PDA

View Full Version : Who will be remembered as the greater player? Hingis or Sharapova?


Volcana
Jul 12th, 2008, 11:56 PM
Obviously, I'm asking you to project Sharapova's career. But in doing so, it's good to recall Hingis'. Hingis won her LAST slam at age 18. (Only a couple weeks before her 19th birthday, but she was 18 when she won the 1999 US Open.) The 1999 Aus Open. Sharapova's chronic shoulder injury may not end her career, but is she a slam winner if she has an ordinary serve? Tracy Austin is another great player who years as a potential slam winner far exceeded the actual winning. Ditto Lindsay Davenport.


Personally, I think the #1 ranking is bogus, but a lot of people think doubles is irrelevant, and I think it's important. Just state what criteria you're using, and how you think Sharapova's career will go.

Slutati
Jul 12th, 2008, 11:59 PM
Hingis :bounce:

Il Primo!
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:00 AM
I think Maria has at least 3-5 slams left and thus will have bigger achievements than Coketina

Uranium
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:00 AM
Without doubt Martina, she was #1 for years, she won 3 slams in 1 year at the age of 17 and made the French final twice(1999 and 1997) and she won 3 straight AOs, Maria can't even defend any of her slams:o

AcesHigh
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:02 AM
Hingis. It's sad the way her career faded. I also agree with you that Sharapova is going to need that big consistent serve back if she wants any more than 5 slams.

Hingis also actually dominated, something Sharapova has never done.

But we dont know if Sharapova can turn things around and become a dominant force. If that happens,it has to be her, but unless that happens, it will be Hingis by far.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:03 AM
Obviously, I'm asking you to project Sharapova's career. But in doing so, it's good to recall Hingis'. Hingis won her LAST slam at age 18. (Only a couple weeks before her 19th birthday, but she was 18 when she won the 1999 US Open.)

The last Slam Hingis won was Australian Open 1999. She was 18 years 4 months at the moment.
She won US Open in 1997.

Il Primo!
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Oh, and since Kim is considered as a greater player by lots of you -which is scandalous in my eyes- , I don't expect the thread to be in Maria's favor, to say the least :o

young_gunner913
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:05 AM
Martina. 3/4 slams, world number one in singles and doubles (at the same time) and Martina doesn't sound like an owl getting shot when she's hitting the ball.

Lyndle_BE
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:07 AM
Martina...the more talented, versatile and consistent of the two for sure.

Dave.
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:07 AM
Hingis spent a substantial time at no.1 which is a huge achievement. She won a load of titles including every tier 1, reached all slam finals etc. You add in Hingis' doubles achievements which are actually GREATER than her own singles achievements and there's no question. Same with Davenport. Sharapova will have to get to double-digits in slam singles titles and have alot of weeks at no.1, titles, and overall consistency to back it up to even be considered greater.

Lyndle_BE
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:08 AM
Martina. 3 slams, world number one in singles and doubles (at the same time) and Martina doesn't sound like an owl getting shot when she's hitting the ball.

:haha:...Agree

goldenlox
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:08 AM
Right now, Hingis has done a lot more. Maria is 21, so it's up to her to continue her career as strongly as she started it.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:11 AM
Masha will have to win at least two "additional" slams (which means 7 overall) to be considered the greater player.

pierce85
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:12 AM
we should wait till maria's career is over.maria could easily surpass martina's slams.nevertheless they both developped a different way of play.imo martina will be surely remembered as the greater player,regardless to slams,because she posessed a unique technique and her own-court brilliance and tactics are incomparable

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:13 AM
Without doubt Martina, she was #1 for years, she won 3 slams in 1 year at the age of 17And she was done winning slams at age 18. Sharapova has held the level necessary to win slams for three and a half years. Hingis actually only WON slams for two years and two weeks.


My personal opinion is that Hingis will ultimately be remembered as the greater player. But winning slams young has nothing to do with that. Martina Navratilova didn't win a singles slam til age 23. Winning young means nothing. Winning young, and then continuing to win means something. Steffi Graf winning a slam as a teenager meant something. Svetlana Kuznetsova winning a slam as a teenager hasn't meant much.

venus_rulez
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:13 AM
Obviously Hingis, she has some achievements that I can't imagine being broken by anyone in the near future (particularly her being bumber one at 16) but the fact that she won her LAST slam title at 18 is......we're coming up on 10 years since Hingis last won a slam and when you think that her contemporary and biggest rival Venus, just won a slam......it certainly brings more weight to the argument that she won her slams at the right time.

goldenlox
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:14 AM
I kind of agree with that. 'she posessed a unique technique and her own-court brilliance and tactics are incomparable'.
Both Martina and Justine were unique.
Maria is much bigger and plays the Lansdorp big bang game.

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:14 AM
The last Slam Hingis won was Australian Open 1999. She was 18 years 4 months at the moment.
She won US Open in 1997.Oops. My notes said that, but the fingers went renegade.

swissmr
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:16 AM
Maria can't even defend any of her slams:o

And you're basing this on two grand slams... :o

slamchamp
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:17 AM
omg martina's last slam was at 18?:eek: ..she was soo young

Dave.
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:20 AM
And she was done winning slams at age 18. Sharapova has held the level necessary to win slams for three and a half years. Hingis actually only WON slams for two years and two weeks.


My personal opinion is that Hingis will ultimately be remembered as the greater player. But winning slams young has nothing to do with that. Martina Navratilova didn't win a singles slam til age 23. Winning young means nothing. Winning young, and then continuing to win means something. Steffi Graf winning a slam as a teenager meant something. Svetlana Kuznetsova winning a slam as a teenager hasn't meant much.

Winning 3/4 slams in a year is more impressive than winning slams over a longer period of time. Anyway, Hingis had a good 6-year stretch between 97-02 where she was one of the very best players in the world. Just because she didn't win slams in 00-01 doesn't mean she wasen't successful or "past it" in those years.

I agree with your "winning young" point. Doesn't matter what age you do it at. I actually think winning slams past 28 is more impressive than at 16 but it doesn't matter.

xan
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:21 AM
Silly thread.

You might as well have one of Hingis v Serena, or Hingis v Vee.

You can't compare people whose careers are at different stages. Hingis had a period of dominance, which maria hasn't so far had. Hingis also brought a downer on her career with the retirements and drug allegations - as well as with the Paris incidents. If Maria wins a few more slams and maybe an Olympic gold, she should be considered the greater player.

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:25 AM
omg martina's last slam was at 18?:eek: ..she was soo youngYup. She was ranked #1 for years longer than she was actually able to win slams. Yet another indication that the #1 ranking, by itself, means little.


NOTE: Hingis was ranked #1 all the way through 2000, and 2001. Venus won four slams in those two years. Capriati won two. Hingis won none. Clearly, she was not the best player on the tour. So what does the #1 ranking indicate? Sure not who's the best player.

Sorry. That #1 ranking thing is a pet peeve.

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:28 AM
Silly thread.And yet here you are, posting.

You might as well have one of Hingis v Serena, or Hingis v Vee.Bin there, done that.

Apoleb
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:28 AM
What a dumb thread. Let's wait and see what Maria's acheivements will be when she's at the latter stages of her career. Right now, Hingis still has bigger acheivements.

Dave.
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:32 AM
Yup. She was ranked #1 for years longer than she was actually able to win slams. Yet another indication that the #1 ranking, by itself, means little.


NOTE: Hingis was ranked #1 all the way through 2000, and 2001. Venus won four slams in those two years. Capriati won two. Hingis won none. Clearly, she was not the best player on the tour. So what does the #1 ranking indicate? Sure not who's the best player.

Sorry. That #1 ranking thing is a pet peeve.

On form, Hingis was not the best player in those 2 years. But she had near-perfect consistency at most tournaments and constantly was able to repeat good performances at tournaments weekly, which is what pro tennis players are meant to do. At Grand Slams, anyone can get hot for 2 weeks. Nobody reaches the no.1 ranking by accident. If somebody that holds 2 slams STILL can't topple the no.1 player then they don't deserve it.

Anyway, Capriati did manage to topple Hingis in October 2001.

Apoleb
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:37 AM
On form, Hingis was not the best player in those 2 years. But she had near-perfect consistency at most tournaments and constantly was able to repeat good performances at tournaments weekly, which is what pro tennis players are meant to do. At Grand Slams, anyone can get hot for 2 weeks. Nobody reaches the no.1 ranking by accident. If somebody that holds 2 slams STILL can't topple the no.1 player then they don't deserve it.

Anyway, Capriati did manage to topple Hingis in October 2001.

Consistency is underrated in tennis. But anyway you're right. Someone holding the #1 position without winning any slams for a long period of time isn't necessarily evidence for bad ranking system. Pulling excellent consistent results on all surfaces and across the year isn't an easy task, and arguably the player pulling it out is a more deserving #1 player than an other who can only perform in 2 or 4 weeks a year.

LudwigDvorak
Jul 13th, 2008, 12:38 AM
Dementieva.

Sharapova, I mean.

mal
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:11 AM
Consistency is underrated in tennis. But anyway you're right. Someone holding the #1 position without winning any slams for a long period of time isn't necessarily evidence for bad ranking system. Pulling excellent consistent results on all surfaces and across the year isn't an easy task, and arguably the player pulling it out is a more deserving #1 player than an other who can only perform in 2 or 4 weeks a year.

Sharapova will probably go on to be a better player than Venus, and there are only three big hitters playing now. It all depends on how accurately she plays the ball, whether Venus stays in teh game winning for four or so more seasons, and whether Serena decides she wants to fight to stay at the top.

If Sharapova can get over her medical problems, and why the hell would anyone believe a doctor who tells you a bone spur can grow back once it has been surgically removed, or why would someone still go to that doctor once the evidence of quackery was in front of you, I don't really know. Fingers don't grow back, ask any doctor. the only way that can happen is a miracle, and a miracle illness is the opposite of a medical cure. All that quack is doing is using a patient to keep earning big fees. Forget the cu*t.

