PDA

View Full Version : Tennis Magazine's 40 greatest players of the tennis era (#28-25)


Volcana
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:47 AM
25. Venus
26. Jim Courier
27. ASV
28. Nastase
29. Lindsay Davenport
30. Arthur Ashe
31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
32. Tracy Austin
33. Hana Mandlikova
34. Lleyton Hewitt
35. Stan Smith
36. Jennifer Capriati
37. Gustavo Kuerten
38. Virginia Wade
39. Patrick Rafter
40. Gabriela Sabatini

And some 'own horn' tootiin'. In an earlier thread, Tennis Magazines 40 greatest players (I think I've figured out who's on the list) (http://wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=154619)I tried to figure out who was left to go on the list. I hit 28-25 pretty good. (Actually, I don't KNOW that, but my friend told me on the phone.)

14 Sampras ......... 22 Graf
11 Bjorn Borg ...... 18 Navratilova
08 Ivan Lendl ...... 18 Evert
08 Jimmy Connors ... 16 Court (?)
08 Andre Agassi .... 12 King
07 John McEnroe .... 09 Seles
07 Mats Wilander ... 07 Goolagong
07 John Newcombe ... 06 Serena (list was made pre OZ '05)
06 Boris Becker .... 05 Hingis
06 Stefan Edberg ... 04 Venus
05 Rod Laver ....... 04 Sanchez-Vicario
05 Roy Emerson
04 Roger Federer
04 Jim Courier
04 Guillermo Vilas
04 Ken Rosewall
02 Ilie Nastase

Already Listed

...... 29. Lindsay Davenport
...... 30. Arthur Ashe
...... 31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
...... 32. Tracy Austin
...... 33. Hana Mandlikova
...... 34. Lleyton Hewitt
...... 35. Stan Smith
...... 36. Jennifer Capriati
...... 37. Gustavo Kuerten
...... 38. Virginia Wade
...... 39. Patrick Rafter
...... 40. Gabriela Sabatini

I therefore predict that the only woman on next month's list, if there are any, is Hingis. (It might be Rosewall, Emerson, Federer, Vilas.)

tommyk75
Apr 4th, 2005, 01:06 AM
I don't get why Justine is ranked higher than Hana. Hana=4 Slams going up against two of the best players ever (Chris & Martina), Justine=3 Slams in fields largely depleted by injured players...

Volcana
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:39 AM
I don't get why Justine is ranked higher than Hana. Hana=4 Slams going up against two of the best players ever (Chris & Martina), Justine=3 Slams in fields largely depleted by injured players...I'm not saying I agree with it either, but Mandlikova was never #1. Henin-Hardenne was #1 for 45 weeks. More important than the ranking though, Henin-Hardenne was the best active player on the tour for the better part of a year. Yes, injuries to other players had something to do with that, but she beat the best to win her first slam. Mandlikova was never the best player, her career records vs Evert and Navratilova are something like 7-19 and 7-29.

I would guess that's the principal reason. Another issue is that one of Mandlikova's GS titles was OZ '80, which happened to be during a run a fairly weak fields at OZ. Again, I think that's bogus reasoning, but those are some of the things they might have considered.

-Kieron-
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:46 AM
Woo, Venus at 25 :)

hingis-seles
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:42 PM
ASV should swap places with Venus.

anabel
Apr 4th, 2005, 01:08 PM
yes, how can venus be ahead of arantxa.. geez.

jan.
Apr 4th, 2005, 01:10 PM
yes, how can venus be ahead of arantxa.. geez.
She has two olympic gold medals :rolleyes:?

volta
Apr 4th, 2005, 01:11 PM
how can they make a list comparing players that are still playing and players that are already retired?! i mean itīs good to see Vee in 25 but her carrer ainīt over yet she might become higher then she is. the same to other girls on tour imo that is an unfair list

jan.
Apr 4th, 2005, 01:39 PM
how can they make a list comparing players that are still playing and players that are already retired?! i mean itīs good to see Vee in 25 but her carrer ainīt over yet she might become higher then she is. the same to other girls on tour imo that is an unfair list
Would you rather see her not on the list?

TonyP
Apr 4th, 2005, 02:01 PM
It will be interesting to see where they place Federer on this list. He obviously is in mid-career at most and could go on playing another five or six years, possibly at this level. That might mean another dozen slams to his credit, possibly breaking Sampras record.

But it is hard to assemble a list based upon what "might" happen in the future and so a number of players who have accomplished more so far would probably have to be ranked above him.

alexusjonesfan
Apr 4th, 2005, 02:15 PM
yeah seriously, Hana should be above Justine and ASV above Venus. Hana was never no.1 but she won one more slam and was a top player for many more years (compared with Justine so far). And ASV doesn't have Venus's gold medals (she's got two silvers and two bronzes) but she won her first slam at a younger age and her last slam almost a decade later. They spent about equal time on no.1.

Volcana
Apr 4th, 2005, 02:39 PM
yes, how can venus be ahead of arantxa.. geez.Actually, their career statitcs are eerily close.

..........................Williams..Sanchez-Vicario
GS singles....................4.........4....
GS doubles....................6.........6....
GS mixed......................2.........4....
Total Singles Titles.........31........29....
Total Doubles Titles..........9........67....

GS singles finals record... 4-6.......4-8

Weeks at #1..................11........12....
Olympic Gold (s)............. 1........ 0 ...
Olympic Gold (d)..............1........ 0 ...
Olympic Silver (s)............0.........1....
Olympic Silver (d)............0.........1....
Olympic Bronze (s)............0.........1....
Olympic Bronze (d)............0.........1....
Fed Cup titles................1.........5....

Looking at it, where's you criteria for putting Arantxa ahead of Venus? Total Doubles Titles? Fed Cup titles? GS mixed doubles? Nothing wrong with ay of that. But the same standards that apply here will apply further up the list.

Monica Seles, Steffi Graf and Chris Evert all didn't play much doubles or mixed. Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Evonne Goolagong and Martina Navratilova all did. Whose ranked where changes a lot for the top seven women, based on that. And every country doesn't have a great Fed Cup team.

