PDA

View Full Version : Of all the past and present number ones.....


VW#1
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:36 AM
which of them, if any, do you think was actually the best player in the world at the time they got there or at some point during their reign as number one. Let's try and keep this as positive as possible and only put reasons why x deserved to be there as opposed to y sucks and should have never been there. As a side note, is there anyone you think should have been ranked number one that never was, so far has not been or at a time when someone else was ranked at the top spot. I don't think I forgot anyone but in case you need a reference of number ones:

Tracy Austin
Jennifer Capriati
Kim Clijsters
Lindsay Davenport
Chris Evert
Steffi Graf
Justine Henin Hardenne
Martina Hingis
Martine Navritolova
Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
Monica Seles
Serena Williams
Venus Williams

i say of the 13 the ones who deserved to be at some point during their reign was:

Chris Evert

Steffi Graf

Martina Hingis (maybe not for as long as she was, especially into early 2000, but was more consistent over all, at all the events, not just the grandslams, than anyone else. Martina was winning or doing well on all surfaces, Lindsay can't say that)

Martina Navritolova

Monica Seles

Serena Williams

Venus Williams (From Wimbledon 2000 until 2002 Wimbledon she was the best player in the world. She was a number one in the true sense that she was beating everyone on tour at the time. That's the only reason why I don't say Capriati should have been number one at this time. She could not beat Venus and a number one should be able to beat everyone. And plus in Jennifer's golden year venus won the same amount of slams, three more titles, and won all their meetings. Not to take anything away from Jennifer, but Venus gets the edge there.

Roddick_tease
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:39 AM
Um what? Venus was ranked #1 in the first half of 2002. She wasn't even close to being the best at that point. Thankyou.

Knizzle
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:40 AM
Um what? Venus was ranked #1 in the first half of 2002. She wasn't even close to being the best at that point. Thankyou.

She became #1 in February, she was the best then, until Serena took over.

Sam L
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:40 AM
I can't think of anyone who didn't get to #1 who I think should've got there. That's a good question. And I think anyone who should've got to #1 has been there already.

Infiniti2001
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:42 AM
Hi 5 zeros OOPS Roddick_tease :wavey: A leopard can never get rid of his spots :lol: :haha:

VW#1
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:43 AM
oooh I forgot to add to the question, I meant to say who should have been number one that never was or hasn't been, or at a time that they were not. Thanks for pointing it out though there is a nicer way to tell someone they are wrong and by the way you didn't respond to the question. :)

Sam L
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:43 AM
ASV in the latter half of 94 was the best player in the world. She beat Graf on US hardcourts twice on her way to the US Open win. I think she also ended that season as the best player in the world. But she didn't get her #1 ranking until January of 1995, and ironically AFTER she lost to Mary Pierce in the Australian Open final was when she got her #1 ranking. By that time, I don't think she was the best in the world anymore, and as the 1995 prevailed, Steffi Graf regained her supremacy. And ASV was ranked #1 for the earlier half of 1995.

Sam L
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:44 AM
Hi 5 zeros OOPS Roddick_tease :wavey: A leopard can never get rid of his spots :lol: :haha:
:confused:

MisterQ
Feb 18th, 2004, 03:50 AM
It's a tricky question in a way, because there is sometimes a delay of up to half-a-year before one actually takes over the ranking.

For example,

Capriati was clearly the best player in the first half of 2001, winning the Australian Open, Family Circle Cup, and Roland Garros. But she didn't get the No. 1 ranking until near the end of the year.

Similarly, Venus was best player in the second half of 2001, winning Wimbledon, the USOpen among other titles. But she didn't get the No. 1 ranking until well into 2002, by which point she was not quite as dominant.

LindsayRocks89
Feb 18th, 2004, 04:01 AM
now except in 2001(where Lindsay didnt win a slam but still ended the year at number 1) she deserved all the other times she got to number one for sure :worship:

broncosven
Feb 18th, 2004, 04:06 AM
HINGIS

changed the way we thought about womens tennis and the way it was played

dominated from a young age and unfortunately 'burn out' forced her to go into a young retirement

for-sure
Feb 18th, 2004, 04:10 AM
Kim Clijsters!

arcus
Feb 18th, 2004, 04:17 AM
This is a no brainer
Martina Navratilova ls the only player among the recent greats to lose just one match in a complete season, and the match she lost was a fluke to a no-hoper, not even a serious rival.

