PDA

View Full Version : We've Been Over The Weak Generations, What About the STRONG Generations?


CJ07
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:53 PM
I have been a strong critic of the upcoming generation, as I think its an incredibly weak one. Some others have concurred. However, its not fair to call someone weak without defining what is strong. So I ask the question - what is a strong generation, and what makes them a strong generation.

In my opinion, I would point to the class of '99 and '01 as being strong generations.

1999
1. Martina Hingis
2. Lindsay Davenport
*3. Steffi Graf
3. Venus Williams
4. Serena Williams
5. Mary Pierce
6. Monica Seles
7. Nathalie Tauziat
8. Barbara Schett
9. Julie Halard- Decugis
10. Amelie Mauresmo

In 1999, the best of all time was still playing, Steffi Graf, so that makes it a strong generation by default, particularly when you have Hingis (x5), Davenport (x3), Venus (x6), Serena (x8), Pierce (x2), Seles (x9), Mauresmo (x2). Before Steffi's retirement, you had a total of 57 GS wins!

2001
1. Lindsay Davenport
2. Jennifer Capriati
3. Venus Williams
4. Martina Hingis
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Serena Williams
7. Justine Henin
8. Jelena Dokic
9. Amelie Mauresmo
10. Monica Seles

The best of the bunch, IMO. All of these players outside of Dokic got to #1 in the world. THIS in my opinion, constitutes a strong generation.

Honestly, any of these players in their '01 form would be in the Top 5
right now. Especially Lindsay & Venus. Has the tour improved from this? Or are people being overly nostalgic?

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 14th, 2007, 06:56 PM
I have been a strong critic of the upcoming generation, as I think its an incredibly weak one. Some others have concurred. However, its not fair to call someone weak without defining what is strong. So I ask the question - what is a strong generation, and what makes them a strong generation.

In my opinion, I would point to the class of '99 and '01 as being strong generations.

1999
1. Martina Hingis
2. Lindsay Davenport
*3. Steffi Graf
3. Venus Williams
4. Serena Williams
5. Mary Pierce
6. Monica Seles
7. Nathalie Tauziat
8. Barbara Schett
9. Julie Halard- Decugis
10. Amelie MauresmoIn 1999, the best of all time was still playing, Steffi Graf, so that makes it a strong generation by default, particularly when you have Hingis (x5), Davenport (x3), Venus (x6), Serena (x8), Pierce (x2), Seles (x9), Mauresmo (x2). Before Steffi's retirement, you had a total of 57 GS wins!
2001
1. Lindsay Davenport
2. Jennifer Capriati
3. Venus Williams
4. Martina Hingis
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Serena Williams
7. Justine Henin
8. Jelena Dokic
9. Amelie Mauresmo
10. Monica Seles

The best of the bunch, IMO. All of these players outside of Dokic got to #1
in the world. THIS in my opinion, constitutes a strong generation.

Honeslty, any of these players in their '01 form would be in the Top 5
right now. Especially Lindsay & Venus. Has the tour improved from this? Or are people
being overly nostalgic?

Wonderful maths! Never knew in 1999 Serena was 8-time GS champion and Mauresmo and Venus had won a combined 8 Slams :eek:

CJ07
Oct 14th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Wonderful maths! Never knew in 1999 Serena was 8-time GS champion and Mauresmo and Venus had won a combined 8 Slams :eek:
Can you honestly see Chakvetadze or Jankovic winning 6 slams? or even 2 slams? None of them have even made a final! Even if you just want to track accomplishments up until that point, every one of the '99 players outside of Halard and Schett made at least 1 grand slam final. And neither of them really looked like GS champions to begin with - its not like they were a Kournikova who didn't live up to potential.

Chakvetadze only has 1 win over a GS champ for crying out loud.

micah63
Oct 14th, 2007, 07:13 PM
I have been a strong critic of the upcoming generation, as I think its an incredibly weak one. Some others have concurred. However, its not fair to call someone weak without defining what is strong. So I ask the question - what is a strong generation, and what makes them a strong generation.

In my opinion, I would point to the class of '99 and '01 as being strong generations.