OTOH, what's the case for ranking Venus ahead of Arantxa? Simply that she has virtually the same accomplishments in a lot less time.

Or maybe, The Makers of the List figured they were contemporaries, sort of, and they just thought Venus was better. Certainly this is where they both belong on the list, among the women. Below Hingis and Serena, above Mandlikova, Davenport, Henin-Hardenne et al.

SelesFan70
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:06 PM
Hana Mandlikova was consistently 3rd best behind Chrissie and Martina, I don't think she should be any higher than she is on the list.

It will be interesting to see the rest of the women. I can see them putting Hingis ahead of Goolagong, though.

volta
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:08 PM
Would you rather see her not on the list?
did u read what i said?! i said that it wasnīt just because of Vee but for all the girls on tour cuz their carrer ainīt over yet so they canīt imo be compared to those that have retired i just took Vee as an example :p

sartrista7
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:22 PM
I'm not saying I agree with it either, but Mandlikova was never #1. Henin-Hardenne was #1 for 45 weeks. More important than the ranking though, Henin-Hardenne was the best active player on the tour for the better part of a year. Yes, injuries to other players had something to do with that, but she beat the best to win her first slam. Mandlikova was never the best player, her career records vs Evert and Navratilova are something like 7-19 and 7-29.

I would guess that's the principal reason. Another issue is that one of Mandlikova's GS titles was OZ '80, which happened to be during a run a fairly weak fields at OZ. Again, I think that's bogus reasoning, but those are some of the things they might have considered.

If the ranking system of 2003 had applied to Mandlikova, she would have hit No 1 in 1981, I believe (maybe 1980).

raquel
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:50 PM
And Arantxa also would have had more weeks at number one if the system that had Davenport and Venus at number one was used in 1994-1995. Arantxa and Venus's career stats (to date for Venus) are very close. Perhaps the fact Venus has two Wimbledons may edge her ahead for the people who conducted this poll. I think ASV's stats are bolstered slightly just by the sheer fact that she beat Steffi in 2 Slam finals and Monica in 1 other. Those were the two best players of her 1990s generation and she managed to beat them in Slam finals which I think makes the line between ASV and Venus even more blurred. Also many give ASV credit for getting the absolute most from her game. It doesn't just come down to numbers when it's that close. Venus ahead of ASV is arguable - but Jim Courier ahead of ASV I don't agree with.

venus_rulez
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:10 PM
yeah seriously, Hana should be above Justine and ASV above Venus. Hana was never no.1 but she won one more slam and was a top player for many more years (compared with Justine so far). And ASV doesn't have Venus's gold medals (she's got two silvers and two bronzes) but she won her first slam at a younger age and her last slam almost a decade later. They spent about equal time on no.1.


I don't understand this argument. What does when someone did something have anything to do with accomplishments? Now maybe if you were trying to say that because they are so close, the fact that Arantxa accomplished more at a younger age than Venus, then I'd give you some lead way, but I really don't think that age should be taken into consideration unless it is VERY VERY close, which I don't think Arantxa and Venus are.

crazillo
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Sad that Novotna didn't win more, she certainly belongs there considering her game. :sad:

Volcana
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:32 PM
It will be interesting to see the rest of the women. I can see them putting Hingis ahead of Goolagong, though.I don't think so. I can see them putting her ahead of Serena though. Remember, this list was compiled LAST year. They're essentially ranking a Serena who never recovered enough to win a slam, or even a big tournament after her comeback in Miami.

Then again, they are releasing it a month at a time. They could edit, if they chose.

Fascinating side note. Margaret Court, BJK and Evonne Goolagong were never WTA #1. So none of them have any weeks at #1. It will be interesting to see how much weight The Makers of The List give Martina Hingis' 57,000 weeks-at-#1.

hingis-seles
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:28 PM
Martina only had 209 weeks at #1. :p

I don't think Martina will make it to the Top 20. She's not American and the fact that Goolagong and Serena have more singles Slams than her seal her fate in this list.

alexusjonesfan
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:02 PM
I don't understand this argument. What does when someone did something have anything to do with accomplishments? Now maybe if you were trying to say that because they are so close, the fact that Arantxa accomplished more at a younger age than Venus, then I'd give you some lead way, but I really don't think that age should be taken into consideration unless it is VERY VERY close, which I don't think Arantxa and Venus are.

I was trying to show her longevity and the period of time for which she contended for slams. Still I've realised since that it's a bit moot comparing a retired player with someone who's only half-way through her career. Serena may end up winning 18 slams or she may stay at 7, there's no point slotting her against the past players at this point.

tennislover
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:07 PM
how can they make a list comparing players that are still playing and players that are already retired?! i mean itīs good to see Vee in 25 but her carrer ainīt over yet she might become higher then she is. the same to other girls on tour imo that is an unfair list


good point....

Kart
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Perhaps the fact Venus has two Wimbledons may edge her ahead for the people who conducted this poll.

Probably but I don't know why everyone rates Wimbledon so much higher.

ASV came closer to winning Wimbledon than Venus ever has at the French so far.

I have my opinions on this list but as with all other things, they're as subjective as everyone else's and I can't be bothered to argue anymore.

Still no sign of Andy Roddick though yet I note :eek: ;).

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:44 PM
Maybe Venus' winning streaks and records against top players came into play. Was Arantxa ever truly the bar none best player in the world when she was #1?? I happen to think Venus was for awhile in 2000-2001.

anabel
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Actually, their career statitcs are eerily close.

..........................Williams..Sanchez-Vicario
GS singles....................4.........4....
GS doubles....................6.........6....
GS mixed......................2.........4....
Total Singles Titles.........31........29....
Total Doubles Titles..........9........67....

GS singles finals record... 4-6.......4-8

Weeks at #1..................11........12....
Olympic Gold (s)............. 1........ 0 ...
Olympic Gold (d)..............1........ 0 ...
Olympic Silver (s)............0.........1....
Olympic Silver (d)............0.........1....
Olympic Bronze (s)............0.........1....
Olympic Bronze (d)............0.........1....
Fed Cup titles................1.........5....