RAVE over.
If Sharapova can start to be a bit more positive about her game she is going to be happier about winning. I mean stop being negative about other players and rubbishing them. She seems to feel that if she isn't tough on them they will suddenly get a lot better and beat her. You know, what she says about them will not change their game one iota. Her being down and negative about other players, not only preoccupies her time and thoughts, (if she is and does, we don't know for sure), it makes her chi sour. She should probably keep a little bit of distance from them so she doesn't start to like them too much as people, but this may be difficult for her, when a lot of them will be close friends.
A good psychologist (industrial) will use positive comments, not tinged with a negative tone, to tell her what goals she must meet, who she must beat and where to achieve those goals. The opposition knowing that will fight harder in those matches, but if she is well prepared, she has a good chance of winning. That is all there is to it. You cannot cry for the past or what you have lost or what might have been. There is no point, it is self pity, and you had your chance but blew it, so don't look back.

Having said that, Hingis is a good player with plenty of years ahead of her too. Don't waste breath with lies, saying what you know is untrue or true in a "clever" way. It isn't clever, just dumb. Sharapova is a multi multi millionaire, she should start acting like one, for the benefit of other (black) women, if not for herself.

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:21 AM
What a dumb thread.Which you posted in not once but twice. Your life is, I gather, rather thrilling, given you spend your time posting in threads you yourself consider 'dumb'.Winning 3/4 slams in a year is more impressive than winning slams over a longer period of time.It's a more impressive year. But is it a more impressive career?


Usually, a long period where you win slams equates to large number of slams. First column is years 1st slam to last slam, number in brackets is total slams.

16 [19] Helen Wills Moody 1923-1938
15 [18] Chris Evert Lloyd 1974-1986
15 [06] Nancye Wynne Bolton 1937-1951
14 [24] Margaret Smith Court 1960-1973
13 [18] Martina Navratilova 1978-1990
13 [22] Steffi Graf 1987-1999
12 [08] Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 1915-1926
10 [07] Evonne Goolagong 1971-1980
10 [12] Billie Jean King 1966-1975
10 [04] Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 1989-1998
08 [08] Suzanne Lenglen 1919-1926
08 [07] Maria Bueno 1959-1966
08 [04] Hana Mandlikova 1980-1987
04 [09] Maureen Connolly 1951-1954
07 [09] Monica Seles 1990-1996
05 [05] Alice Marble 1936-1940
03 [05] Martina Hingis 1997-1999

Malva
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:40 AM
Hingis will be remembered as a way better player, because she was, even though I never had any warmer feelings for her.

With Maria it is the opposite -- I liked her right from the beginning but never was able to appreciate her game -- ugly, one-dimensional, ... and tremendously effective.

Utautai
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Both won Wimbledon at 16? :worship:

I will remember Hingis for her pretty counter punching all-court game and diabolical drop shots.

I will remember Sharapova for her big hitting and her sea-gullish shrieks.

:p

austennis
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:43 AM
Obviously Hingis, she has some achievements that I can't imagine being broken by anyone in the near future (particularly her being bumber one at 16) but the fact that she won her LAST slam title at 18 is......we're coming up on 10 years since Hingis last won a slam and when you think that her contemporary and biggest rival Venus, just won a slam......it certainly brings more weight to the argument that she won her slams at the right time.

VENUS ???? Y do u bring Venus in2 it JEFF!!! :P
but shock horror and thx for the Hingis loving..am truly shocked
Anyway- Hingis will b remembered as the greater player because she was a dominant force on all surfaces and across all aspects of the game

ASP0315
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:47 AM
Hingis by a landslide.

Maria might only be remembered in some places after she retires.
But Hingis is going to be remembered as the greatest player evywhere around the globe. ;)

tennisbum79
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:50 AM
Sharapova still has many years ahead of her.
But for now, definitely Hingis, despite the latest blemish on her record.

swissmr
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:51 AM
Both won Wimbledon at 16? :worship:

No, Maria was 17.


I will remember Hingis for her pretty counter punching all-court game and diabolical drop shots.



Please be joking. Hingis had one of the best dropshots ever.

Geisha
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:52 AM
Both won Wimbledon at 16? :worship:

I will remember Hingis for her pretty counter punching all-court game and diabolical drop shots.

I will remember Sharapova for her big hitting and her sea-gullish shrieks.

:p

Sharapova was 17. Hingis was 16. Hingis won the Doubles title at 15! :worship:

Serenidad.
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:56 AM
Forever, BITCHTINA.

sammy01
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:56 AM
wtf these threads are so dumb, how can you predict sharapovas carrer? did any of you predict hingis would retire at such a young age, then come back, then get done for coke.

anything can happen as it stands hingis is head and shoulders above maria in everything bar height.

i'd rather compare them when there both done with tennis!

Geisha
Jul 13th, 2008, 01:57 AM
I do agree that winning Grand Slams over a long period is a terrific feat, especially if the period is over seven or eight years (or more). But, I don't think Sharapova has been winning for long enough for that to be much of a factor. Sharapova will probably reach Hingis' number of singles Grand Slams, and she probably won't win the French Open. On that count, these two are very similar. But, Hingis, whether you like it or not, was an all-court player. She won countless titles on hard, clay, carpet, grass, indoor, outdoor, doubles, mixed, whichever way you want to cut it. She will be remembered as the greater player in that aspect, but also with her superhuman consistency. Starting with the 1996 US Open, Hingis reached eleven consecutive Grand Slam SFs! Now, Sharapova had a great run like this a couple years ago, but her consistency on the big stages has fallen, which leads me to believe that she may not have as great of a career as many were inclined to believe. Finally, Hingis will always have a better career in doubles. She won the Grand Slam in 1998, and won five straight at one point in her career. Add that mixed major and Hingis is the greater player by a long shot.

AcesHigh
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:06 AM
The better question is what point Sharapova's career is at. Wimbledon was predicted by many to be hers. However, over the last 4 slams, she's lost in 3 of them to players she used to crush(no offense to Safina). If we include all the slams since her win in 2006, she was crushed the 3 previous times to the slams I mentioned(6-1 6-3 Venus, 6-2 6-1 Ana, 6-1 6-2 Serena).

This thread would be completely ridiculous if Sharapova were on an upswing or in a minor slump and not what appears to be a serious funk. Of course she's very young and she can obviously recover. However, years ago, she was losing in SF and QF only to polished veterans.. the Kim's, Justine's, Venus's and Serena's. We all thought that once these players were gone, Sharapova would dominate. Yet, she's now losing to players her age and younger. This probably isn't a great thread, but I think we need to reexamine our expectations and not act like it's guaranteed that Maria will end up with 7-10 slams.

And if Capriati v. Sharapova and Clijsters v. Sharapova threads are fine, I dont see why Hingis vs. Sharapova is all that objectionable

Kworb
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:10 AM
I think Sharapova. People tend to remember scandal rather than success so in ten years Hingis will be the "child prodigy who succumbed to her coke addiction" and Sharapova the "shrieking Russian who won many Slams".

sammy01
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:14 AM
The better question is what point Sharapova's career is at. Wimbledon was predicted by many to be hers. However, over the last 4 slams, she's lost in 3 of them to players she used to crush(no offense to Safina). If we include all the slams since her win in 2006, she was crushed the 3 previous times to the slams I mentioned(6-1 6-3 Venus, 6-2 6-1 Ana, 6-1 6-2 Serena).

This thread would be completely ridiculous if Sharapova were on an upswing or in a minor slump and not what appears to be a serious funk. Of course she's very young and she can obviously recover. However, years ago, she was losing in SF and QF only to polished veterans.. the Kim's, Justine's, Venus's and Serena's. We all thought that once these players were gone, Sharapova would dominate. Yet, she's now losing to players her age and younger. This probably isn't a great thread, but I think we need to reexamine our expectations and not act like it's guaranteed that Maria will end up with 7-10 slams.

And if Capriati v. Sharapova and Clijsters v. Sharapova threads are fine, I dont see why Hingis vs. Sharapova is all that objectionable

i agree with you bar the last bit, these threads realy are a waste of space. i can understand comparing 2 retired players or even 2 players at the same point in their respective carrers, but random comparissons between players who are at different stages or 1 retired are stupid realy and are never going to be anything bar guess work as 1 players stats are yet to be finished.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:17 AM
Hingis will be remember as greater because of her well rounded play and also doubles success.

Utautai
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:25 AM
No, Maria was 17.



Please be joking. Hingis had one of the best dropshots ever.
I was. I was. ;) Inside joke with one of me mates :o

Sharapova was 17. Hingis was 16. Hingis won the Doubles title at 15! :worship:

I didn't watch her win with Sukova. :sad:
I do remember her Doubles Slam in '98 and her wins with Kournikova! :hearts:

Apoleb
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:36 AM
And if Capriati v. Sharapova and Clijsters v. Sharapova threads are fine, I dont see why Hingis vs. Sharapova is all that objectionable

Because in those cases the thread starters don't ask us to predict Maria's career and then try to compare seing that Maria's current acheivements are pretty close to Capriati's and Clijster's. Comparing Hingis and Maria's acheivements after we've made some assumptions about the 6/7 years Maria will be staying on tour is certified idiocy. But hell, it's wtaworld. Hardly anything is surprising anymore.

Expat
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:39 AM
martina beautiful tennis to watch but ineffective against power players
maria "ugly" (from purist standpoint) tennis but highly effective
at this point martina has better results but i expect maria to have more slams than her

mal
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:48 AM
I'd forgotten about Margaret Court.

mal
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:56 AM
na).

This thread would be completely ridiculous if Sharapova were on an upswing or in a minor slump and not what appears to be a serious funk. Of course she's very young and she can obviously recover. However, years ago, she was losing in SF and QF only to polished veterans.. the Kim's, Justine's, Venus's and Serena's. We all thought that once these players were gone, Sharapova would dominate. Yet, she's now losing to players her age and younger.


