998 US Open
1999 Wimbledon

I agree with most of what you say but lets be real on one thing. Davenport was NEVER going to win the French. Just because Majoli was the eventual champion doesnt mean Lindsay would have been. Lindsay would have gone out to either Coetzer in the semis or Hingis in the final. Lindsay doesnt have the fitness, movement, or comfort on the surface to win a French Open, especialy not in 97.

 

[drwood]

I agree with most of what you say but lets be real on one thing. Davenport was NEVER going to win the French. Just because Majoli was the eventual champion doesnt mean Lindsay would have been. Lindsay would have gone out to either Coetzer in the semis or Hingis in the final. Lindsay doesnt have the fitness, movement, or comfort on the surface to win a French Open, especialy not in 97.

They said that about her on grass after she lost to Tauziat in 98 Wimbledon QF...she was much better on clay than grass until she won Wimbledon in 99, so its not a slam dunk that she couldn't have won the French in 97 if she hadn't choked against Majoli in the QF...no way Coetzer beats her in a Slam on any surface.

 

[flying24]

They said that about her on grass after she lost to Tauziat in 98 Wimbledon QF...she was much better on clay than grass until she won Wimbledon in 99, so its not a slam dunk that she couldn't have won the French in 97 if she hadn't choked against Majoli in the QF...no way Coetzer beats her in a Slam on any surface.

Coetzer had beaten Steffi Graf and Conchita Martinez at that French Open, both far better clay courters than Davenport, especialy Graf obviously. If she can beat Graf 6-1, 6-4 at that years French she sure as heck can beat Davenport. No way Coetzer beats Davenport at the French you say, LOL, you talk as if Davenport is Evert on clay. If Majoli went out in the round of 16 then one of Coetzer or Hingis wins that years French.

Davenport's game is much better suited to grass than clay. She is better on hard courts than grass but much better on grass than on clay. Her power shots are very effective on grass, as are her excellent serve and return of serve skills. Only an idiot would have said she had no shot to win Wimbledon from 98-2000 with the lack of true grass court specialists left with the Williams still maturing, Graf beat up with injuries, Monica always sucking on grass even in her prime, Novotna aging too. The overhype of people like the younger versions of the Williams and the talentless Kournikova caused Davenport to be unfairly overlooked at Wimbledon. The French is completely different altogether.

 

[drwood]

Coetzer had beaten Steffi Graf and Conchita Martinez at that French Open, both far better clay courters than Davenport, especialy Graf obviously. If she can beat Graf 6-1, 6-4 at that years French she sure as heck can beat Davenport. No way Coetzer beats Davenport at the French you say, LOL, you talk as if Davenport is Evert on clay. If Majoli went out in the round of 16 then one of Coetzer or Hingis wins that years French.

Davenport's game is much better suited to grass than clay. She is better on hard courts than grass but much better on grass than on clay. Her power shots are very effective on grass, as are her excellent serve and return of serve skills. Only an idiot would have said she had no shot to win Wimbledon from 98-2000 with the lack of true grass court specialists left with the Williams still maturing, Graf beat up with injuries, Monica always sucking on grass even in her prime, Novotna aging too. The overhype of people like the younger versions of the Williams and the talentless Kournikova caused Davenport to be unfairly overlooked at Wimbledon. The French is completely different altogether.

Fair points about Coetzer; we'll have to agree to disagree.

People have SHORT memories...Navratilova, Carillo, McEnroe and virtually the entire tennis establishment openly stated that grass was Davenport's worst surface and that she had a much better chance on clay b/c of the truer bounces. This was most specifically during 98 Wimbledon after Lindsay lost to Tauziat in the QF when Navratilova and Carillo went into a rant on HBO about why Wimbledon could only be won by true athletes and how Lindsay wasn't a true athlete b/c she was a bad mover.

That all changed when Lindsay won the very next year (beating Novotna and Graf) w/o dropping a set...everyone was scrambling for revisionism ("oh, well she doesn't move well, but she's an athlete b/c she's a jock") -- just like they were after Fed won RG and Wimby when people said last year that he was washed up, or after Nadal won Wimby when everyone laughed at him in 2005 when he said his dream was to win Wimbledon someday.

 

[flying24]

Fair points about Coetzer; we'll have to agree to disagree.