Looking at it, where's you criteria for putting Arantxa ahead of Venus? Total Doubles Titles? Fed Cup titles? GS mixed doubles? Nothing wrong with ay of that. But the same standards that apply here will apply further up the list.

Monica Seles, Steffi Graf and Chris Evert all didn't play much doubles or mixed. Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Evonne Goolagong and Martina Navratilova all did. Whose ranked where changes a lot for the top seven women, based on that. And every country doesn't have a great Fed Cup team.

OTOH, what's the case for ranking Venus ahead of Arantxa? Simply that she has virtually the same accomplishments in a lot less time.

Or maybe, The Makers of the List figured they were contemporaries, sort of, and they just thought Venus was better. Certainly this is where they both belong on the list, among the women. Below Hingis and Serena, above Mandlikova, Davenport, Henin-Hardenne et al.

You said, stats are almost the same.

My mean reason is that Arantxa has been a top player since 1989 to almost her retirament (excepting the last 1 year & half). She won GS in a period of 10 seasons, while Venus had just 2 years in a row winning Slams, she's been out of the top 10 already, and now rarely is a contender for any title.. in the last 19 months, she has won just 2 titles (in less than 3 weeks) which means 18 months without titles.. and Venus is just 23.

Venus made lot of things in a short period, but for me, logetivity and being consistent is ahead of just having 2 good years and then nothing.

~VaMoS~ArAnTxA~
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:56 PM
Well, I don't know who exactly is chosing the rankings of that whole big thing, but I cn claim that Arantxa has nothing to do behind Venus. And same thing for Lindsay, she should be far ahead of Venus. They just can't rely only on the number of Slams they won. Arantxa appeared in 12 Grand Slam finals, and won overal 68 doubles titles, 29 singles, and 4 mixed doubles...that makes 101...! Lindsay has won a lot more titles than Venus so far... I'm really disappointed about that ranking...really. And I can imagine taht they will put Graf ahead of Navratilova...stupid thing! :rolleyes:

~VaMoS~ArAnTxA~
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:00 PM
Maybe Venus' winning streaks and records against top players came into play. Was Arantxa ever truly the bar none best player in the world when she was #1?? I happen to think Venus was for awhile in 2000-2001.

Sorry, Arantxa WAS the best player in that period... In 1994, no one was better than her, and she was tied with Graf in 1995

anabel
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Well, in 2000, Venus was the best from July (wimbledon) to september ( olympics), in october she already lost to Davenport and then nothing. That makes 3 months...

In 2001, 1st half was Jennifer's til Wimbledon again, and then Venus til US Open.

but then in 2002 it started Serena's era and Venus has dropped so low now, that has lot of players ahead of her, something that didnt happen to Arantxa.

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:37 PM
You said, stats are almost the same.

My mean reason is that Arantxa has been a top player since 1989 to almost her retirament (excepting the last 1 year & half). She won GS in a period of 10 seasons, while Venus had just 2 years in a row winning Slams, she's been out of the top 10 already, and now rarely is a contender for any title.. in the last 19 months, she has won just 2 titles (in less than 3 weeks) which means 18 months without titles.. and Venus is just 23.

Venus made lot of things in a short period, but for me, logetivity and being consistent is ahead of just having 2 good years and then nothing.

Venus had more than 2 good years and her career is NOT over. I guess Arantxa debuted at the top of the game and never left until she retired.

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:42 PM
So much is made about ASV's longevity, Venus already has more titles than ASV had in her whole career, maybe that's why she gets the edge. She still has years left to add to that. Most of all I think Venus is just a flat out better player than Arantxa to be straight forward.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:48 PM
Rafter over Kafelnikov. Now that Courier is on the list, that is pretty much official. Rr-fucking-diculous. There goes any credibility that tennis magazine had.

raquel
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:07 AM
Most of all I think Venus is just a flat out better player than Arantxa to be straight forward.
I am sure a lot of people agree with that and would think Hana, Lindsay, and Justine were also better players than Arantxa, but until you turn it into Grand Slam wins (and I think that's pretty much the agreed yardstick by which a player is measured), Arantxa is going to be in the mix with all those players based on her stats. So far none of these people who are considered better players have actually achieved anything that you could say is considerably more than ASV. I think Venus definitely still has the time and capability to put a gap between their achievements at the Grand Slams but to do that I think she needs to do something now to improve again before it's too late. I think she's made 1 QF in her last 5 Grand Slams and that's not really where she wants to be at this stage in her career. I always think Venus is in the top 2/3 contenders at Wimbledon in particular and if she has a good clay season and a good Wimbledon draw, it could happen there as long as she doesn't break down to early in rallies especially on the forehand.

Joseosu19
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:08 AM
I think that Arantxa's longevity puts her over the edge against Venus, but that's obviously my (slightly biased) opinion.

Here are some stats to chew on...

Both have similar records in the finals of GS's as Volcana mentioned, with Arantxa at 4-8, with at least 2 finals at all of the slams, winning Roland Garros 3 times, and the US open once. Venus is 4-6 with a final at all of the slams, winning Wimbledon twice, and the US open twice.

Venus has reached at least the quarters at a grandslam 21/30 times.
8 QF losses- 3 AUS, 3 RG, 2 WIM, 0 USO.
3 SF losses- 1 AUS, 0 RG, 0 WIM, 2 USO.
6 F losses- 1 AUS, 1 RG, 2 WIM, 2 USO.
4 W - 0 AUS, 0 RG, 2 WIM, 2 USO.

Arantxa has reached at least the quarters at a grandslam 35/58 times.
13 QF losses- 3 AUS, 3 RG, 3 WIM, 4 USO.
9 SF losses- 3 AUS, 4 RG, 0 WIM, 2 USO.
8 F losses - 2 AUS, 3 RG, 2 WIM, 1 USO.
4 W - 0 AUS, 3 RG, 0 WIM, 1 USO.

Higher numbers as expected for Arantxa, but obviously a lower percentage. However do we really see Venus making 14 more QF's in grandslams? That's going to take several more years...