1999
1. Martina Hingis
2. Lindsay Davenport
*3. Steffi Graf
3. Venus Williams
4. Serena Williams
5. Mary Pierce
6. Monica Seles
7. Nathalie Tauziat
8. Barbara Schett
9. Julie Halard- Decugis
10. Amelie Mauresmo

In 1999, the best of all time was still playing, Steffi Graf, so that makes it a strong generation by default, particularly when you have Hingis (x5), Davenport (x3), Venus (x6), Serena (x8), Pierce (x2), Seles (x9), Mauresmo (x2). Before Steffi's retirement, you had a total of 57 GS wins!


Although impressive at first sight we have to consider that Graf and Seles were not as good anymore as 3 or 5 years before and that the Williams sisters (esp. Serena) had not matured yet. Had Steffi and Monica still had their peak form Davenport and Hingis would not have won slams in 97-00 and no one would call 1999 a great year. So only the decline of Steffi/Monica enable others to catch up and to make that year a very competitive one.
Just my 2 cents ....

Helen Lawson
Oct 14th, 2007, 07:36 PM
Heaps of dames have won Oscars in depleted and crappy years, but not me! My year, all five nominees were screen superstars-film icons. And it was me they chose. That's called being a legend, folks!

Mephisto
Oct 14th, 2007, 08:02 PM
I don't think that these 2 years were stronger compared to todays situation :shrug:

DimaDinosaur
Oct 14th, 2007, 08:09 PM
Damn, 2001's top ten has everyone reach #1 with the exception of Dokic. That is such hot competition

iPatty
Oct 14th, 2007, 08:18 PM
well when that generation retires, this generation will be there to win slams.
it's common logic.

Slutiana
Oct 14th, 2007, 09:28 PM
well when that generation retires, this generation will be there to win slams.
it's common logic.

yeh its true.

We'll see anyway. The next generation will be something like: (in no particular order)

Golovin
Sharapova
Ivanovic
Jankovic
Vaidisova
Peer
Szavay
A. Radwanska
Wozniaki
U. Radwanska
Bartoli
Zvonereva

and more......(can't remember who :tape:)

micah63
Oct 14th, 2007, 09:58 PM
yeh its true.

We'll see anyway. The next generation will be something like: (in no particular order)

Golovin
Sharapova
Ivanovic
Jankovic
Vaidisova
Peer
Szavay
A. Radwanska
Wozniaki
U. Radwanska
Bartoli
Zvonereva

and more......(can't remember who :tape:)


Well, Justine and the Williams sisters still will be around for some years (2010-12). And they will win most of the slams.
Hopefully then there will be a generation that can take over, maybe led by Paszek? Some players who are 14-16 years old today. Better than those clowns mentioned above (Peer, Bartoli, Zvonareva, my a$$ ..... )

Mephisto
Oct 14th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Damn, 2001's top ten has everyone reach #1 with the exception of Dokic. That is such hot competition

I still refuse to believe that the competition was better in 2001. For example Kim & Justine. In 2001 they had very good results, both reaching an GS SF & F but they weren't able to beat the top players on a consistent basis. In 2001 they were in the same league of players like Ivanovic now ... People on here draw false conclusions. The fact that Kim & Justine reached the Nr.1 and were Slam-Winners later in their careers doesn't mean they were top forces in 2001. Same with Mauresmo, won some titles in 2001 but wasn't able to beat the likes of Davenport, Hingis, Venus etc ... what makes her performance in 2001 different to let's say Jankovic in 2007 ????

CJ07
Oct 14th, 2007, 10:03 PM
I still refuse to believe that the competition was better in 2001. For example Kim & Justine. In 2001 they had very good results, both reaching an GS SF & F but they weren't able to beat the top players on a consistent basis. In 2001 they were in the same league of players like Ivanovic now ... People on here draw false conclusions. The fact that Kim & Justine reached the Nr.1 and were Slam-Winners later in their careers doesn't mean they were top forces in 2001. Same with Mauresmo, won some titles in 2001 but wasn't able to beat the likes of Davenport, Hingis, Venus etc ... what makes her performance in 2001 different to let's say Jankovic in 2007 ????
Because you knew that they would get there eventually. Kim & Justine had everything to win slams in '01. Clijsters was 2 points away, Justine was one set away. The game & talent was there. You simply cannot say the same about a lot of these players now.