I think she may be tired.
It may sound dumb, but she should get on an aircraft and get to the game two or three days before she starts to play. Talk to the other players, meet with her coach, and get some practice in but don't show up the day before and expect to just take it on a plate.

AcesHigh
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:00 AM
I think she may be tired.
It may sound dumb, but she should get on an aircraft and get to the game two or three days before she starts to play. Talk to the other players, meet with her coach, and get some practice in but don't show up the day before and expect to just take it on a plate.

Tired for two years? I think that's a stretch. She probably needs to take a break, do some extensive work on that serve and relax before she burns out.

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:01 AM
Weeks at #1 isn't a bogus, she was the more consistent player than any other player.

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:02 AM
martina beautiful tennis to watch but ineffective against power players
maria "ugly" (from purist standpoint) tennis but highly effective
at this point martina has better results but i expect maria to have more slams than her

I hate when people say this. Have you watched Martina 1999-2001? She was still beating the power players. Plus look at Maria vs. Serena she gets her ass whooped.

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:03 AM
wtf these threads are so dumb, how can you predict sharapovas carrer? did any of you predict hingis would retire at such a young age, then come back, then get done for coke.

anything can happen as it stands hingis is head and shoulders above maria in everything bar height.

i'd rather compare them when there both done with tennis!I can understand why someone who thought the thread was a good idea would post. I cannot, for the life of me, understand people who waste their time writing that a thread was 'dumb'. Why waste your life? I just skip dumb threads.


I mean, seriously, if you think a thread is a bad idea, and you post anyway, isn't that a reflection on you? You think the thread is dumb, but you don't actually have a life, so you respond to it. Ouch.

kiwifan
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:07 AM
Hingis by a large margin.

Also no matter how short it was Hingis had, "an era" where she was "Da Top Girl" no questions asked. Maria has never been and probably won't ever be "Da Girl" on the WTA tour.

Ironically if Maria wins the French, she gets herself into the conversation; especially if she's won them all and has as many slams as Hingis...

...so Hingis by a mile right now but Maria is still running so she has plenty of time to make up that mile.

mal
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:10 AM
Tired for two years? I think that's a stretch. She probably needs to take a break, do some extensive work on that serve and relax before she burns out.

WTF do you mean "work" on that serve?
What do you mean burns out?
She had a couple of breaks this year already.
Personally I think she over trains, but it has worked for her in the past, and if she can cope with it fine.
Seriously, you don't have to worry about a day between training to recover before you are well into your 30's. More likely 40's. Young bodies recover fast with a good night's sleep. If she isn't sleeping, (8-11 hrs) but having sex all night with her girlfriends than she should decide which she wants more, tennis or actresses. I'm sure her actress friend can afford to support her. :tape: :lol:
She has been practicing her serve all her life, and now they are saying she doesn't even have a serve? you know people talk a lot of crap on this site and meaningless generalities are just one example. You may know what you mean but I don't have a clue what you think she should do to fix the problem she has with her serve.

My guess is that she just didn't want to do the photo shoot, and so is showing the WTA that their tournament is going to be a disaster without her and one or two other top players.

sammy01
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:11 AM
I can understand why someone who thought the thread was a good idea would post. I cannot, for the life of me, understand people who waste their time writing that a thread was 'dumb'. Why waste your life? I just skip dumb threads.


I mean, seriously, if you think a thread is a bad idea, and you post anyway, isn't that a reflection on you? You think the thread is dumb, but you don't actually have a life, so you respond to it. Ouch.

wow you have picked the most tedious argument!
right so people should only comment about things they like and never give a constructive negative view :rolleyes:, the idea of guessing what sharapovas achievements will be is stupid, i am giving my opinion on it, if i've gone to the effort of reading the thread it isn't gonna take much more to post in it.

talk about having a life, you spend your time moaning about me posting that a thread is a bad idea, ouch you must realy be bored or have nothing better to do! :tape::help:

Apoleb
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:14 AM
wow you have picked the most tedious argument!
right so people should only comment about things they like and never give a constructive negative view :rolleyes:, the idea of guessing what sharapovas achievements will be is stupid, i am giving my opinion on it, if i've gone to the effort of reading the thread it isn't gonna take much more to post in it.

talk about having a life, you spend your time moaning about me posting that a thread is a bad idea, ouch you must realy be bored or have nothing better to do! :tape::help:

PWNED.

Nicolás89
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:25 AM
Hard question, I simply don't know.
Although whenever a young girl wins a slam Martina's name will be recall, I think Martina will be the most remembered of these two.

tennisbear7
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:32 AM
Martina will be remembered for having the most extraordinary capabilities.

Maria will have more singles slams.

Tennisstar86
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:34 AM
Martina.... yawn... Maria doesnt play doubles... You cant discount them just because your fav doesnt play them....

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:37 AM
wow you have picked the most tedious argument!
right so people should only comment about things they like and never give a constructive negative view :rolleyes:, the idea of guessing what sharapovas achievements will be is stupid, i am giving my opinion on it, if i've gone to the effort of reading the thread it isn't gonna take much more to post in it.

talk about having a life, you spend your time moaning about me posting that a thread is a bad idea, ouch you must realy be bored or have nothing better to do! :tape::help:

:lol:

Nice post :angel:

Tennisstar86
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:42 AM
Weeks at #1 isn't a bogus, she was the more consistent player than any other player.

Hingis ended 2000 #1... its a bit bogus....I mean noone was afraid of her #1 ranking in 2000/01 and noone saw her as the best player on tour... much like noone considers Ivanovic as THE "best" girl out there and the #1...as was shown when she was wiped off the court at Wimbledon.

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:44 AM
Anyways looking into the future when a small player who doesn't possess the most power and thinks smart on the court people will say "oh they play a lot like Hingis!"

I doubt the same would be said about Sharapova when someone is tall and possesses big groundstrokes :p If anything they'd refer to Davenport rather than Sharapova still.

louisa.
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:46 AM
Martina. she did things that no one else could. and she showed that power isn't everything, that you can win if you had the smarts and the precision.

Geisha
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:51 AM
Hingis ended 2000 #1... its a bit bogus....I mean noone was afraid of her #1 ranking in 2000/01 and noone saw her as the best player on tour... much like noone considers Ivanovic as THE "best" girl out there and the #1...as was shown when she was wiped off the court at Wimbledon.

Ivanovic would have been number one regardless of the result in the French Open final. If she lost that, it would be totally different. Ivanovic has won a couple titles here and there this year and last. Hingis, in 2000, won nine titles - WTA Championships, Zurich, Moscow, Montreal, Miami, and Tokyo...being six right off the top of my head, that were Tier Is!

Nicolás89
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:53 AM
Anyways looking into the future when a small player who doesn't possess the most power and thinks smart on the court people will say "oh they play a lot like Hingis!"

I doubt the same would be said about Sharapova when someone is tall and possesses big groundstrokes :p If anything they'd refer to Davenport rather than Sharapova still.

When a good looking blonde with powerful lungs plays big, they will surely remember Maria.

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:55 AM
Hingis ended 2000 #1... its a bit bogus....I mean noone was afraid of her #1 ranking in 2000/01 and noone saw her as the best player on tour... much like noone considers Ivanovic as THE "best" girl out there and the #1...as was shown when she was wiped off the court at Wimbledon.

Oh god you're comparing Hingis to Ivanovic right now? You really don't know what you're talking about. The only reason Ivanovic is #1 right now is because Henin retired prematurely and asked to be taken off the rankings list. Hingis was #1 in 2000-2001 because again, she was the most consistent player on the tour. There's no one that can step on the court and say "oh I'll wipe her off the court." In 2000 she lost to the eventual winner in all grand slams, and 2001 she had a great start until she injured her foot. From 1997-2002 every year she would be in at least 1 Grand slam final. She is a household name when she played, next to Kournikova Davenport and the Williams but I can't say the same to Ivanovic and Jankovic.

¤CharlDa¤
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:57 AM
I think its a fair bet to say Hingis right now. But I think if anyone can dominate women`s tennis after the retirements of vee and ree (just thinking bout it makes me cry) it is Maria. Her AO performance was just brutal.

I think Maria will end up with more GS than Hingis. I also think Hingis had a game that was more *suitable* for a long-time domination ranking-wise. She was just so consistent in her results, even without winning Grand Slams she would manage to comfortably be number one. As for doubles, I think people probably wont see it as relevant if Maria has like 8 slams and Hingis has what, 5? Its all going to be about longevity too. Maria has a clear shot as being a force for longer than Hingis. Its going to be quite interesting really.

Ill personnally consider Maria as a greater player probably, but thats my own hated bias against Martina.

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 03:57 AM
When a good looking blonde with powerful lumgs plays big, they will surely remember Maria.

Ummm I suppose when someone looks and sounds like Maria they will say that. But I doubt people will be comparing her to players that hit big in the future. Most likely they'll be comparing it to the Williams.

AcesHigh
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:15 AM
I think its a fair bet to say Hingis right now. But I think if anyone can dominate women`s tennis after the retirements of vee and ree (just thinking bout it makes me cry) it is Maria. Her AO performance was just brutal.

I think Maria will end up with more GS than Hingis. I also think Hingis had a game that was more *suitable* for a long-time domination ranking-wise. She was just so consistent in her results, even without winning Grand Slams she would manage to comfortably be number one. As for doubles, I think people probably wont see it as relevant if Maria has like 8 slams and Hingis has what, 5? Its all going to be about longevity too. Maria has a clear shot as being a force for longer than Hingis. Its going to be quite interesting really.

Ill personnally consider Maria as a greater player probably, but thats my own hated bias against Martina.

Even at her best Maria never dominated and her slam results are getting worse. She's at a pace now winning a GS every two years. She only needs two more for 5, but how many will she get to? She definitely needs to step it up if she wants to pass Martina.