Arantxa has 29 Tour titles, but has been in the finals of a tour event 79 times, for a record of 29-49-1, since an Eastbourne final was rained out.

Venus has 31 Tour titles, but has been in the finals of a tour event 49 times, for a record of 31-18.

Venus was in the top 10 from 1998 to 2003, before falling out, however re-entered in 2004 and 2005.
Arantxa was in the top 10 every year from 1989 to 2001.


Other noteables:
For Arantxa:
Venus's career high ranking in doubles is 6, Arantxa's is 1.
Arantxa ranked simultaneously #1 in singles and doubles(only Nav, Hingis, Davenport have done).
Arantxa Ranks 5th in Prize money (behind Graf, Davenport, Hingis, Nav.)
Only player to defeat Hingis, Graf, and Seles while they held #1, and only player to defeat Graf 5 times in the 90's.
13 Straight Year End Championships.
Winningest Fed Cup player of all time.
Singles W/L- 759-295
Doubles W/L- 667-216

For Venus:
Leads H2h 6-3.
6 Year End Championships.
Reached USO final in debut.
Leads Capriati, Clijsters, and Henin by a combined 17-3.
Singles W/L- 385-88
Doubles W/L- 89-15


As I said before, its pretty close. As of now I would give the edge to Arantxa, but I certainly think that Venus will pass her, although you never know what may happen.

Knizzle
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:10 AM
I am sure a lot of people agree with that and would think Hana, Lindsay, and Justine were also better players than Arantxa, but until you turn it into Grand Slam wins (and I think that's pretty much the agreed yardstick by which a player is measured), Arantxa is going to be in the mix with all those players based on her stats. So far none of these people who are considered better players have actually achieved anything that you say is considerably more than ASV. I think Venus definitely still has the time and capability to put a gap between their achievements at the Grand Slams but to do that I think she needs to do something now to improve again before it's too late. I think she's made 1 QF in her last 5 Grand Slams and that's not really where she wants to be at this stage in her career. I always think Venus is in the top 2/3 contenders at Wimbledon in particular and if she has a good clay season and a good Wimbledon draw, it could happen there as long as she doesn't break down to early in rallies especially on the forehand.

I'm not one of those who would say that LD and Justine were better. I can't speak on Hana cause I haven't seen her play but maybe once. Yes Venus does need to improve, but I think that Venus' declining play now makes people think she's not as good as she really was.

Joseosu19
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:12 AM
I'm not one of those who would say that LD and Justine were better. I can't speak on Hana cause I haven't seen her play but maybe once. Yes Venus does need to improve, but I think that Venus' declining play now makes people think she's not as good as she really was.
I agree, and in much the same way, people remember Arantxa for her performance from 97 on, and mostly 2001-2002, where she was a mere shadow of her former self.

raquel
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:23 AM
I agree, and in much the same way, people remember Arantxa for her performance from 97 on, and mostly 2001-2002, where she was a mere shadow of her former self.
That's true. By 2001-2002 I think Arantxa had a few good runs but ASV started playing in 1985 - singles and doubles for about 20 events a year on average for 17 years without one single long term injury lay off - and I think Arantxa eventually hit burn out. Arantxa put so much energy into every match that by 2001 after 16/17 years of it I think she was just plain exhausted physically and mentally.

As for Venus, her run of 4 Wimbledon finals showed Venus at her best and I definitely don't forget how good she was then. I always think Venus played her best at Wimbledon and even last year she was the victim of only the most dangerous unseeded floater and a scoring error that we all know about. I think she'll be dangerous there this year as long as she just cuts down slightly on the forehand errors and maybe takes a few more serve volley gambles than normal.

Ms Tracy Austin
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:31 AM
I would say that Lindsay and Hana were better "tennis players" than Arantxa, BUT, Arantxa was the better "competitor" by far... there is a difference. ;)

Ms Tracy Austin
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:39 AM
As far as the who has had a better career, Venus or Arantxa? I say Venus! This is funny I know because Venus's career is not over, but looking at what they won (which means I'm not looking at how many semis they made). Venus has won 31 tournaments to Aratnxa's 29. Venus has won three NASDAQ's to Arantxa 2, And 2 Wimbledons and Two U.S. Opens beats Arantxa's one U.S. Open and three French in my book. Still, both are great champions.

Brooks.
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:48 AM
this whole thing about asv having an edge because 1. of her longevity and 2. because she beat monica and graf in grand slam finals is ridiculous......... to address the first issue at hand...........venus has accomplised almost as much as asv in every department without being on the tour nearly as long (you cant have longevity over night........the girl has to be able to play a while...) and secondly this whole idea of asv being so great b/c she challenged graf is just :rolleyes: .........im sorry but dont you think venus would have challenged graf in her prime had she been born a decade earlier........its not her fault that graf was 30 when vee started to get into her prime...

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:51 AM
We KNOW they didn't base this list on just GS record. Sabatini is on the list. Mary Pierce is not. But The Makers of The List have the ultimate cop-out.

'Greatest'. By definition subjective. They ranked Venus ahead of Arantxa because they decided she was 'greater'. They're ranked sequentially among the women, and outside the top five women, meaning they're pretty close in 'greatness'.

Let's be real. If you just look at the overall records, the women fall into pretty distinct groups for the period when Tennis magazine was published.

Court, Graf, Navratilova
Evert, King
Seles, Goolagong, Serena (if you count her OZ '05 title)
Hingis
Venus, Arantxa

Venus and Arantxa both have overal GS records so strong it's really impossible tp rank Mandlikova, Davenport, Capriati, etc below them. And you can't rank either of them above Hingis. Any way you slice it, you're talking about the 10th ans 11th best female players of the last 40 years. Pretty fast company.

I'm a fan of Venus first, and nobody else is closer than third, but I think statistically, ASV rates a slight edge. But remember, this isn't about who has the better record, it's about what a small group of people consider 'greatness'. That means 'close' can work for you, or against you. Don't you think Mary Pierce wonders why she's the only multi-GS winner in the period in question not on the list?

tigercub
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:58 AM
Jana Novotna is not going to make this list--why is she in the Hall of Fame again? She won a lot of doubles titles...I know...big deal.