Mephisto
Oct 14th, 2007, 10:03 PM
Can you honestly see Chakvetadze or Jankovic winning 6 slams? or even 2 slams? None of them have even made a final! Even if you just want to track accomplishments up until that point, every one of the '99 players outside of Halard and Schett made at least 1 grand slam final. And neither of them really looked like GS champions to begin with - its not like they were a Kournikova who didn't live up to potential.

Chakvetadze only has 1 win over a GS champ for crying out loud.

I think in 2001 noone expected Justine to win 7 Slams ... she was just that little girl with a fantastic backhand but who was easily overpowered by the big hitters on everything except clay ...

Mephisto
Oct 14th, 2007, 10:07 PM
Because you knew that they would get there eventually. Kim & Justine had everything to win slams in '01. Clijsters was 2 points away, Justine was one set away. The game & talent was there. You simply cannot say the same about a lot of these players now.

Back in that days the majority on GM actually believed Hantuchova will have a brighter future than Justine :shrug:

micah63
Oct 14th, 2007, 10:09 PM
Back in that days the majority on GM actually believed Hantuchova will have a brighter future than Justine :shrug:

Well, in 2001 many thought that Andy Roddick would have a better career than this Swiss guy .... ;)

CJ07
Oct 14th, 2007, 10:13 PM
I think in 2001 noone expected Justine to win 7 Slams ... she was just that little girl with a fantastic backhand but who was easily overpowered by the big hitters on everything except clay ...
This is not true, at all. Justine was not losing 1-6 1-6 and then all of a sudden turned it around. The matches were close, she just lost out because she needed some more pop on the ball.

But talent wise, her along with all of the other players of that time period are far in away better than this crop.

Mephisto
Oct 14th, 2007, 10:20 PM
This is not true, at all. Justine was not losing 1-6 1-6 and then all of a sudden turned it around. The matches were close, she just lost out because she needed some more pop on the ball.

But talent wise, her along with all of the other players of that time period are far in away better than this crop.

Exactly the same could be said of Jankovic. She isn't losing 1:6 1:6 to Justine, 6 or 7 of their 8 meetings were pretty close. She just needs that extra thing and a better mental attitude .. Same with Justine in 2001. She was considered the biggest choker along with Mauresmo ;)

CJ07
Oct 14th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Exactly the same could be said of Jankovic. She isn't losing 1:6 1:6 to Justine, 6 or 7 of their 8 meetings were pretty close. She just needs that extra thing and a better mental attitude .. Same with Justine in 2001. She was considered the biggest choker along with Mauresmo ;)
Jankovic isn't nearly as talented as either ;)

Donatello
Oct 14th, 2007, 11:18 PM
I think in 2001 noone expected Justine to win 7 Slams ... she was just that little girl with a fantastic backhand but who was easily overpowered by the big hitters on everything except clay ...

back in '96 I expected her to be a future no.1, but thats besides the point.

In 2001 Henin was already playing amazing tennis, CJ is right, Jankovic Ivanovic Sharapova Vaidisova are all from the same school, they lack individualism and champion mentality.

There is a lack of diversity among these upcoming stars, not to mention they're all from eastern europe

Slutiana
Oct 14th, 2007, 11:26 PM
^agreed.



I may have one of the most biast opinion on WTAWorld but thats why i think tati could be great (not a great) but a slam winner for sure. Shes different as has a different game to any player out there. You can group nearly every new player together and i'd say tati would probably be grouped with radwanska if anyone but i think that Radwanksa is a poor man's golovin.

I believe that golovin has a champions mentality but is just too injury prone and nit diciplined enough. The dicipline hopefully will come with age and help with mats and i just hope she can stay injury free now.

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 14th, 2007, 11:34 PM
Weak, strong... it's all based on personal opinions and preferences. Where are the criteria?

I could've said 2004 Top-10 was the strongest because 8 of 10 (Serena, Venus, Justine, Davenport, Capriati, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Myskina) were Slam champions, another one (Dementieva) was a 2-time GS finalist, and the remaining one (Mauresmo) would win 2 GS in a year. So what? It's a biased opinion and nothing more.