People have SHORT memories...Navratilova, Carillo, McEnroe and virtually the entire tennis establishment openly stated that grass was Davenport's worst surface and that she had a much better chance on clay b/c of the truer bounces. This was most specifically during 98 Wimbledon after Lindsay lost to Tauziat in the QF when Navratilova and Carillo went into a rant on HBO about why Wimbledon could only be won by true athletes and how Lindsay wasn't a true athlete b/c she was a bad mover.

That all changed when Lindsay won the very next year (beating Novotna and Graf) w/o dropping a set...everyone was scrambling for revisionism ("oh, well she doesn't move well, but she's an athlete b/c she's a jock") -- just like they were after Fed won RG and Wimby when people said last year that he was washed up, or after Nadal won Wimby when everyone laughed at him in 2005 when he said his dream was to win Wimbledon someday.

It is easy to just generalize players and forget how well they were playing at a specific time. The first half of 1997 Coetzer was playing unbelievable tennis, the best of her career. She went 3-1 vs Steffi Graf during that time so beating a pre prime Davenport on CLAY wouldnt be some grand feat at all.

Anyway enough about Coetzer, the thing to remember is Davenport after that shock (to some) Wimbledon title went on to be a big force on grass for YEARS. She lost to Venus in the 2000 final, lost to Venus in the defacto final in the 2001 semis otherwise would have won the title for sure, missed 2002 injured, lost to Venus in 3 sets in the quarters of 2003, lost to eventual winner Sharapova in a 3 set semi she blew and should have won in 2004- would have been the champion again that year without the rain delay, lost to Venus in an amazing final in 2005 where she missed out on a match point and several leads, missed it in 2006. At the French Davenport was never a force. Her one ever semifinal she lost easily to Sanchez Vicario. That is how you know there is a big difference between Davenport on grass and on clay. Just look at their whole careers, not what the perception of some on their capabilities on the surfaces were before Wimbledon 99. Anyway Carillo is an idiot, an embarassment to tennis and any other commentary. Any rant from her is just that, a brainless rant that I for one couldnt give two cents about. McEnroe hardly ever commentated on womens tennis back then so only make the occasional statement. Chris Evert, a far more credible source than Mary the man or McEnroe (on womens tennis) said before the 99 final that grass was a much better surface for Lindsay than clay.

Nadal would be the same thing. It doesnt matter if at some point people thought grass was his worst surface. It is clear now grass is his 2nd best surface, and fast hard court/indoors are his worst surfaces by far. What people once thought on the matter is irrelevant to that point.

 

[drwood]

It is easy to just generalize players and forget how well they were playing at a specific time. The first half of 1997 Coetzer was playing unbelievable tennis, the best of her career. She went 3-1 vs Steffi Graf during that time so beating a pre prime Davenport on CLAY wouldnt be some grand feat at all.

Anyway enough about Coetzer, the thing to remember is Davenport after that shock (to some) Wimbledon title went on to be a big force on grass for YEARS. She lost to Venus in the 2000 final, lost to Venus in the defacto final in the 2001 semis otherwise would have won the title for sure, missed 2002 injured, lost to Venus in 3 sets in the quarters of 2003, lost to eventual winner Sharapova in a 3 set semi she blew and should have won in 2004- would have been the champion again that year without the rain delay, lost to Venus in an amazing final in 2005 where she missed out on a match point and several leads, missed it in 2006. At the French Davenport was never a force. Her one ever semifinal she lost easily to Sanchez Vicario. That is how you know there is a big difference between Davenport on grass and on clay. Just look at their whole careers, not what the perception of some on their capabilities on the surfaces were before Wimbledon 99. Anyway Carillo is an idiot, an embarassment to tennis and any other commentary. Any rant from her is just that, a brainless rant that I for one couldnt give two cents about. McEnroe hardly ever commentated on womens tennis back then so only make the occasional statement. Chris Evert, a far more credible source than Mary the man or McEnroe (on womens tennis) said before the 99 final that grass was a much better surface for Lindsay than clay.

Last point on Coetzer vs. Lindsay...Lindsay OWNED her throughout their careers (13-3 H2H), and had just beaten her ON CLAY prior to the French in straight sets...no reason to believe she wouldn't have done so again at the French. Yes, I remember how well Coetzer was playing in 97, but Lindsay still owned her even then.

Secondly, obviously grass became a great surface for Lindsay, but when the GOAT at Wimbledon (Navratilova) states that you're garbage on the surface -- which she did until Lindsay won in 99 -- people tend to believe it until proven otherwise (similar to how people said that Agassi could never win on grass until he won Wimby in 92).