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:11 AM
Jana Novotna is not going to make this list--why is she in the Hall of Fame again? She won a lot of doubles titles...I know...big deal.How many women are in the Hall of Fame? More than 18? Only 18 women are making this list, tops. Tell me who you bump. (Sabatini doesn't count. They made it clear she isn't on the list just for wins and losses.)

wta whore 79
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:11 AM
Only player to defeat Hingis, Graf, and Seles while they held #1, and only player to defeat Graf 5 times in the 90's.

This is untrue. Seles beat Graf 5 times in the 90s as well. ETA Sabatini did as well. Maybe some other girls did too? I'm too tired to check out any more players; please avoid making such obvious errors in the future, m'kay?

Also, I'm pretty ambivalent about the ASV vs. V.Williams debate. But I'm just curious if everyone thinks that a man (probably Sampras) will wind up #1 on this list. I hope Steffi wins because she probably outclassed Sampras in every category. But they seem to be judging men and women differently, so much so that I wish they had made 2 separate lists.

spencercarlos
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:20 AM
vamos Gaby :kiss:

tigercub
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:21 AM
How many women are in the Hall of Fame? More than 18? Only 18 women are making this list, tops. Tell me who you bump. (Sabatini doesn't count. They made it clear she isn't on the list just for wins and losses.)
I wouldn't bump anyone for Jana--that was my point. Sabatini on the other hand is rightfully on this list, so, um, maybe should be in the Hall?

Brooks.
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:39 AM
so if venus wins one more slam is she ahead of asv and hingis???

wta whore 79
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:40 AM
so if venus wins one more slam is she ahead of asv and hingis???

She'll be ahead of Sanchez-Vicario but tied with Hingis at 5.

spencercarlos
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:49 AM
How many women are in the Hall of Fame? More than 18? Only 18 women are making this list, tops. Tell me who you bump. (Sabatini doesn't count. They made it clear she isn't on the list just for wins and losses.)
BS
Sabatini has a better and way better singles record than Novotna.... and Conchita period..
If you dislike is that is your choice, but she tops these two.
And btw im in disagree on Mary not being ahead of Gaby, just because of those two Grand Slams.. anyway its something debatible too since Mary only played 3 slams semis on her career. While Gaby did it 18 times, and has 2 season ending championships under her belt, twice a finalist there as well, Many more years straight in the top ten. And if we go with head to heads Gaby tops everyone of this group too..
You can say that GS wins are not the only things in consideration to make this list but definetly i don`t understand what your point is to try to dismiss Gaby`s acomplishments and say she is unfairly positioned on this list.

tigercub
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:59 AM
Um, spencercarlos, I think Volcana and I are supporting Gaby--relax.

spencercarlos
Apr 5th, 2005, 06:05 AM
Um, spencercarlos, I think Volcana and I are supporting Gaby--relax.
Read his previous posts in the other "Tennis Magazine`s 40 greatest players" threads and you`ll realize why i replied like this.

chris whiteside
Apr 5th, 2005, 06:10 AM
This is untrue. Seles beat Graf 5 times in the 90s as well.

Also, I'm pretty ambivalent about the ASV vs. V.Williams debate. But I'm just curious if everyone thinks that a man (probably Sampras) will wind up #1 on this list. I hope Steffi wins because she probably outclassed Sampras in every category. But they seem to be judging men and women differently, so much so that I wish they had made 2 separate lists.


Without the French title there is no way Sampras can be #1 in this poll. Because the starting date is 1965 Laver will probably lose out even though he won the Grand Slam in 1969.

Margaret Court might have an outside chance since she did the Grand Slam in 1970 but, if everything's fair, the top 2 places have to be filled by Graf and Navratilova although I couldn't guess in what order.

spencercarlos
Apr 5th, 2005, 06:14 AM
so if venus wins one more slam is she ahead of asv and hingis???
No I think Hingis still has a fair amount of Grand Slam finals, and has won more events than Venus. Hingis has 2 masters as well, while Venus has not been able to reach the final. Venus has a long way to go if she wants to finish ahead of Hingis.

And btw i think Venus-Arantxa it could have been anyone`s call. I think they gave more importance to 2 Wimbledons and 2 Usopens than those 3 Roland Garros and 1 Usopen.

Sir Stefwhit
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:41 AM
We KNOW they didn't base this list on just GS record. Sabatini is on the list. Mary Pierce is not. But The Makers of The List have the ultimate cop-out.

'Greatest'. By definition subjective. They ranked Venus ahead of Arantxa because they decided she was 'greater'. They're ranked sequentially among the women, and outside the top five women, meaning they're pretty close in 'greatness'.

Let's be real. If you just look at the overall records, the women fall into pretty distinct groups for the period when Tennis magazine was published.

Court, Graf, Navratilova
Evert, King
Seles, Goolagong, Serena (if you count her OZ '05 title)
Hingis
Venus, Arantxa

Venus and Arantxa both have overal GS records so strong it's really impossible tp rank Mandlikova, Davenport, Capriati, etc below them. And you can't rank either of them above Hingis. Any way you slice it, you're talking about the 10th ans 11th best female players of the last 40 years. Pretty fast company.

I'm a fan of Venus first, and nobody else is closer than third, but I think statistically, ASV rates a slight edge. But remember, this isn't about who has the better record, it's about what a small group of people consider 'greatness'. That means 'close' can work for you, or against you. Don't you think Mary Pierce wonders why she's the only multi-GS winner in the period in question not on the list?
Good Point!! When list like these are compiled my view is similar to the way you summed it up- anyone within three spots of another person is pretty much interchangable with them. If you want to give ASV the slight edge over Vee, or vice versa, it really wouldn't matter. Most people would agree that where ever one is, the other would have to be closely behind (or ahead). I think a debate can always be made for any two people ranked closely together, as to which one should be ranked highest or who is trully the greatest.