*JR*
Oct 14th, 2007, 11:40 PM
Heaps of dames have won Oscars in depleted and crappy years, but not me! My year, all five nominees were screen superstars-film icons. And it was me they chose. That's called being a legend, folks!
I want to hear a Slam winner react to the cheers in Sally Field motiff, and say in her speech:

You like me. You really like me! :tape:

danieln1
Oct 14th, 2007, 11:50 PM
I like this thread a lot, it just shows how weak some of the current players top 10 players are, they´re lucky because Jennifer, Monica, Davenport, Hingis, Rubin, Myskina, Mary are injured...

Mephisto
Oct 14th, 2007, 11:54 PM
back in '96 I expected her to be a future no.1, but thats besides the point.

In 2001 Henin was already playing amazing tennis, CJ is right, Jankovic Ivanovic Sharapova Vaidisova are all from the same school, they lack individualism and champion mentality.

There is a lack of diversity among these upcoming stars, not to mention they're all from eastern europe

Compare the players you listed with Mauresmo, Henin, Clijsters & Dokic in 2001 ... there isn't a big diffrence in terms of chmapion or mental abilities ... Compare the results and tournament-wins of Jankovic and Ivanovic in 2007 with Henin & Clijsters in 2001. There isn't a big diffrence. Of course Henin & Clijsters are better players for me but in that speficic year they weren't stronger than Jelena & Ana are now ... In 2001-2002 Henin and strong mentality weren't mentioned in one sentence ...

Leo_DFP
Oct 15th, 2007, 12:04 AM
I think the next generation's big winners will include Ivanovic, Cornet, Szavay, the Radwanskas, and maybe Vaidisova and Golovin. But do they compare to the best of the late 90s/early Millenium? It seems like they don't, they don't have the same star qualities and games as Venus/Serena/Davenport/Hingis/Capriati/Clijsters/Henin/Pierce/Seles when they were all on top, but let's give them time and they might surprise.

I think what we have nowadays is greatly improved depth over all, with really quality contenders in the Top 30 who have the weapons to upset the top guns, but perhaps lesser quality at the very top. Still, Henin and the Williams are still around, and they have the ability to produce great matches. I'm really curious to see how they do in their late twenties with Ivanovic, Cornet, Szavay, etc. coming up behind them and arguably more eager.

Leo_DFP
Oct 15th, 2007, 12:08 AM
This is not true, at all. Justine was not losing 1-6 1-6 and then all of a sudden turned it around. The matches were close, she just lost out because she needed some more pop on the ball.

But talent wise, her along with all of the other players of that time period are far in away better than this crop.

Yes, but the thing is we canNOT expect that level of talent from every tennis generation. I mean, the little nation of Belgian with two fabulous athletes and tennis players of the same age coming up at the same time - that's incredible rare. And the Williams sisters from the same household - also incredible rare. Perhaps our expectations are a little too high, and perhaps more importantly we're being too impatient. There are always lulls when there is a transition in the sport. You can at least say that we have now with the Top 10 is better than the mid-90s dominated by Graf with no competition (once Seles was out).

Leo_DFP
Oct 15th, 2007, 12:10 AM
I want to hear a Slam winner react to the cheers in Sally Field motiff, and say in her speech:

You like me. You really like me! :tape:

Sally gets an unjustly bad rap from that. I mean, those particular words never even left her mouth. :p

starin
Oct 15th, 2007, 12:19 AM
Strong generations are generations with really great rivalries. Of which there are zero right now.

Mephisto
Oct 15th, 2007, 12:29 AM
back in '96 I expected her to be a future no.1, but thats besides the point.

In 2001 Henin was already playing amazing tennis, CJ is right, Jankovic Ivanovic Sharapova Vaidisova are all from the same school, they lack individualism and champion mentality.

There is a lack of diversity among these upcoming stars, not to mention they're all from eastern europe

Justine in 2001:

Titles: 3x Tier III Events
Record vs Top Ten: 3-9 (when they actually were in the Top Ten)
GS-Record: 4th-SF-F-4th

Ivanovic in 2007:

Titles: 1x TierI, 2 Tier II
Record vs. Top Ten: 11-4
GS-Record: 3rd-F-SF-4th

Soo judging from the stats Ana plays amazing tennis as well. I'm not takling about talent and who will have the better career but judging from their performance in that speficic year both players are pretty equal ... Ana even seems to bee slightly better ...