Expat
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:15 AM
I hate when people say this. Have you watched Martina 1999-2001? She was still beating the power players. Plus look at Maria vs. Serena she gets her ass whooped.

watch the 2000 uso sf again
as well as martina played that match
it was all a matter of venus cutting down her unforced errors during the 3rd set to win the match by overpowering hingis

her consistency got her very far and her tactical game was much better than the power players
but tactics can only take you so far

look at henin till she bulked up and started treating the second serve as a first serve she wasnt very successful against the power players

friendsita
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:21 AM
Martina

AcesHigh
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:22 AM
watch the 2000 uso sf again
as well as martina played that match
it was all a matter of venus cutting down her unforced errors during the 3rd set to win the match by overpowering hingis

her consistency got her very far and her tactical game was much better than the power players
but tactics can only take you so far

look at henin till she bulked up and started treating the second serve as a first serve she wasnt very successful against the power players

Hingis went toe-to-toe with the players of her time. Power tennis is often inconsistent and consistency is a weapon. And I really dont get that last line about Henin.

Nicolás89
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:26 AM
watch the 2000 uso sf again
as well as martina played that match
it was all a matter of venus cutting down her unforced errors during the 3rd set to win the match by overpowering hingis


Or maybe Venus was just playing the best tennis of her career that summer with a 24 winning streak before that semifinal.

Anyway, Martina was two points away from beating Venus in the third set and if you see that semifinal again you'll see that Venus cutted her unforced errors down way before the third set. Although Venus did overpowered Martina in that match, she always did that against her.

mal
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:36 AM
talk about having a life, you spend your time moaning about me posting that a thread is a bad idea, ouch you must realy be bored or have nothing better to do! :tape::help:

bored, shmored.
You have to analyze what you mean by having an argument. Do you mean arguing for the sake of it? No? If I say, or defending an opinion, you may say neither, and I will say I didn't mean to say you were wrong when you said Hinghis and I said Sharapova, or vice versa.

Let me give you an example. I say, I have a property worth $400,000 for the sake of argument, and you say to me you have cash worth $100,000. I say, lend me $20,000 and I will give you a mortgage over my property, and pay you $5,000 interest per year instead of $2,000.
You say, no you don't want to lend me any. I say, what's the matter, don't you have the money. You say, yes you have it, but just don't think I should borrow it, I should earn it. I say, my property is earning 20% currently, which is $100,000 a year. You say, fine, why don't you sell your property. I say I don't want to, I want to live in it, pay $100 per week rent, and borrow the money. So you see we are slowly working our way through all the possible options, which is your right to choose to do or not do what you want. yOU HAVE A CHOICE.
So I say, I have a friend who is being raped, and my money (which you are lending me will stop it). You say, how do I know that is true. I say, I don't it is hypothetical, but what I believe. I tell you I have a measured I.Q. of over 150, and yours is unknown to me, but at least I know I am smarter than the average student. So you tell me I am telling you you are dumb, and as such have decided not to lend me the money.
I say, look at it as a purely business decision, one in which you cannot loose. You have a secured property you can sell if you want to. You have spare cash in case you don't want to sell it in case the deal goes wrong. The fact is you are coming up with every excuse you can for refusing to assist me, and you don't need to know that I got you the $100,000 in the first place. Do I think you are being ungrateful, pedantic or just silly? No I make no judgments about your actions, but I wonder what process you are using to say you are reasoning correctly.

The reason I use money and maths in the argument is because they are things we can quantify, moving from one place to another as values. You are entitled to your opinion, but if your whole argument is that you refuse to be told that you are ever wrong, then I think you have to question your own ability and start questioning who you trust for good advice. Who is going to say no to free money?

EDIT
I'm a tough bugger. My father went to war at about 22 or 23 or something, armed with a 303 and a bayonet. He thought it would be over by Christmas, (say it was july) and it soon turned out that surviving one day was hard. it was crawling through sand in the western desert. It was 1 on 1 man to man bayonet practice, and he survived two 'platoons? companies? being cut from about 20 to 2 or 3 (or something like that. Imagine fighting for your life against a man doing the same with a bayonet, time after time after time? The odds must be against you at some stage, but he survived and I am here. He wasn't the softest man to grow up under, I can tell you he was quiet, but he meant what he said, and was honest.

Expat
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:54 AM
Hingis went toe-to-toe with the players of her time. Power tennis is often inconsistent and consistency is a weapon. And I really dont get that last line about Henin.
henin changed her serving style to basically sacrifice a safe second serve
i.e. going for broke with her second serve and did not slow down the pace of her second serve risking double faults just to compete with taller players who had really strong serves that she could not generate due to her small frame

tennisbear7
Jul 13th, 2008, 05:10 AM
henin changed her serving style to basically sacrifice a safe second serve
i.e. going for broke with her second serve and did not slow down the pace of her second serve risking double faults just to compete with taller players who had really strong serves that she could not generate due to her small frame

No, Henin didn't go for broke on her second serve. If she did, she would have made 10+ double faults each match. But she made probably 4-5 each match on average. She did serve a quick second serve, but it had plenty of slice on it.

Max565
Jul 13th, 2008, 06:08 AM
Hingis.., :)

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 06:23 AM
watch the 2000 uso sf again
as well as martina played that match
it was all a matter of venus cutting down her unforced errors during the 3rd set to win the match by overpowering hingis

her consistency got her very far and her tactical game was much better than the power players
but tactics can only take you so far

look at henin till she bulked up and started treating the second serve as a first serve she wasnt very successful against the power players

I have that DVD at home. We all know Williams are good when they're on, but it's rare they spend the entire match hitting incredible winners without errors. That's where Hingis was great, she capitalized and would take advantage when they started going off. Rarely do I see other players take advantage of that when the Williams start spraying some errors. Taking advantage as in keeping the ball in play, and forcing the Williams to hit that 1 extra shot. Go watch the 2000 QF between Venus and Hingis, it was the same. Venus actually started cramping in that match but was able to close it out.

Players know that they have to be on top of their game to beat Hingis, cause she sure ain't gonna beat herself like some players do today. And from now on, when players play smart the name Hingis will be brought up :angel:

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2008, 06:25 AM
No, Henin didn't go for broke on her second serve. If she did, she would have made 10+ double faults each match. But she made probably 4-5 each match on average. She did serve a quick second serve, but it had plenty of slice on it.

Henin did bulk up her second serve. But anyway I think the main reason Henin became better was because she bulked up her forehand (by a lot) and her backhand was already a great signature shot that won her plenty of free points.

sammy01
Jul 13th, 2008, 09:28 AM
bored, shmored.
You have to analyze what you mean by having an argument. Do you mean arguing for the sake of it? No? If I say, or defending an opinion, you may say neither, and I will say I didn't mean to say you were wrong when you said Hinghis and I said Sharapova, or vice versa.

Let me give you an example. I say, I have a property worth $400,000 for the sake of argument, and you say to me you have cash worth $100,000. I say, lend me $20,000 and I will give you a mortgage over my property, and pay you $5,000 interest per year instead of $2,000.
You say, no you don't want to lend me any. I say, what's the matter, don't you have the money. You say, yes you have it, but just don't think I should borrow it, I should earn it. I say, my property is earning 20% currently, which is $100,000 a year. You say, fine, why don't you sell your property. I say I don't want to, I want to live in it, pay $100 per week rent, and borrow the money. So you see we are slowly working our way through all the possible options, which is your right to choose to do or not do what you want. yOU HAVE A CHOICE.
So I say, I have a friend who is being raped, and my money (which you are lending me will stop it). You say, how do I know that is true. I say, I don't it is hypothetical, but what I believe. I tell you I have a measured I.Q. of over 150, and yours is unknown to me, but at least I know I am smarter than the average student. So you tell me I am telling you you are dumb, and as such have decided not to lend me the money.
I say, look at it as a purely business decision, one in which you cannot loose. You have a secured property you can sell if you want to. You have spare cash in case you don't want to sell it in case the deal goes wrong. The fact is you are coming up with every excuse you can for refusing to assist me, and you don't need to know that I got you the $100,000 in the first place. Do I think you are being ungrateful, pedantic or just silly? No I make no judgments about your actions, but I wonder what process you are using to say you are reasoning correctly.

The reason I use money and maths in the argument is because they are things we can quantify, moving from one place to another as values. You are entitled to your opinion, but if your whole argument is that you refuse to be told that you are ever wrong, then I think you have to question your own ability and start questioning who you trust for good advice. Who is going to say no to free money?

EDIT
I'm a tough bugger. My father went to war at about 22 or 23 or something, armed with a 303 and a bayonet. He thought it would be over by Christmas, (say it was july) and it soon turned out that surviving one day was hard. it was crawling through sand in the western desert. It was 1 on 1 man to man bayonet practice, and he survived two 'platoons? companies? being cut from about 20 to 2 or 3 (or something like that. Imagine fighting for your life against a man doing the same with a bayonet, time after time after time? The odds must be against you at some stage, but he survived and I am here. He wasn't the softest man to grow up under, I can tell you he was quiet, but he meant what he said, and was honest.

what a load of shit, i dont like being told im sad and have no life for having an opinion on something because its not a positive opinion, thats what volcano said i was. reread what the poster said and reread my response, i justified my reason for posting and retorted my being sad by saying the original poster must be just as sad for trying to pull me up on being supposedly sad.

please get your facts straight before spouting a page full of crap!

mal
Jul 13th, 2008, 09:43 AM
wow you have picked the most tedious argument!
right so people should only comment about things they like and never give a constructive negative view :rolleyes:, the idea of guessing what sharapovas achievements will be is stupid, i am giving my opinion on it, if i've gone to the effort of reading the thread it isn't gonna take much more to post in it.

talk about having a life, you spend your time moaning about me posting that a thread is a bad idea, ouch you must realy be bored or have nothing better to do! :tape::help:

Well I don't think it is stupid if it is based on something?
Is this Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or general Monty and the sad waste of time that was WWII? :tape: :tape: :tape: :tape:...
You are not supposed to know what caused the war to start, but you are supposed to make a logical contribution when you state your opinion. That's all I'm saying.