Just imagine Steffi and Martina finally being ranked. One fan base will claim they've been validated, while the other will claim that list like these are nonsense and the people that compiled them have agendas. While people will debate the order, no one would argue that they are in the same league and deserved to be ranked together. That's why I like that this particular list is being done in sections, you get a group of players whose accomplishments mirror each other all lumped together- again, most people are cool with the lumping, just not the lumping order...

raquel
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:13 PM
this whole thing about asv having an edge because 1. of her longevity and 2. because she beat monica and graf in grand slam finals is ridiculous......... to address the first issue at hand...........venus has accomplised almost as much as asv in every department without being on the tour nearly as long (you cant have longevity over night........the girl has to be able to play a while...) and secondly this whole idea of asv being so great b/c she challenged graf is just :rolleyes: .........im sorry but dont you think venus would have challenged graf in her prime had she been born a decade earlier........its not her fault that graf was 30 when vee started to get into her prime...
When I said that Arantxa beating Graf in 2 finals helped her case, I didn't mean that because Venus didn't beat Steffi, her achievements are any less. I just meant that in 4 of her GS wins, Arantxa beat Graf in 2 finals and Monica in another which kind of bolsters her record. I was not using that just to compare her to Venus or how that counts in this poll, I am just talking about Arantxa's career on it's own merits.

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:28 PM
so if venus wins one more slam is she ahead of asv and hingis???Statistically? I'd still rate Hingis ahead. Venus would have the Olympic medals, and the Fed Cup titles, but they ARE contemporaries, so week-at-#1 has meaning in comparing the two. Also, Hingis has a 40 to 31 edge in overall singles titles, and something like a 36 to 9 edge in doubles, and more GS doubles. Once Venus has more singles titles, OR more GS singles titles, I'd give her the stat edge.

But it's just stats, and all subjective.

Ms Tracy Austin
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:04 PM
Since they are calling this the 40 greatest players, and not the 40 greatest teams, I don't think doubles should have anything to do with it. Doubles is a team sport, meaning you had help so any success achieved is shared.

Singles, and only singles is what they should go by in my opinion, and even there go only with what they won, not how many semis or finals (which only means they lost anyway) they made. Weeks at #1, Over-all tournament wins, Grand Slam wins, head-to-heads and win/loss records should be the only determining factors.

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Singles, and only singles is what they should go by in my opinion, and even there go only with what they won, not how many semis or finals (which only means they lost anyway) they made. Weeks at #1, Over-all tournament wins, Grand Slam wins, head-to-heads and win/loss records should be the only determining factors.Well, when you're the editors at Tennis magazine, I'm sure that's how they'll do it. That sure isn't how they did it this time, at least going by what they wrote about each player.

There's a player with only 13 career wins on the list, one with only one GS singles title, and (in all probability) at least three with no weeks-at-#1. They seem to be totally ignoring head-to-heads, again, going by the little articles they wrote about each player.

spencercarlos
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:14 PM
Well, when you're the editors at Tennis magazine, I'm sure that's how they'll do it. That sure isn't how they did it this time, at least going by what they wrote about each player.

There's a player with only 13 career wins on the list, one with only one GS singles title, and (in all probability) at least three with no weeks-at-#1. They seem to be totally ignoring head-to-heads, again, going by the little articles they wrote about each player.
Gaby is the one with just a grand slam title. Compare her to Conchita and Jana. Gaby has the masters, head to head leads and better head to head vs Graf-Seles-Navratilova overall, enough numbers to jump ahead.
Compare her to Mary and Mary`s one more grand slam win could be a deciding factor. But its a fact that Gaby reached 18 GS semis to Mary`s 3.. i think that`sa huge gap. And better head to heads, the masters. Closer than her numbers vs Conchita-Jana, but i think Gaby`s consistency at the top over 10 years tops Mary`s one more GS. Debatible.. too close..
Gaby even leads head 2 head vs Capriati, Arantxa, Davenport.. players that overall in career are ahead of her.. The same can not be said of Jana-Conchita and Mary.
So if we talk about SINGLES play only Gaby is ahead of Conchita and Jana surely and probably if compared to Mary..
So Gaby`s spot is more than deserved unlike you try to put it as given.

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Gaby is the one with just a grand slam title. Compare her to Conchita and Jana. Gaby has the masters, head to head leads and better head to head vs Graf-Seles-Navratilova overall, enough numbers to jump ahead.
Compare her to Mary and Mary`s one more grand slam win could be a deciding factor. But its a fact that Gaby reached 18 GS semis to Mary`s 3.. i think that`sa huge gap. And better head to heads, the masters. Closer than her numbers vs Conchita-Jana, but i think Gaby`s consistency at the top over 10 years tops Mary`s one more GS. Debatible.. too close..
Gaby even leads head 2 head vs Capriati, Arantxa, Davenport.. players that overall in career are ahead of her.. The same can not be said of Jana-Conchita and Mary.
So if we talk about SINGLES play only Gaby is ahead of Conchita and Jana surely and probably if compared to Mary..
So Gaby`s spot is more than deserved unlike you try to put it as given.95% of what you wrote is irrelevant to the case at hand. She's on the list because she was a very entertaining and popular player. Here's what Tennis magazine actually wrote in including Sabatini.
40. Gabriela Sabatini
If athletes are indeed entertainers, then the impact of Gabriela Sabatini's career can't be measured in wins and losses. From the time she broke through to the semifinals of Roland Garros as a 15-year-old in 1985 until she retired in 1996, there was no greater attraction than the player known simply as "Gaby."

Sabatini's dark eyes and engaging smile won hearts around the world. But it was her flashy one-handed topspin backhand and innate court sense that had her on tour by age 14. At that point, it was a question not of when she would win a major, but of how many. Over the years, though, the challenge of competing against the likes of Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, and Monica Seles proved too daunting.

Sabatini won her first and only Slam in 1990, when she imposed her attacking game on Graf in the U.S. Open final. The Argentine would go on to play her best tennis in the early '90s, at one point winning seven of eight from Graf. The lone loss came in Sabatini's last major final, at Wimbledon in 1991.