IceSkaTennisFan
Oct 15th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Although impressive at first sight we have to consider that Graf and Seles were not as good anymore as 3 or 5 years before and that the Williams sisters (esp. Serena) had not matured yet. Had Steffi and Monica still had their peak form Davenport and Hingis would not have won slams in 97-00 and no one would call 1999 a great year. So only the decline of Steffi/Monica enable others to catch up and to make that year a very competitive one.
Just my 2 cents ....
Even though Graf and Seles were not their best later in their careers, they were still more entertaining to watch and I dare say better than some of young guns of the top 10 these days. Just my two cents :p

homogenius
Oct 15th, 2007, 01:13 AM
I have been a strong critic of the upcoming generation, as I think its an incredibly weak one. Some others have concurred. However, its not fair to call someone weak without defining what is strong. So I ask the question - what is a strong generation, and what makes them a strong generation.

In my opinion, I would point to the class of '99 and '01 as being strong generations.

1999
1. Martina Hingis
2. Lindsay Davenport
*3. Steffi Graf
3. Venus Williams
4. Serena Williams
5. Mary Pierce
6. Monica Seles
7. Nathalie Tauziat
8. Barbara Schett
9. Julie Halard- Decugis
10. Amelie Mauresmo

In 1999, the best of all time was still playing, Steffi Graf, so that makes it a strong generation by default, particularly when you have Hingis (x5), Davenport (x3), Venus (x6), Serena (x8), Pierce (x2), Seles (x9), Mauresmo (x2). Before Steffi's retirement, you had a total of 57 GS wins!

2001
1. Lindsay Davenport
2. Jennifer Capriati
3. Venus Williams
4. Martina Hingis
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Serena Williams
7. Justine Henin
8. Jelena Dokic
9. Amelie Mauresmo
10. Monica Seles

The best of the bunch, IMO. All of these players outside of Dokic got to #1 in the world. THIS in my opinion, constitutes a strong generation.

Honestly, any of these players in their '01 form would be in the Top 5
right now. Especially Lindsay & Venus. Has the tour improved from this? Or are people being overly nostalgic?

In 1999, the 10 players mentionned here (without adding Graf)had a total of 18 slams : Seles (9), Hingis (5), Davenport (2), Serena (1), Pierce (1).Venus, Mauresmo and Tauziat all had one final in slam.Halard best results were 2 qf and Schett had only one.
In 2007, with the probable top10 at the end of the year we have 24 slams : Serena (8), Henin (7), Venus (6), Sharapova (2), Kuzy (1).Dementieva has 2 finals, Ivanovic one final, Jankovic 2 semis,Chakvetadze 1 semi.Then we have either Bartoli (one final)or Hantuchova (3 qf).
I don't see much difference.

Same with 2001 : I think the only who had been n1 at this time were Sles, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati and Venus (not sure at all on this one).Today we have Serena, venus, Henin and Sharapova.

I agree with the poster that the game has improved all these years and overall the field is much deeper in general.About the top players, even if I think there were more great personalities and great games in those years, in terms of results it's pretty even.We can't presume that Jankovic, Ivanovic, Chakvetadze won't win 5 or 6 slams because Henin and the Williams won't win slams eternally and some players will obligatory win some.Too soon to tell about the career of these 3.Even if I think that Clijsters's retirement, Davenport's pregnancy and Mauresmo's surgery let some places in top10, the players who are here deserved their place and had to breakthrough at one time.

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 15th, 2007, 07:16 AM
^agreed.



I may have one of the most biast opinion on WTAWorld but thats why i think tati could be great (not a great) but a slam winner for sure. Shes different as has a different game to any player out there. You can group nearly every new player together and i'd say tati would probably be grouped with radwanska if anyone but i think that Radwanksa is a poor man's golovin.