 

[flying24]

Last point on Coetzer vs. Lindsay...Lindsay OWNED her throughout their careers (13-3 H2H), and had just beaten her ON CLAY prior to the French in straight sets...no reason to believe she wouldn't have done so again at the French. Yes, I remember how well Coetzer was playing in 97, but Lindsay still owned her even then.

Secondly, obviously grass became a great surface for Lindsay, but when the GOAT at Wimbledon (Navratilova) states that you're garbage on the surface -- which she did until Lindsay won in 99 -- people tend to believe it until proven otherwise (similar to how people said that Agassi could never win on grass until he won Wimby in 92).

Unlike Mary the man, Navratilova probably the female grass court GOAT is of course a very credible opinion. However she also was a Davenport hater for years in the 90s. From 94-99 she was mocking and ridiculing Davenport's weight and size on HBO (even after she got in shape) saying she didnt have the self belief or confidence of a champion, continously predicting her to lose to some lower ranked, etc...

Anyway the main point is it doesnt matter what was believed then, the rest of Davenport's careers shows she did at some point became an outstanding grass court player, one who was a legit contender to win Wimbledon for many years despite only winning 1 title (probably 2 points from winning 3 titles). We now know Davenport never showed herself to be a force on clay in the many years of her long career , so never would have won the French. Hingis played a bad final but also lost to Majoli playing the match of her life by far, I ensure you 100 times better tennis than what she played in the 4th round vs Davenport. So even if you insist on Davenport beating Coetzer in the semis there is still no way she beats a prime Hingis in the French Open final on clay, even on an off day. If she can only get a mere 6 games off Hingis that same year in the U.S Open semis on her very best surface, she would get spanked by Hingis in a French Open final that year. Your only basis for thinking Davenport would have won that French seems to be that she had a big lead on the eventual champion, but the eventual champion had a dream draw to the final and still was in big danger of losing every round from the 3rd round onwards until the final, before as I said playing the match of her life in the final.

Your examples of people who surprised and became champion on a given surface do not suffice as all those people you bring up- Davenport on grass, Agassi on grass, Nadal on grass, went on to be huge forces on those surfaces for years so obviously were or at some point became better than expected on those surfaces, something that cant be said of Davenport on clay.

 

[OnceWas]

Kuznetsova won two Grand Slams on two different surfaces.
Once is luck.. Twice is skill...

 

[julesb]

None of them would have ever won a slam if Seles wasnt stabbed!

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

^^^How is this guy still around?

 

[julesb]

^^^How is this guy still around?

I am a girl.

 

[drwood]

Kuznetsova won two Grand Slams on two different surfaces.
Once is luck.. Twice is skill...

Well, winning any slam isn't luck, but winning twice certifies that you're for real. Plus Kuzy made 2 other Slam finals (07 US, 08 French).

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

Kuznetsova won two Grand Slams on two different surfaces.
Once is luck.. Twice is skill...

Well, winning any slam isn't luck, but winning twice certifies that you're for real. Plus Kuzy made 2 other Slam finals (07 US, 08 French).

I'm with you 2 on this one.

 

[drwood]

Unlike Mary the man, Navratilova probably the female grass court GOAT is of course a very credible opinion. However she also was a Davenport hater for years in the 90s. From 94-99 she was mocking and ridiculing Davenport's weight and size on HBO (even after she got in shape) saying she didnt have the self belief or confidence of a champion, continously predicting her to lose to some lower ranked, etc...

That we can agree on.

BTW, I never said that Davenport was better on clay than on grass...I just said that until 99, her results on clay were far better than on grass and that it wouldn't be unreasonable for her to win the French in 97 -- how was Majoli's draw easy to the final, yet it wouldn't have been for Davenport? She'd be like someone like Kafelnikov -- easily the worst French Open champion over the last 30 yrs (only 2 career titles on clay including that French), but could potentially have pulled it off -- she lost to the eventual champions in 97, 98 (SF) ,99 (QF) all in 3 sets.

 

[flying24]

That we can agree on.

BTW, I never said that Davenport was better on clay than on grass...I just said that until 99, her results on clay were far better than on grass and that it wouldn't be unreasonable for her to win the French in 97 -- how was Majoli's draw easy to the final, yet it wouldn't have been for Davenport? She'd be like someone like Kafelnikov -- easily the worst French Open champion over the last 30 yrs (only 2 career titles on clay including that French), but could potentially have pulled it off -- she lost to the eventual champions in 97, 98 (SF) ,99 (QF) all in 3 sets.