People are always placing a bet on what they think the result will be, it started with Bun Hur, and I think a few will be upset with Sharapova, but that is their money.

I'm upset with her for a different more serious reason, and I don't blame you for not knowing what that is, but I need $$$, so I'm not going to bet on her again, even if I think she's better than almost everyone, except Lindsay and Venus, serena included. Serena showed she's vulnerable just last week.

shaktincredible
Jul 13th, 2008, 02:51 PM
well i do really love both hingis and sharapova.

so far hingis is the greater player than sharapova.
but i'm pretty sure,people will remember sharapova rather than hingis in the next ten years.

also,sharapova still has great chances to winning more slams in years.

doma221
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:03 PM
i think sharapova is well known even amoung the people that aren't very much interested in tennis so maybe that's why she'll be remembered rather than hingis ...
for me personally hingis is the greater player but i must admit i've always been a big fan of her;)

CherryBakewell
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Hingis - more range as a player, imho, though it's unfortunate the way she went out might overshadow all she achieved. However, I'd agree Sharapova'll probably be remembered more by those outside tennis.

AnomyBC
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:20 PM
I'm surprised that it seems like the overwhelming majority of people are saying Hingis. I would have thought most people would have said Sharapova, which is what I definitely believe. I was a big fan of Hingis, but her career after 1997 was pretty disappointing. How do you almost win a Grand Slam one year and then only win 2 more majors in the whole rest of your career? I mean, 5 majors is great, but she should have won more than that. Anyway, here's my breakdown of who will be considered the better player based on the number of major titles Sharapova wins:

Sharapova wins 3 majors = Hingis was better
Sharapova wins 4 majors = Hingis was better
Sharapova wins 5 majors = Hingis was better (based on her doubles career)
Sharapova wins 6 majors = Sharapova was probably better
Sharapova wins 7 or more majors = Sharapova was better

And there you have it. It all depends (obviously) on how many majors Sharapova wins.

Thanx4nothin
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:27 PM
No, Henin didn't go for broke on her second serve. If she did, she would have made 10+ double faults each match. But she made probably 4-5 each match on average. She did serve a quick second serve, but it had plenty of slice on it.

She did go very big on the second serve and many matches she had about 7/8 doubles.
If Sharapova wins 6 slams I would consider her greater than Hingis, but as a player Hingis could never be touched by Maria, Hingis also changed tennis in her own way. :worship:

LindsayRulz
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:28 PM
Hingis. Child phenom who won 5 slams and reached the top spot at 16 is a huge archievement.

ilovethewilliams
Jul 13th, 2008, 04:36 PM
Martina Hingis.. she used to give the williamses fits pre 2000 especially to Venus. It's sad when she left because I actually liked her b4 she went away. I think she's retired for good now as I doubt she will come back at 30yrs. For as sharapova goes, if she wins a 3-4 more slams then maybe her name can be mention but b4 then I don't think so. I don't think sharapova has ever defended any titles she won except for that silly little grass court tournamanet that she won a few times. sharapova, the greated grass court player..

Mikey B
Jul 13th, 2008, 05:33 PM
martina is the greater teenager, but its too soon to tell if maria can beat her as an overall player.. if maria retired tommorow there's no question that martina would be remembered as the greater player...

DaniMasha3
Jul 13th, 2008, 05:41 PM
umm this is ridiculous maria has so many slams ahead of her

Pesi
Jul 13th, 2008, 06:26 PM
And that´s a question?

Hingis of course :bounce:

Zébulon
Jul 13th, 2008, 06:53 PM
Yes, Hingis without a doubt.

bunch_01
Jul 13th, 2008, 07:57 PM
Hingis -- Five Slams, Seven Runner Ups, 9 Double Slams, 43 titles

Sharapova -- Three Slams, One Runner Up, 19 titles

I think people too readily discount the achievement of actually making it all the way to the final to give yourself a shot at winning. The distance between the two players is great but as someone said previously...winning the French would go a looooooong way towards making up a lot of the distance between them.

I also think its fair to compare them at this point because Hingis first retired at age 22 with most of these achievements already behind her. Discarding the doubles accomplishments, Maria is less than half way to the mark Martina set. If Maria continues on the same pace as the last couple of years she may make Five Slams but she wont make 12 Finals appearances. However I have to say Maria's conversion ratio is outstanding. Maria also has the problem that the women coming up now have emulated her game. The game may be effective but not when more than just a few of the contenders are playing it. Through in a few speed demons with good hands and what you get is a solid achievement comparable with a Capriati or a Davenport.

lynxy
Jul 13th, 2008, 09:14 PM
((cue sound of rustling paper as lynxy fishes out his degree in Stating The Bleedin' Obvious...))

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2008, 09:45 PM
wow you have picked the most tedious argument!
right so people should only comment about things they like and never give a constructive negative view :rolleyes:, the idea of guessing what sharapovas achievements will be is stupid, i am giving my opinion on it, if i've gone to the effort of reading the thread it isn't gonna take much more to post in it.

talk about having a life, you spend your time moaning about me posting that a thread is a bad idea, ouch you must realy be bored or have nothing better to do! :tape::help:I thought the thread was a good idea. Still do. So for me to be reading what's posted makes sense. You thought the thread was a bad idea, but five or six pages later you're still reading and posting.


You're investing your time on what YOU consider a dumb discussion.
I'm investing my time on what I consider a good discussion.

Havok
Jul 13th, 2008, 10:35 PM
And she was done winning slams at age 18. Sharapova has held the level necessary to win slams for three and a half years. Hingis actually only WON slams for two years and two weeks.


My personal opinion is that Hingis will ultimately be remembered as the greater player. But winning slams young has nothing to do with that. Martina Navratilova didn't win a singles slam til age 23. Winning young means nothing. Winning young, and then continuing to win means something. Steffi Graf winning a slam as a teenager meant something. Svetlana Kuznetsova winning a slam as a teenager hasn't meant much.
Sure Hingis only won Grand Slams in singles for a span of 2 years and 2 weeks, but every year she played, she ALWAYS held the level necessary to win slams; save the 2 years she played during her comeback.

Right now Sharapova has 3 GS titles to her name; 04 Wimbledon, 06 USO, and 08 AO. Hingis won 3 in one year (97 AO, Wimbledon, and USO). She was also an RG finalist. A player isn't better if they were able to win Slams during a larger time period versus somebody who won a ton during a short period of time; especially if they have the same amount of GS titles to their name. That's retarded.:weirdo:

Hingis lost many finals/semis to the Williams sisters, Davenport and Capriati, with the Williams sisters already well established greats, and Davenport/Capriati weren't too shabby either. Sharapova has lost to so many lesser players when compared to Hingis, it's not even funny. Plus her era was nowhere near as tough as when Hingis was trying to win more GS titles. Trust me if Martina had to contend with the likes of Jankovic, Ivanovic, Kuznetsova and company and only have to seldomly deal with the Williams sisters, she would have been racking in the slams!


Now responding to this thread. If Maria doesn't get herself back to #1 and start gaining some more weeks to her name, she would need a total of 8-10 GS singles titles to her name to start debating wether I would remember her as a greater player than Hingis. Sure Martina 'only' won 5 slams, but she was dominant when she was playing on the Tour. 3 GS wins and a RG final in one year, Maria will never get close to that. Plus her stellar doubles career. Hingis is probably the best doubles player the WTA Tour has ever seen, and she established herself as one of, if not THE best doubles player while dominating the singles tour, being ranked #1 on both ranking systems and winning GS in both fields. Martina crushed Sharapova in the all-around department.

If Maria would be able to pass the 100 weeks at #1, then maybe only 2-3 more slams than Martina would suffice. Plus when Maria isn't winning Slams, her years simply cannot be compared to Hingis'. From AO 99 until she retired in late 2002, Hingis was still able to get herself to many GS finals, win a boatload of Tier I titles, also nab a few YEC championships and not to mention even be ranked #1! When Maria isn't winning Slams (05 & 07 so far, I won't count her first year 03) she's only been able to win a handful of titles, got to one GS final, as well as one YEC final, and ended the year #4 and #5 respectively. So far, that doesn't compare to Hingis' years as a non-GS champ.

goldenlox
Jul 13th, 2008, 11:23 PM
Hingis was a great player, and could have won more than 5 majors.
If Maria just wins a major every 2 years and finishes with 6 or 7, then I would say Martina's career was better.
Maria has to win majors on a consistent basis to be considered an all time great.
And she still has a lot of her career ahead of her. It's up to her.

xan
Jul 14th, 2008, 12:04 AM
Is this meaningless silliness still ongoing? Post-Wimbledon doldrum, I guess. :zzz:

For one thing, can a "great" player be one with drug-taking and sportsmanship issues hanging over them?

For the other, there is no point trying to compare careers at completely different stages. For more threads on these lines, we could compare Ana Ivanovic and Jana Novotna. Jelena Jankovic and HelenWills-Moody. Or why not Bette Davis V Kiera Knightley, who' will have the greater career there?

Cp6uja
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:05 AM
WTA circumstances for Hingis is just perfect in first 4 years when her career started, but "horror" after that. In Maria case things is totaly opposite, but she still reach already 3 GS titles.

Steffi Graf between 1987 and 1996 every season finished like #1 or atleast #2, but in 1997 she is totaly out of game playing just 5 tournaments and reach R16 and QF at only two slams which she plays that season. If we not count 93/94 (because Hambourg incident) Monica Seles every season between 1990 and 1996 also finished at TOP2... but since 1997 she is always about #5 place with just 4SF and one Final in next 7 years at slams. 4 seasons in the row (between 1993 and 1996) Spanich duo Arantxa and Conchita finished season like TOP4, but in 1997 both is out of final TOP8. That is 1997 season when Hingis become. Whole "old guard" down and she must only to managed just with Lindsay Davenport and nobody else. But 4 years latter in 2001 except Davenport we have comeback of Capriati from nowhere and whole new guard suddenly ready to take their place (sisters and Belgians).