I believe that golovin has a champions mentality but is just too injury prone and nit diciplined enough. The dicipline hopefully will come with age and help with mats and i just hope she can stay injury free now.

sorry but Golovin does not play like Radwanska. Nor does it make sense to expect someone to win a slam just because their game is different. However, I would like Tati winning a slam as well later in her career if she cleans up / becomes more consistent.

micah63
Oct 15th, 2007, 08:11 AM
Even though Graf and Seles were not their best later in their careers, they were still more entertaining to watch and I dare say better than some of young guns of the top 10 these days. Just my two cents :p

I agree.
I still remember the 98 YEC quarters between Graf and Seles. A great match and a great win for Steffi. Monica got revenge at the AO 99, one of the best Seles matches post-stabbing for sure. And their last one at the FO 99 semis wasn't to shabby either.
Steffi was voted the "Most Exciting Player" by fans in these annual WTA polls in 98 and 99! :angel:

micah63
Oct 15th, 2007, 08:17 AM
In 1999, the 10 players mentionned here (without adding Graf)had a total of 18 slams : Seles (9), Hingis (5), Davenport (2), Serena (1), Pierce (1).Venus, Mauresmo and Tauziat all had one final in slam.Halard best results were 2 qf and Schett had only one.
In 2007, with the probable top10 at the end of the year we have 24 slams : Serena (8), Henin (7), Venus (6), Sharapova (2), Kuzy (1).Dementieva has 2 finals, Ivanovic one final, Jankovic 2 semis,Chakvetadze 1 semi.Then we have either Bartoli (one final)or Hantuchova (3 qf).
I don't see much difference. ....

But you have to add Graf in 1999. She made two slam finals that year.
She retired in August, though, and asked the WTA to be removed from the rankings immediately. Otherwise her accumulated points until that date would have secured her a place among the year-end's top-10 easily.

Kworb
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:44 AM
But you have to add Graf in 1999. She made two slam finals that year.
She retired in August, though, and asked the WTA to be removed from the rankings immediately. Otherwise her accumulated points until that date would have secured her a place among the year-end's top-10 easily.
So the strength of a year depends on the number of legendary players that play a full schedule? The top players now haven't been around that long. They haven't had the time to accumulate Slams. Why does that make them weaker than past generations?

KennyChante4ever
Oct 15th, 2007, 11:57 AM
The teen phenom will return again...someday. I think that's what you miss most. "Live for today". ;)

So Disrespectful
Oct 15th, 2007, 01:29 PM
Back in that days the majority on GM actually believed Hantuchova will have a brighter future than Justine :shrug:

That is because she had the potential, but lost 2-3 years of development to a poor and plain stupid training resume. Basically it caused her to plateau at 70% of her best IMO.

Donatello
Oct 15th, 2007, 03:31 PM
Justine in 2001:

Titles: 3x Tier III Events
Record vs Top Ten: 3-9 (when they actually were in the Top Ten)
GS-Record: 4th-SF-F-4th

Ivanovic in 2007:

Titles: 1x TierI, 2 Tier II
Record vs. Top Ten: 11-4
GS-Record: 3rd-F-SF-4th

Soo judging from the stats Ana plays amazing tennis as well. I'm not takling about talent and who will have the better career but judging from their performance in that speficic year both players are pretty equal ... Ana even seems to bee slightly better ...

this just proves the point the thread starter (or whoever) was making. About this being a weak generation compared to '01.

The top now is weaker which makes it easier to win.

Henin's GS stats are slightly better, even considering the strong entry lists at the time.

However, I'm not all that negative about today's women's tennis, otherwise I wouldnt be around here!:tape: :)

I just wish some South American (or North American) and asian youngsters would climb up the ranks. :sad:

buckyohare
Oct 15th, 2007, 03:36 PM
Strong generations are generations where my favourite players do well.
Weak generations are generations where my most disliked/hated players do well.

micah63
Oct 15th, 2007, 03:55 PM
So the strength of a year depends on the number of legendary players that play a full schedule? The top players now haven't been around that long. They haven't had the time to accumulate Slams. Why does that make them weaker than past generations?

I didn't promote 1999 as being a particularily strong year.
Actually I said in an earlier post that Graf and Seles were way below their former peaks in 1999.