The 98 semifinal loss to Sanchez Vicario was in 2 sets. In fact she was the only one Sanchez Vicario's last 4 opponents to not get a set. Sanchez was also clearly past her prime by 1998 and her French Open win that year was super luck- Serena choking a big lead in round of 16, Seles taking out Hingis, then Seles who owns even prime Sanchez choking in the final. Then again it seemed alot of the winners (especialy 97, 98, and even 99) were lucky around then on clay so it wasnt a great time for womens clay court tennis anyway. The 99 quarterfinal she was also badly outplayed by Graf, but Graf failed to close it out a couple times and kept letting Davenport stay in a bit longer. It as nothing like the challenge past her prime Graf received in the semis or final from much better clay courters than Davenport like Seles and Hingis.

As for the 97 draw being easy for Majoli and not neccessarily for Davenport, well IMO Majoli in her prime of 95-97 was a better clay court player than Davenport. Even though Davenport was leading that match, most people expected Majoli to win over Davenport on clay before the match began. I remember nearly all the draw brackets at the time had Davenport going out there and Majoli reaching the quarters or semis. Also while I didnt see the match I heard Majoli was up 4-2 in the 1st set and fell apart the next set or so, so her own choke of sorts preceded the Davenport one based on what everyone who saw the match at the time said.

Anyway come to think of it yes it probably was an easy draw for Davenport too. However Majoli beat Hingis in the final. I already said there is IMO no way Davenport would have beaten Hingis in a French Open final so I still say no chance for Davenport winning that years French. Maybe making the final but that is it. Davenport only got 6 games off Hingis in the U.S Open semis that year on her beloved fast American hard courts, she was never going to beat her on clay at the French Open no matter how Hingis was playing that day. I gaurantee you Hingis in hindsight wishes Davenport had beaten Majoli also.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

Does one vote for players who performed better in this decade

or vote for players whose games suited 90s wta tennis better?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Kuznetsova won two Grand Slams on two different surfaces.
Once is luck.. Twice is skill...

It did not take skill against a self-defeating opponent. All Kuznetsoa had to do was show up and wait.

 

[drwood]

It did not take skill against a self-defeating opponent.

Again, winning a GS is more than just winning the final....

 

[grafselesfan]

I consider Kuznetsova the worst 2-time slam winner in history just as I consider Capriati the worst 3-time slam winner in history.

Kuznetsova has hardly any big wins in slams ever, she just lucks out with draws and is consistent enough to take advantage. Those very rare times she does have a chance for truly big wins she usually chokes like she did at the end of the 2nd set vs Serena in Australia this year.

Between her 2004 U.S Open win and her 2009 French Open win she reached 2 slam finals but did not have a single big win in a slam. In other words she didnt beat any of Serena, Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Davenport, Sharapova, in a slam. She reached her 2 slam finals in between by beating people she was supposed to beat after the upsets took place in her half, so not big wins at all. The 2006 French she only beat Vaidisova in the semis to make it. The 2008 U.S Open she only beat Chakvetadze to make it.

Her 2 slam wins were very lucky when you examine the circumstances. The 2004 U.S Open she was scheduled to play Sharapova in the 4th round and Maria was upset the round before. As overrated as Maria is, Kuzy has never beaten Maria in a big match. Then in the quarters she was scheduled to play Henin which would have been curtains for her but Henin was unwisely trying to play through a serious viral infection which she had intermidetly taken time off and on for already, and after the Open would take off until next year March, and went out to Petrova in the 4th round. So Kuznetsova avoided Henin and played Petrova instead. The biggest luck though was in the semis. Davenport was the dominant player of that summer, winning all the tournaments, and pounded Kuznetsova in the 1st set. She then aggravated an old injury which had her limping around the court, and Kuznetsova came back to win. No way Kuznetsova wins that match without the injury. Then in the final she played the still many years later slamless Dementieva who was exhausted from grueling 3 set wins over both Mauresmo and Capriati, and herself had slightly aggravated an old leg injury and was playing with a major wrap on her thigh, and was moving sluggishly in the final.

At the 2009 French again not that impressive. Her biggest win was Serena on her worst surface by far and way past her clay court prime of 2002-2004. Even there it was Serena for once who uncharacteristically choked in the 3rd set to hand her the win. Then in the semis she had doubles specialist Stosur and again choked in the 2nd set when she should have closed out, and got lucky to get past in 3 despite Stosur having trouble even keeping the ball in court most of the match. Then in the final she had Safina who is basically a bye when you get to a big final.