In that entertaining match, Sabatini served for the title twice, only to lose 8-6 in the third. The defeat was emblematic: Sabatini was a game competitor, but she often squandered her chances. Still, she reached No. 3 in the world and made the semifinals or better at majors 18 times. Her consistency was as striking as the appealing image that won Gaby her ardent fans. --Jon Levey

The word 'Greatest' gives them a lot of leeway. They're no pretending to answer 'who has better career accomplishment?'

Would I rather have 2 GS singles titls, and 16 career titles?
Or 1 GS singles title, and 27 career titles? There are a lot of one-slam wonders, put it that way.

Ms Tracy Austin
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:46 PM
...... 29. Lindsay Davenport
...... 30. Arthur Ashe
...... 31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
...... 32. Tracy Austin
...... 33. Hana Mandlikova
...... 34. Lleyton Hewitt
...... 35. Stan Smith
...... 36. Jennifer Capriati
...... 37. Gustavo Kuerten
...... 38. Virginia Wade
...... 39. Patrick Rafter
...... 40. Gabriela Sabatini

That is so screwed up, Wade at #38? :lol: She won Wim, U.S., AO and 50+ tournaments. Wade should be at #29 from using only the people on that list. Most of the people above her didn't even win Wimbledon (except Ashe, Smith and Dav). I love him, but Kuertens 3 french titles show dominance on one surface, no versatility at all. I could go on, but why bother? :o

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:48 PM
...... 29. Lindsay Davenport
...... 30. Arthur Ashe
...... 31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
...... 32. Tracy Austin
...... 33. Hana Mandlikova
...... 34. Lleyton Hewitt
...... 35. Stan Smith
...... 36. Jennifer Capriati
...... 37. Gustavo Kuerten
...... 38. Virginia Wade
...... 39. Patrick Rafter
...... 40. Gabriela Sabatini

That is so screwed up, Wade at #38? :lol: She won Wim, U.S., AO and 50+ tournaments. Wade should be at #29 from using only the people on that list. Most of the people above her didn't even win Wimbledon (except Ashe, Smith and Dav). I love him, but Kuertens 3 french titles show dominance on one surface, no versatility at all. I could go on, but why bother? :o You're right, but she suffered from never being the best, or the most popluar player. Seeing her below Capriati is just bizarre.

HumptyDumpty
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:59 PM
I think Graf will be number one becuase she's blonde and comes from a posh European background.


22 slams in the open era, winning each slam at least 4 times, 377 weeks as #1 (with 186 consecutively), 8 times #1 at year's end, the Golden Grand Slam in 1988, beating 4 different #1s in slam finals (Navratilova, Sanchez, Seles, Hingis) might help as well. :worship:
But yes, beauty comes into play too.
:hearts:

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 09:03 PM
I think Graf will be number oneDO you really think they're going to name a woman the greatest tennis player of the last 40+ years!?!?

Ms Tracy Austin
Apr 5th, 2005, 09:09 PM
You're right, but she suffered from never being the best, or the most popluar player. Seeing her below Capriati is just bizarre.

and Cap only won 14 events total, including the 2 AO's and 1 FO. :rolleyes:

Barrie_Dude
Apr 5th, 2005, 10:23 PM
I can go along with this list

Robbie.
Apr 5th, 2005, 10:50 PM
There is a good claim that Gaby makes the list on facts not just on sentiment. It's a tight go between her, Conchita, Jana and Mary. But one of them had to make the list. Gaby had the best singles career of the four, on the facts, IMO.

I posted this in an earlier thread when the first 4 players on the list were announced, on my opinion that Mary Pierce would be ommitted.

Good Logic Volcana. Can I just say one thing though. I don't think that Mary is at all a shoe-in to make this list or that she necessarily should be. All of those players you have in your list as definites have either won 3 + slams or been number one, and most have done both. Mary doesn't even approach that level of achievement. Sure she has two slams, a great accomplishment, but her overall career record of career titles, prize money, even her overall record in the slams, is not as good as Sabatini, Novotna, Martinez, let alone those you have in your list. Mary's record in the slams is her main claim to superiority over these ladies. Yet she only ever made four GS semifinals, which, to her credit, she capitalised on. Gaby made 18, Conchita made 12, Jana made 9. That's a large gulf in achievement. If Conchita had have won the '00 RG final we wouldn't even be putting her in the same league as the other 3.

You talk about Gaby's mediocre record against the best of her era but look at Mary's. 2-4 against Graf, 4-5 against Seles (all 4 wins were after the stabbing), 1-4 against Sabatini, 1-5 against Novotna, 6-10 against Hingis (losing 10 of the last 13), 3-6 against Venus, 1-4 against Serena, 2-8 against Lindsay, 1-4 against Capriati. The only two top players she ever had consistent success against were Martinez and ASV, whom she could over power. That's ugly. Gaby meanwhile was 11-29 against Graf (but how many players got 11 wins against peak Steffi?), 11-5 against Capriati, 3-11 against Seles (ouch!), 10-3 over Novotna, 12-11 against ASV, 9-6 against Martinez, 4-1 against Pierce, 3-6 against Evert, 6-15 against Navratilova. Not great, but surely better tha Mary's. Sabatini had a losing record to player's who were clearly sperior to her on the all time list (Seles, Graf, Nav, Evert), but against those around her ranking (martinez, novotna, pierce) and those slightly above (Capriati, ASV) she had very good records. Mary had a bad record against just about everybody.

Because of her second GS win, Mary sits comfortably in the Martinez, Sabatini, Novotna category, players who are otherwise better credentialed, but she does not deserve a higher ranking.

Volcana
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:09 AM
There is a good claim that Gaby makes the list on facts not just on sentiment. It's a tight go between her, Conchita, Jana and Mary. But one of them had to make the list.Did they? There's a three-time GS winner from the men's side not on the list.

For that matter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov won two slams, was #1, won the Olympics and the Davis Cup. That's a pretty good claim to a spot on the list too. How many other multi-GS winning #1's aren't on the list?

spencercarlos
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:13 AM
95% of what you wrote is irrelevant to the case at hand. She's on the list because she was a very entertaining and popular player. Here's what Tennis magazine actually wrote in including Sabatini.
[b]

The word 'Greatest' gives them a lot of leeway. They're no pretending to answer 'who has better career accomplishment?'

