Not that I think Nicole is some amazing player but this insane overrating of a clown who couldnt even win a tournament is so funny. What the heck was peak Kournikova, the one who lost to Smashanova in a couple of the tournament finals she made (reminder again Anna = ZERO tournament titles), and made only TWO slam quarterfinals. Obviously alot of men on this forum drooling over Anna's "beauty".
Using the title argument surely Smashnova with her 19 is one of the greatest players to never win a slam
Apart from Smashnova Kournikova lost her finals to Venus and Hingis whereas Nicole beat Granville, Razzano, Peng and Tati (by retirement) plus when Kournikova was losing in Tier I and II she was losing in QF and SF to people like Hingis, Venus, Seles, Graf, Davenport, and Pierce all slam winners.
Maybe this thread should be WWW: Peak Stacey Tan vs Peak Bruna Colosio. No way would Anna lose 6-2, 6-1 to Stacey Tan who never even made Top 500. When you take their most embarrassing losses at least Colosio was a Top 300 player.
I personally like Nicole but to say she is immensely better than Kournikova is ridiculous, had Anna played in the same era she would have had a similar if not better career than Nicole, Anna's years on tour were possibly the toughest, whereas Nicole was peaking 2006-2008 a pretty weak time for the WTA.