I cant believe she even won 2 slams. She cant post big wins in slams hardly ever, didnt post a single one for over 4 years, and the few she did post only in her 2 slam wins before and after that were iffy at best- badly injured and hobbled Davenport, Serena of now on CLAY, slightly injured and fatigued Dementieva in a slam final, Safina in a slam final.

 

[drwood]

I consider Kuznetsova the worst 2-time slam winner in history just as I consider Capriati the worst 3-time slam winner in history.

Kuznetsova has hardly any big wins in slams ever, she just lucks out with draws and is consistent enough to take advantage. Those very rare times she does have a chance for truly big wins she usually chokes like she did at the end of the 2nd set vs Serena in Australia this year.

Between her 2004 U.S Open win and her 2009 French Open win she reached 2 slam finals but did not have a single big win in a slam. In other words she didnt beat any of Serena, Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Davenport, Sharapova, in a slam. She reached her 2 slam finals in between by beating people she was supposed to beat after the upsets took place in her half, so not big wins at all. The 2006 French she only beat Vaidisova in the semis to make it. The 2008 U.S Open she only beat Chakvetadze to make it.

Her 2 slam wins were very lucky when you examine the circumstances. The 2004 U.S Open she was scheduled to play Sharapova in the 4th round and Maria was upset the round before. As overrated as Maria is, Kuzy has never beaten Maria in a big match. Then in the quarters she was scheduled to play Henin which would have been curtains for her but Henin was unwisely trying to play through a serious viral infection which she had intermidetly taken time off and on for already, and after the Open would take off until next year March, and went out to Petrova in the 4th round. So Kuznetsova avoided Henin and played Petrova instead. The biggest luck though was in the semis. Davenport was the dominant player of that summer, winning all the tournaments, and pounded Kuznetsova in the 1st set. She then aggravated an old injury which had her limping around the court, and Kuznetsova came back to win. No way Kuznetsova wins that match without the injury. Then in the final she played the still many years later slamless Dementieva who was exhausted from grueling 3 set wins over both Mauresmo and Capriati, and herself had slightly aggravated an old leg injury and was playing with a major wrap on her thigh, and was moving sluggishly in the final.

At the 2009 French again not that impressive. Her biggest win was Serena on her worst surface by far and way past her clay court prime of 2002-2004. Even there it was Serena for once who uncharacteristically choked in the 3rd set to hand her the win. Then in the semis she had doubles specialist Stosur and again choked in the 2nd set when she should have closed out, and got lucky to get past in 3 despite Stosur having trouble even keeping the ball in court most of the match. Then in the final she had Safina who is basically a bye when you get to a big final.

I cant believe she even won 2 slams. She cant post big wins in slams hardly ever, didnt post a single one for over 4 years, and the few she did post only in her 2 slam wins before and after that were iffy at best- badly injured and hobbled Davenport, Serena of now on CLAY, slightly injured and fatigued Dementieva in a slam final, Safina in a slam final.

I think it disrespects the game to say that any slam title is lucky...to win 7 matches in a row on the biggest stage is a BIG DEAL, and to do it more than once is huge. Is Kuzy an all-time great? Certainly not. Would she have won the 04 US Open if Davenport didn't get injured in the SF or if Serena hadn't been cheated out of her QF match against Capriati? Certainly not. Would she have won the 09 French if Serena hadn't choked? Certainly not.

However, who you beat only ADDS to the importance of a slam -- it's not necessary to validate the title.

Capriati is overrated, but to win 3 slams is a great accomplishment. I think it demeans the game though to say that any GS title win is lucky -- it clearly is not, and certainly not if you can do it more than once.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

She cant post big wins in slams hardly ever, didnt post a single one for over 4 years, and the few she did post only in her 2 slam wins before and after that were iffy at best- badly injured and hobbled Davenport, Serena of now on CLAY, slightly injured and fatigued Dementieva in a slam final, Safina in a slam final.

Accurate assessment of Kuznetsova. She would be a one slam wonder to this day if she was not fortunate enough to play against a talentless brick wall in the form of Safina.

 

[grafselesfan]

IWould she have won the 04 US Open if Davenport didn't get injured in the SF or if Serena hadn't been cheated out of her QF match against Capriati? Certainly not. Would she have won the 09 French if Serena hadn't choked? Certainly not.

There you go. That already says enough.