Would I rather have 2 GS singles titls, and 16 career titles?
Or 1 GS singles title, and 27 career titles? There are a lot of one-slam wonders, put it that way.[/size]
100% of what you are saying is irrelevant... Probably the way the article was written was a little ridiculous, because its not entertaiment what made Gaby`s game great.
Gaby has 1 GS title and 2 Season ending Championships titles, among many many Tier I wins, which in fact almost match the same number of Mary`s overall Career titles. Head to heads, number GS Semifinals played, consistency at the top ten. In fact lets see how unable was Mary from reaching semis at the Usopen and Wimbledon, while Gaby was semifinalists in all grand slams multiple times, bad luck she never draw Arantxa or Conchita in a grand slam final, she had to suffer from playing Steffi losing twice in three sets (Us88 Wim 91) and winning the Usopen 1990 in straight sets.
Gaby even has a silver medal at the Olympics 1988 in singles (something Volcana puts in the table when talking Arantxa-Venus debate).

Mary in fact was never a contender for the top spot in womens tennis while Gaby had her own case during 1991, bad luck she had because twice she was one match from doing it.

Its not a matter of opinion and being subjective the numbers are there. Mary only tops Gaby when we talk about GS wins, but Gaby tops with the titles, the masters, the head to heads, years at the top 5, even years straight at the top 10, olympic medals, being SF at all GS events 18 times in total vs 3 of Mary, not sure but if you also want to throw doubles, Gaby has more titles as well.
So you implying that Gaby is there because she was a showman is simply BS.

Volcana
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Probably the way the article was written was a little ridiculousThe way the article was written is the best clue we have to their reasoning. So she's only on the list as an entertainer, as opposed to a player. Where's the harm? It's better than giving the spot to Kournikova, even if the reasoning is similar.

Kart
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:31 AM
Would I rather have 2 GS singles titles, and 16 career titles?
Or 1 GS singles title, and 27 career titles?

Well therein lies the difference of opinion which some of us may not agree with you :p.

There is something to be said about winning titles though - what's the point of the accomplishment if people don't remember who you were a few years down the line ?

spencercarlos
Apr 6th, 2005, 01:17 AM
The way the article was written is the best clue we have to their reasoning. So she's only on the list as an entertainer, as opposed to a player. Where's the harm? It's better than giving the spot to Kournikova, even if the reasoning is similar.
Well Volcana i put the numbers on the table if you want to avoid some reasonable discussion with facts and think she is there because she was an entertaining player to watch well then.. live up with that Gaby is there and that is what`s more important to me. Plus im sure she will be inducted to hall of fame of Tennis, sooner or later. Vamos Gaby :kiss:

Volcana
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:23 AM
Well Volcana i put the numbers on the tableI put what tennis magazine wrote on the table. It's their list, I'm going with what they wrote as their reasons. All that other stuff you wrote is just re-hashing an exchange we had in the hall of fame thread. Been there, done that, movin' on.

spencercarlos
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:54 AM
I put what tennis magazine wrote on the table. It's their list, I'm going with what they wrote as their reasons. All that other stuff you wrote is just re-hashing an exchange we had in the hall of fame thread. Been there, done that, movin' on.
Well for me that "entertaining" labeling of Gaby is really stupid as a reason for having her on the list. You can tell me she was an "underachiever", or that she might be remmembered most for what she "could have done" than for what she did...

But not entertaiment, that is plain ridiculous, especially knowing the achievements of a player that had to go through a stage where Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Arantxa Sanchez, were part of, sorry but she did not have it easy either, still managed to win some, and dominate her "own level" rivals like the three players we have talked about in this discussion. :wavey:

tigercub
Apr 6th, 2005, 05:40 AM
Whoa, sorry to kick up a spencercarlos/Volcana fight: my point was, according to Tennis Magazine, they chose Gaby over Novotna as "one of (the last of, at #40) 40 greatest players of the time this magazine has been around." Gabriela Sabatini was important to that magazine; she was on the cover, what, 3 times? Novotna, none? I can't remember...this is such a stupid debate. So if the 'tennis jounalists' see it fit to put Ms. Sabatini on their list but not Ms. Novotna, what does that say about the Hall of Fame?

VeeReeDavJCap81
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:05 AM
I'm curious to know where Seles, Graf, Hingis, and Serena will land. I'm guessing all somewhere in the top 15-20. Well Graf probably will land in the top 10.

Robbie.
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:47 AM
Did they? There's a three-time GS winner from the men's side not on the list.

For that matter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov won two slams, was #1, won the Olympics and the Davis Cup. That's a pretty good claim to a spot on the list too. How many other multi-GS winning #1's aren't on the list?

The relevant point was, that there is a good argument that Gaby is in her right position in the women's list. She is not infront of anyone that she is clearly inferior to in terms of career achievement simply on the basis of "entertainment". I don't care what tennis magazine's reasons were. Sure they might have picked her for that reason, but just on career stats she is not out of her place in relation to the other women who have played the game in the period and their achievements. After the 16 three+ slam winners and Austin who are must includes, there are 4 women with a claim to being the 18th most accomplished female - Sabatini, Pierce, Martinez, Novotna. Who you place 18th is a matter of what you value more. It's a matter of balancing Sabatini's superior singles consistency at the top against the enigma of Pierce, the longevity of Martinez and the singles and doubles prowess of Novotna.

Sure some multiple GS winners on the men's side have missed the cut. Bruguera is another who has 2 slams but doesn't get a mention but at the start of this exercise we actually thought that their would be 20/20 women's and mens, which I thought was the only fair way to do it. That isn't going to be the case. It's going to be 18/22 isn't it? The merging of the women's and men's lists is a difficult task, because they are pretty much two sports with two different histories and different benchmarks for greatness. Prima facie comparisons are useless. At some point you have to ask, well do you include the 23rd, 24th, 25th most accomplished man becauce on a prima facie comparison of achievements with the women they come out on top or do you say well the 18th most accomplished woman deserves her place on the list more than those guys? I'm not going to begrudge the 18th best woman her spot on the list.