Like i say, Maria case is totaly opposite. When she started there is 2 sisters, 2 Belgians, Davenport and Mauresmo... but now, four years later only Serena is still there of champions from old guard, and her sister is also real threat, but only three months per year, between Wimbledon and USO. On other hand of new younger forces only Ana Ivanovic rise enough to be real problem for Maria at her best. So Maria have open road to overtake Martina even if she realy retire at 25. Maria will never dominate like Hingis in 1997 when she in just 13 months reach 5 GS finals and won 4 of them, but after that she won just one of her 7 GS finals. So for me is real question will Maria overtake Hingis in number of slam finals (12) or weeks at #1 (200+) - about number GS titles i simple dont see (without some hard injury) Maria to not reach atleast 6. I dont like to talking about future predictions with "YES" and "NO" answers. Only about chances that something will be happen. So my answer here is:

65% Yes, 35% No.

Or if you more like... (IMO)

Chances that Maria will reach more slams than Martina(5): 65% Yes, 35% No.
Chances that Maria will reach more GS finals than Martina(12): 50% Yes, 50% No.
Chances that Maria will reach more weeks at #1 than Martina(200): 30% Yes, 70% No.

oleada
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:17 AM
Maria wishes she were as good as Martina.

In all seriousness, though, I think Martina will not only be remembered because of her slams, her dominance, her "youngest ever records" and the whole coke thing, but also because her game so special.

Volcana
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:21 AM
You present an interesting series of arguements
Sure Hingis only won Grand Slams in singles for a span of 2 years and 2 weeks, but every year she played, she ALWAYS held the level necessary to win slams; save the 2 years she played during her comeback.That depends on your definition of the phrase. It would be easier to argue that Hingis was holding the level to win slams in 2000-2002 if she won one in 2002. The record being what it is, it looks like her level slipped slightly after 1999. I have to ay least halfway concede your point though, because the 2002 OZ final was played in brutal conditions.
Right now Sharapova has 3 GS titles to her name; 04 Wimbledon, 06 USO, and 08 AO. Hingis won 3 in one year (97 AO, Wimbledon, and USO). She was also an RG finalist. A player isn't better if they were able to win Slams during a larger time period versus somebody who won a ton during a short period of time; especially if they have the same amount of GS titles to their name.That depends on how close they were during their non slam years. Venus Williams didn't win a slam in 2002 or 2003. But she made five GS finals in those two years. Whereas form 2004-2006, she only got to semis once. She happened to win Wimbledon that time, but obviously she played better in 2002-2003 than 2004-2006.
Hingis lost many finals/semis to the Williams sisters, Davenport and Capriati, with the Williams sisters already well established greats, and Davenport/Capriati weren't too shabby either. Sharapova has lost to so many lesser players when compared to Hingis, it's not even funny. Plus her era was nowhere near as tough as when Hingis was trying to win more GS titles. Trust me if Martina had to contend with the likes of Jankovic, Ivanovic, Kuznetsova and company and only have to seldomly deal with the Williams sisters, she would have been racking in the slams!That's easy to say now, after Venus, Serena, Capriati, Davenport have racked up their slams. Hingis won three of her five slams when those players hadn't won any. Let's wait and see what Ivanovic, Sharapova, Jankovic etc do the next couple years before calling them inferior players.
Now responding to this thread. If Maria doesn't get herself back to #1 and start gaining some more weeks to her name, she would need a total of 8-10 GS singles titles to her name to start debating wether I would remember her as a greater player than Hingis. Sure Martina 'only' won 5 slams, but she was dominant when she was playing on the Tour. 3 GS wins and a RG final in one year, Maria will never get close to that.We disagree on the importance of being ranked #1.


However, as Sharapova doesn't play doubles, I agree she'll need to exceed Hingis' singles slam totals by two or three to be definitively greater than Hingis.
Plus her stellar doubles career. Hingis is probably the best doubles player the WTA Tour has ever seenWait a minute. I would have thought names like King, Court or Navratilova at least, might have meant something to you. But it's worse than that. Doubles and mixed doubles used to be played by the best players, as well as singles. Yet Hingis doesn't even rank in the top 15 historically, in total doubles and mixed doubles titles.

tt = db mx
38 = 31 07 Martina Navratilova
30 = 21 09 Margaret Osborne duPont (post WWII)
29 = 21 08 Louise Brough (post WWII)
24 = 14 10 Doris Hart (40s, 50s)
22 = 21 01 Pam Shriver
20 = 20 00 Natasha Zvereva
18 = 08 10 Billie Jean King
17 = 17 00 Gigi Fernandez
16 = 13 03 Darlene Hard (50s-60s)
16 = 12 04 Jana Novotna
16 = 10 06 Margaret Smith Court
14 = 09 05 Helena Sukova

13 = 12 01 Shirley Fry (50s)
12 = 12 00 Thelma Long (post WWII)
12 = 09 03 Helen Wills Moody (20s-30s)

11 = 11 00 Maria Bueno (60s)
10 = 10 00 Nancye Wynne Bolton Pre and post WWII)
10 = 09 01 Martina Hingis

Even if you limit it to players who had careers at least partially in the Open Era

tt = db mx
38 = 31 07 Martina Navratilova
22 = 21 01 Pam Shriver
20 = 20 00 Natasha Zvereva
18 = 08 10 Billie Jean King
17 = 17 00 Gigi Fernandez
16 = 12 04 Jana Novotna
16 = 10 06 Margaret Smith Court
14 = 09 05 Helena Sukova

10 = 09 01 Martina Hingis

How can you possible call Hingis 'the best doubles player the WTA Tour has ever seen'. She;s not even close.

Martina crushed Sharapova in the all-around department.I agree
If Maria would be able to pass the 100 weeks at #1, then maybe only 2-3 more slams than Martina would suffice.For me, the 2-3 more slams would be enough. That's more or less the difference between Hingis and Seles.


I think, ultimately, Sharapova's career hinges on her serving shoulder. If that's a chronic injury, I doubt she'll win more than 1-2 more slams, and she'll retire by 25. If she can solve that problem, she could wind up a top twenty all time player.


Thanks for a well thought-out answer though, even though we don't agree on everything.

Sund7101
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:25 AM
Hingis had the consistancy not only in the slams, but throughout the whole year, thus her holding on to the number one ranking for so long without winning a slam. Hingis was always a threat at the majors in both singles and doubles, and had to compete against the Williams Sisters, Davenport, Capriati, Seles, and Pierce. Her generation was a lot tougher. I'm sure Hingis would've rather played her slam finals against Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, Jankovic, and.......Sharapova.

A prodigy who gets to number one in the world at 16 and wins 5 slams before 20, don't come along that often.

Pitty her career had to end this way....maybe one more comeback is left in her.

Martina :worship:

Dave.
Jul 14th, 2008, 02:04 AM
However, as Sharapova doesn't play doubles, I agree she'll need to exceed Hingis' singles slam totals by two or three to be definitively greater than Hingis.



Maybe she will be considered as a greater singles player if she gets to 7 slams but not definitively greater as you say. Hingis has won 15 grand slams and 81 titles. I don't see Sharapova reaching those numbers. For Sharapova to be considered as a greater player than Hingis, she would have to achieve a ridicuous amount in singles like Graf did to make up for her lack of doubles success.


Wait a minute. I would have thought names like King, Court or Navratilova at least, might have meant something to you. But it's worse than that. Doubles and mixed doubles used to be played by the best players, as well as singles. Yet Hingis doesn't even rank in the top 15 historically, in total doubles and mixed doubles titles.

It's still played by the best players. Cara Black and Liezel Huber are the best doubles players right now. So what if they don't play singles.




tt = db mx
38 = 31 07 Martina Navratilova
30 = 21 09 Margaret Osborne duPont (post WWII)
29 = 21 08 Louise Brough (post WWII)
24 = 14 10 Doris Hart (40s, 50s)
22 = 21 01 Pam Shriver
20 = 20 00 Natasha Zvereva
18 = 08 10 Billie Jean King
17 = 17 00 Gigi Fernandez
16 = 13 03 Darlene Hard (50s-60s)
16 = 12 04 Jana Novotna
16 = 10 06 Margaret Smith Court
14 = 09 05 Helena Sukova

13 = 12 01 Shirley Fry (50s)
12 = 12 00 Thelma Long (post WWII)
12 = 09 03 Helen Wills Moody (20s-30s)

11 = 11 00 Maria Bueno (60s)
10 = 10 00 Nancye Wynne Bolton Pre and post WWII)
10 = 09 01 Martina Hingis

Even if you limit it to players who had careers at least partially in the Open Era

tt = db mx
38 = 31 07 Martina Navratilova
22 = 21 01 Pam Shriver
20 = 20 00 Natasha Zvereva
18 = 08 10 Billie Jean King
17 = 17 00 Gigi Fernandez
16 = 12 04 Jana Novotna
16 = 10 06 Margaret Smith Court
14 = 09 05 Helena Sukova

10 = 09 01 Martina Hingis

How can you possible call Hingis 'the best doubles player the WTA Tour has ever seen'. She;s not even close.



Nice list, but it's not just slam totals that decide whose greater. The fact that Hingis won the GRAND SLAM in 1998 (actually 5 straight with 3 partners) means you can't really leave her out of the discussion.




[/QUOTE]

In The Zone
Jul 14th, 2008, 02:10 AM
Definitely Hingis. No doubts about it.

LeRoy.
Jul 14th, 2008, 02:42 AM
Hingis so far and i believe when Maria retires it will still be Hingis

égalité
Jul 14th, 2008, 04:04 AM
Um, Hingis obviously.

debopero
Jul 14th, 2008, 04:24 AM
Maria.

Serge007
Jul 14th, 2008, 05:38 AM
so stupid threads... Sharapova still playing, isn't she?

ps. Who will be - Myskina or Ivanovic, Capriati or Radwanska, Clijsters or Kuznetsova... Nonsense!