Even more stunning she lost just 6 matches in 3 whole years at her peak.

And she had she longest winning streak in history.

Here is nothing equivalent in the modern era.

She was further ahead of the opposition than any of the number ones that I saw.

CinnamoninCinema
Feb 18th, 2004, 05:36 AM
Uhhh, they were all deserving of the #1 ranking at some point in their reign with the possible exception of Clijsters.

CinnamoninCinema
Feb 18th, 2004, 05:37 AM
I think you guys are misunderstanding the question.

It's not which was the best #1. It's which #1's deserved their position at some point during their reign.

bandabou
Feb 18th, 2004, 05:38 AM
I think all but Kim really.....Jen and Venus only got there after their dominating period was already over, but it still looked aight.

Kim?! Hmmm....she wasnīt even the best from her country.

QUEENLINDSAY
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:00 AM
I think all but Kim really.....Jen and Venus only got there after their dominating period was already over, but it still looked aight.

Kim?! Hmmm....she wasnīt even the best from her country.
Kim was number one beacuse she beat those top players in the surface and tournament which happned to be not a Grandlam.

I would say everybody deserves it!!!!! They wont be there without winning points.

The question would be the timing when they get there if they are still dominating.

bandabou
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:06 AM
Kim was number one beacuse she beat those top players in the surface and tournament which happned to be not a Grandlam.

I would say everybody deserves it!!!!! They wont be there without winning points.

The question would be the timing when they get there if they are still dominating.

what TOP players?! Didnīt beat Serena, didnīt beat Venus, couldnīt muster even a set against Justine in the slam-finals,etc....Amelie and Lindsay are all good, but donīt think they are really the top of the top players.

QUEENLINDSAY
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:08 AM
what TOP players?! Didnīt beat Serena, didnīt beat Venus, couldnīt muster even a set against Justine in the slam-finals,etc....Amelie and Lindsay are all good, but donīt think they are really the top of the top players.
She beat Serena and Venus 1&2 and other top players in YEC!!!!! when she got number one its already late, same with Venus and Jenn.

bandabou
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:13 AM
She beat Serena and Venus 1&2 and other top players in YEC!!!!! when she got number one its already late, same with Venus and Jenn.

:haha: :rolls: You think her ONE YEC outstrips Serenaīs three-slam victories in ī02?! Donīt think so...

CinnamoninCinema
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:18 AM
Yeah, QueenL. You're on shaky ground with that one.

Kim got to #1 the same way Hingis held it in 2000. Solid, occasionally spectacular (but not at the majors) performances all year round. Was she ever the best player in the world during her reign? Certainly not.

irma
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:27 AM
but Martina was the clear number 1 in 97 so she definitely was a true number 1 at one point
The only player who never was the most succesfull or best was Kim, sure she had the points, but she was hardly the best last summer and still isn't (she is the number 1 indoor though;))

CinnamoninCinema
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:34 AM
but Martina was the clear number 1 in 97 so she definitely was a true number 1 at one point
The only player who never was the most succesfull or best was Kim, sure she had the points, but she was hardly the best last summer and still isn't (she is the number 1 indoor though;))

I know that, Irma. If you'll note, I only named Kim as undeserving, not Hingis.

Robert1
Feb 18th, 2004, 06:37 AM
As long as a player wins Grand Slams she is a deserved number one player. Davenport and Hingis both at times where no.1 without a GS - strange. Graf was no. 1 due to the stabbing - also undeserved. Of all the number one players, Capriati seems to be the weakest one to me. Even when she won those 2 GS in a year, she didn't win much else.

Seles, Austin, Court, Navratilova, Evert, King - great number 1 players.

QUEENLINDSAY
Feb 18th, 2004, 07:11 AM
:haha: :rolls: You think her ONE YEC outstrips Serenaīs three-slam victories in ī02?! Donīt think so...Serena was still number one during those periods and a win is a win for Kim even if it not in GS.

Well thats for you, so thats why I thought differently thus giving Kim the number 1 ranking she earned. She maybe the weakest so far but she achieved it winning tournaments.

bigshow21
Feb 18th, 2004, 07:26 AM
I think if they were #1 then they all deserved it. Not everyone gets to be #1 and if they got to it then they obviously deserved it.

But my favorite #1 is without a doubt Jennifer Capriati!!!! :) :)

VW#1
Feb 18th, 2004, 07:34 AM
Kim did not beat Venus at the championships she retired.