Tennisstar86
Jul 14th, 2008, 06:20 AM
Ivanovic would have been number one regardless of the result in the French Open final. If she lost that, it would be totally different. Ivanovic has won a couple titles here and there this year and last. Hingis, in 2000, won nine titles - WTA Championships, Zurich, Moscow, Montreal, Miami, and Tokyo...being six right off the top of my head, that were Tier Is!

I dont believe i said anything about Ivanovic being #1 because of the final etc... I just said she is currently the #1 player even though noone really sees her as the best player in the world... and her thrashing at Wimbledon def proved that.... Not even a fight... her opponent didnt choke etc... unlike when say Serena or Henin were #1 theyd get a ton of players to choke a match before they walked out of the court based off of the type of tennis they had put together that year...
Oh god you're comparing Hingis to Ivanovic right now? You really don't know what you're talking about. The only reason Ivanovic is #1 right now is because Henin retired prematurely and asked to be taken off the rankings list. Hingis was #1 in 2000-2001 because again, she was the most consistent player on the tour. There's no one that can step on the court and say "oh I'll wipe her off the court." In 2000 she lost to the eventual winner in all grand slams, and 2001 she had a great start until she injured her foot. From 1997-2002 every year she would be in at least 1 Grand slam final. She is a household name when she played, next to Kournikova Davenport and the Williams but I can't say the same to Ivanovic and Jankovic.

un-huh live in delusional world... I compared Hingis' 2000/ 2001 to ivanovic's reign now because in both cases neither is viewed as the true #1 player... but at least in Ivanovic's case you cant really pick out any players to put ahead of her...

anyways.. i said Hingis based on her doubles accomplishments and it will stay Hingis IMO because I doubt MAria will end with more than 6 GS or that she'll play past 25 and even with 6 Hingis has doubles.... but to try and use weeks at #1 really is just sad IMO... she may have ONLY LOST to the "eventual champion" but what that tells me is she was not the best player of the year.....

mal
Jul 14th, 2008, 12:20 PM
so stupid threads... Sharapova still playing, isn't she?



She's still playing.
Is it true that she's broke though?
If not, why is she struggling to find $50,000 to clear her debts?
:tape:

trucul
Jul 14th, 2008, 12:21 PM
Martina Hingis undoubtedly.

$uricate
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:15 PM
I think Maria has at least 3-5 slams left and thus will have bigger achievements than Coketina

You know, you can stick up for Maria without slagging off Martina :o

Martina. 3 slams, world number one in singles and doubles (at the same time) and Martina doesn't sound like an owl getting shot when she's hitting the ball.

OMG! :haha: :spit: That is exactly what it sounds like!


I know we are asked to project Maria's career, but Im still not sure she will be better than Martina :shrug:

If she wins more than 5 slams, or the French then yeah maybe. I just think Martina did so much when still so young plus she dominated for a while and was number 1 for way longer, so if they both have five she is the better player.

Caz
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:38 PM
IMO Hingis, at present, but who knows what Sharapova will achieve during the rest of her career.

Mynarco
Jul 14th, 2008, 01:48 PM
Excuse, did Sharapova win a slam in doubles?

pka_liloo
Jul 14th, 2008, 02:12 PM
martina :drool:

Serenita
Jul 14th, 2008, 02:27 PM
Martina

slamchamp
Jul 14th, 2008, 03:24 PM
Martina Sharapova

danieln1
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:14 AM
Obviuosly Martina because Maria never dominated the tour the way she did...

mal
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:31 AM
Obviuosly Martina because Maria never dominated the tour the way she did...

I have a niece who is the same age as maria, and she is just a child, at 20.
Camela is not even a real man. Once she gets over her infatuation with the tour, and makes some real friends out of the most experienced players, and learns how to fight for the long haul, maria will, I'm sure become a better player in all aspects of her game. I'm not sure if she will ever achieve five Wimbledon wins though, but she will certainly regain her #1 status with the right encouragement. Hingus doesn't have the character to do it and that is obvious on her face, sorry if that sounds harsh.

Slutati
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:36 AM
mal, why did you steal danieln1's avatar? :sad:

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:47 AM
is it because english is not my native language, or mal is just speaking non-sense?:confused: I never get what he's saying

mal
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:49 AM
mal, why did you steal danieln1's avatar? :sad:

Because I can.

Slutati
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:53 AM
Because I can.
yuh yuh, ok.

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:54 AM
Because I can.Supreme:worship:

Uranium
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:54 AM
yuh yuh, ok.

:lol:when I was reading their posts I was like why did danieln quote himself and then saw the second one was mal:rolls:

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:57 AM
mal wants to steal danieln's identity:bigcry:

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:58 AM
mal can do anything he wants :bigcry:

Slutati
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:59 AM
:lol:when I was reading their posts I was like why did danieln quote himself and then saw the second one was mal:rolls:
i know, lol. i was like wtf is up with Sharapova fans?:weirdo:

please help me cheo wants to steel my username and he said to me bad things on msn
please help me fast moderators please
:bigcry::bigcry::rolls:

mal
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:02 AM
mal can do anything he wants :bigcry:

you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

swissmr
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:03 AM
is it because english is not my native language, or mal is just speaking non-sense?:confused: I never get what he's saying

Don't worry, it's definitely not just you.

Cp6uja
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:12 AM
Back to do subject:
Here is careers achivments of Open Era #1 players

#1 Players with better career achivements after 22nd birthday:
Jennifer Capriati
Lindsay Davenport
Chris Evert
Evonne Goolagong
Steffi Graf
Justine Henin
Ana Ivanovic ;)
Amelie Mauresmo
Martina Navratilova
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario

#1 Players with better career achivements before 22nd birthday:
Tracy Austin
Kim Clijsters
Martina Hingis
Monica Seles
Serena Williams
Venus Williams


So even if we not count "sure bet" Ana:angel:, 9 of this former #1 achive more slam titles and success after 22nd birthday than before, and in 6 ex-#1 careers is opposite case (Clijsters is exception with reason). To overtake Martina, Sharapova need just to repeat her GS achivements before 22nd birthday (if she reach title at one of two next slams which is before her 22 she actualy just need to repeat only 50% of her under-22 achivments!).

So odds is on Maria side right now.

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:15 AM
please help me cheo wants to steel my username and he said to me bad things on msn
please help me fast moderators please
:bigcry::bigcry::rolls: Cleo and Cheo the super duo:hearts:

mal
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:19 AM
mal wants to steal danieln's identity:bigcry:

No I don't, I asked if I could use it but have not had a reply.
It is my tribute to true love, I mean I'd be honoured too if Sharapova started to sponsor me and fly me to her matches and parties, but she never will. We still have some unresolved legal matters to resolve in court however. I just it doesn't distract her from her tennis career, or worse she accuse me of costing her career money.
I'll just quote that song "Dance dance dance to my 10 guitars..
Through the eyes of love you'll see 1,000 stars...
I couldn't ask anyone to do something they didn't want to for love.
Only use the law for it's legal purpose. Don't mix the two. EVER!!@

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:22 AM
you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
and if a cat is grey and sad his life will be gone in a short time, but we cannot make it happen

danieln1
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:23 AM
Because I can.

Heyy you stole my avatar! hahahahaha but that was the nicest picture of the newest "couple"!

mal
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:24 AM
So odds is on Maria side right now.

That's what I've been saying, just not in such a categorical way, only I believe she has a better statistical chance of easily overtaking her.

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:27 AM
Heyy you stole my avatar! hahahahaha but that was the nicest picture of the newest "couple"!

That's what I've been saying, just not in such a categorical way, only I believe she has a better statistical chance of easily overtaking her. the twins reunited:sad:

danieln1
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:29 AM
Now this thread will be full of Maria + Camilla pictures, since the best thread ever on GM was ridiculously deleted ( saying that they were BFF!)

martinahfan
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:10 AM
martina hingis :bounce::bounce::bounce:

martina hingis :
SINGLES
Winner (43): 2007 - Tokyo [Pan Pacific]; 2006 - Rome, Kolkata; 2002 - Sydney, Tokyo [Pan Pacific]; 2001 - Sydney, Doha, Dubai; 2000 - Tour Championships, Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Miami, Hamburg, 's-Hertogenbosch, Montréal, Filderstadt, Zürich, Moscow; 1999 - Australian Open, Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Hilton Head, Berlin, San Diego, Toronto, Filderstadt; 1998 - Australian Open, Tour Championships, Indian Wells, Hamburg, Rome; 1997 - Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open, Sydney, Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Paris [Indoors], Miami, Hilton Head, Stanford, San Diego, Filderstadt, Philadelphia; 1996 - Filderstadt, Oakland, ITF/Prostejov-CZE; 1993 - ITF/Langenthal-SUI.
Finalist (25): 2007 - Gold Coast; 2006 - Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Montréal; 2002 - Australian Open, Indian Wells; 2001 - Australian Open, Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Charleston; 2000 - Australian Open, Indian Wells, Philadelphia; 1999 - Sydney, Roland Garros, US Open, Zürich, Philadelphia, Tour Championships; 1998 - Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Los Angeles, US Open; 1997 - Roland Garros; 1996 - Rome, Zürich, Tour Championships; 1995 - Hamburg.

DOUBLES
Winner (37): 2007 - Doha (w/Kirilenko); 2002 - Australian Open (w/Kournikova), Hamburg (w/Schett); 2001 - Moscow (w/Kournikova); 2000 - Roland Garros, Tokyo [Pan Pacific] (both w/Pierce), Filderstadt, Zürich, Philadelphia, Tour Championships (all w/Kournikova), Montréal (w/Tauziat); 1999 - Australian Open, Indian Wells, Rome, Eastbourne, Tour Championships (all w/Kournikova), Miami (w/Novotna); 1998 - Australian Open (w/Lucic), Miami, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Montréal, US Open (all w/Novotna), Sydney (w/Sukova), Tokyo [Pan Pacific] (w/Lucic), Los Angeles (w/Zvereva); 1997 - Australian Open (w/Zvereva), Paris [Indoors], Leipzig (both w/Novotna), Hilton Head (w/MJ.Fernandez), Stanford (w/Davenport), San Diego, Filderstadt, Zürich (all w/Sánchez-Vicario); 1996 - Wimbledon, Zürich (both w/Sukova); 1995 - Hamburg (w/G.Fernandez), ITF/Prostejov-CZE (w/Langrova).
Finalist (14): 2002 - Sydney (w/Kournikova); 2001 - San Diego (w/Kournikova); 2000 - Sydney, Australian Open (both w/Pierce), Moscow (w/Kournikova); 1999 - Tokyo [Pan Pacific] (w/Novotna), Roland Garros (w/Kournikova); 1998 - Hamburg (w/Novotna); 1997 - Tokyo [Pan Pacific] (w/G.Fernandez); 1996 - Hamburg, Rome (both w/G.Fernandez), Berlin, Filderstadt (both w/Sukova); 1995 - Toronto (w/Majoli).

MIXED DOUBLES
Winner (1): 2006 - Australian Open (w/Bhupathi).

ADDITIONAL
Swiss Fed Cup Team 1995-98. Swiss Olympic Team 1996.

wtt chapionchips 2005 !!!!!!!!

and not only in single , i prefer an players strong in single and double ( like navratilova , hingis etc....)
reccord single : 37/0 ( 1997 )

maria sharapova :
SINGLES
Winner (19): 2008 - Australian Open, Doha, Amelia Island; 2007 - San Diego; 2006 - Indian Wells, San Diego, US Open, Zürich, Linz; 2005 - Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Doha, Birmingham; 2004 - Birmingham, Wimbledon, Seoul, Tokyo [Japan Open], Tour Championships; 2003 - Tokyo [Japan Open], Québec City, ITF/Sea Island, GA-USA; 2002 - ITF/Gunma Prefecture-JPN, ITF/Vancouver-CAN, ITF/Peachtree, GA-USA.
Finalist (7): 2007 - Australian Open, Birmingham, Tour Championships; 2006 - Dubai, Miami; 2005 - Miami; 2004 - Zürich.
Semifinalist (24): 2008 - Indian Wells, Rome; 2007 - Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Istanbul, Roland Garros, Los Angeles; 2006 - Australian Open, Tokyo [Pan Pacific], Birmingham, Wimbledon, Los Angeles, Tour Championships; 2005 - Australian Open, Indian Wells, Rome, Wimbledon, US Open, Beijing, Tour Championships; 2004 - Memphis, Beijing, Philadelphia, Birmingham, Luxembourg.

DOUBLES
Winner (3): 2004 - Birmingham (w/Kirilenko); 2003 - Tokyo [Japan Open], Luxembourg (both w/Tanasugarn).
Finalist (1): 2004 - Memphis (w/Zvonareva).

ADDITIONAL
Russian Fed Cup Team, 2008.


martina is very impressive :) :) :)

Tennisation
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:19 AM
totally unfair to compare the 2 of them right now since Maria is only 21 and still has a lot of time to achieve even greater things. When she reaches the age of 26 and suddenly retire before a cocaine scandal breakout, then we'll talk.

Natalicious
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:28 AM
if sharapova wins more than 5 slams (which i think) she'll be remembered probably as the "greater" but both will be remembered anyway

Adal
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:30 AM
Maria, because I'm biased.

$uricate
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:30 AM
Back to do subject:
Here is careers achivments of Open Era #1 players

#1 Players with better career achivements after 22nd birthday:
Jennifer Capriati
Lindsay Davenport
Chris Evert
Evonne Goolagong
Steffi Graf
Justine Henin
Ana Ivanovic ;)
Amelie Mauresmo
Martina Navratilova
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario

#1 Players with better career achivements before 22nd birthday:
Tracy Austin
Kim Clijsters
Martina Hingis
Monica Seles
Serena Williams
Venus Williams


So even if we not count "sure bet" Ana:angel:, 9 of this former #1 achive more slam titles and success after 22nd birthday than before, and in 6 ex-#1 careers is opposite case (Clijsters is exception with reason). To overtake Martina, Sharapova need just to repeat her GS achivements before 22nd birthday (if she reach title at one of two next slams which is before her 22 she actualy just need to repeat only 50% of her under-22 achivments!).

So odds is on Maria side right now.

OMG! I looked at your list and I didn't see Ana on there, and I passed out :speakles:
But then I regained consciousness and realised she was there all along, Phew! :lol::p

Patrick345
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:43 AM
Hingis is the female equivalent of Hewitt. They sneaked it in a few Slams in a transitional period, when the old guard of great players went out (Seles/Graf and Agassi/Sampras) and the next generation of great players (Serena/Venus/Henin and Federer/Nadal)wasn´t there yet. Hingis never had any desire to become a player above her natural abilities. Her poor second serve would have been exposed by a prime Graf and Seles, who played at a slower pace, like it has been by the power players of the new generation, who on top of that just overpowered Hingis from the baseline. Maybe Hingis confused cocaine with steroids.:tape:

That being said Hingis is still miles ahead of Sharapova at this point of their respective careers.

OsloErik
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:33 AM
I'm inclined to say that Sharapova will end up with 5 or 6 slam titles. She's what, 21? She's already had more injuries (chronic shoulder injury sounds awfully like Austin, no?) than any players with comparable game style (Pierce, Davenport) had at 21. She's not going to have the same longevity of quality as Davenport, Venus, Serena, etc. She's fortunate that she started winning big at a young age, but she's simply not going to hold up well, physically speaking, over time.

The big question is whether or not you view 5 or 6 slams, nowadays, as better or worse than Hingis' 5 slams and doubles. I don't. I think the only way Sharapova is going to have any claim to surpassing Hingis is if she wins 6 slams, including the French, or 8+ slams, not including the French. It's possible, but I don't see her doing it.

That said, she's got a superior tennis intensity than Austin, Davenport, and Pierce put together, which could keep her in the game longer than any of us has predicted and drives her to adapt her serve more dramatically. Mauresmo started her career with a different serve than she won her slams with, largely due to shoulder problems, and it ended up stronger than her old one. Dementieva did the opposite, having a worse serve now than she started out with. The direction Sharapova takes, if she's determined to save her shoulder, will have a huge bearing on her slam haul.

In The Zone
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:33 AM
The big question is whether or not you view 5 or 6 slams, nowadays, as better or worse than Hingis' 5 slams and doubles. I don't. I think the only way Sharapova is going to have any claim to surpassing Hingis is if she wins 6 slams, including the French, or 8+ slams, not including the French. It's possible, but I don't see her doing it.

That's how I view it. Unless Maria wins more than 7 (which I do not see happening) or she can somehow win the French, Martina Hingis' dominance of the tour (something Sharapova has not been able to do) will give her the nod over Maria.

Shimizu Amon
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:59 PM
I don't know who will be remembered as the better player. Before her "comeback" definitely Hingis. But she damaged her legacy with her comeback and of course the debacle called: coke affair.
As Maria still has her best year ahead of her I hope she will be the one who will be remembered the better player.

Chance
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:14 PM
Hingis is the female equivalent of Hewitt. They sneaked it in a few Slams in a transitional period, when the old guard of great players went out (Seles/Graf and Agassi/Sampras) and the next generation of great players (Serena/Venus/Henin and Federer/Nadal)wasn´t there yet. Hingis never had any desire to become a player above her natural abilities. Her poor second serve would have been exposed by a prime Graf and Seles, who played at a slower pace, like it has been by the power players of the new generation, who on top of that just overpowered Hingis from the baseline. Maybe Hingis confused cocaine with steroids.:tape:

That being said Hingis is still miles ahead of Sharapova at this point of their respective careers.

Agree with everything except the cocaine/steroids part.
Personally I don't think the failed drug test will affect Hingis's legacy.
In terms of their overall game- Hingis has an all round game, which she didn't utilise enough in her singles game. But Sharpy has time on her side to improve her game and add more titles...

AcesHigh
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:47 PM
Back to do subject:
Here is careers achivments of Open Era #1 players

#1 Players with better career achivements after 22nd birthday:
Jennifer Capriati
Lindsay Davenport
Chris Evert
Evonne Goolagong
Steffi Graf
Justine Henin
Ana Ivanovic ;)
Amelie Mauresmo
Martina Navratilova
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario

#1 Players with better career achivements before 22nd birthday:
Tracy Austin
Kim Clijsters
Martina Hingis
Monica Seles
Serena Williams
Venus Williams


So even if we not count "sure bet" Ana:angel:, 9 of this former #1 achive more slam titles and success after 22nd birthday than before, and in 6 ex-#1 careers is opposite case (Clijsters is exception with reason). To overtake Martina, Sharapova need just to repeat her GS achivements before 22nd birthday (if she reach title at one of two next slams which is before her 22 she actualy just need to repeat only 50% of her under-22 achivments!).

So odds is on Maria side right now.

Your stats are misleading. Henin and Mauresmo had games that took time to develop. JCap missed her best years for obvious reasons, and Navratilova took longer to develop but still had prolonged periods of dominance, same as Evert and Graf. Serena, Tracy, Monica and Venus all had injuries/circumstances that led to them having to leave the game or affected their career significantly. Kim and Martina retired early.

There's no reason behind this categorization. It's pure coincidence without any causation that these names fall this way. The reality is that most players peak around 21 or before, especially with a game as simple as Maria's. This does not mean she can reach new heights, but it's probably unlikely she'll get significantly better as Davenport, Henin and Navratilova did.

OsloErik
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:23 PM
There's no reason behind this categorization. It's pure coincidence without any causation that these names fall this way. The reality is that most players peak around 21 or before, especially with a game as simple as Maria's. This does not mean she can reach new heights, but it's probably unlikely she'll get significantly better as Davenport, Henin and Navratilova did.

Well said. Sharapova wasn't a terrific mover when she emerged, but it wasn't due to her fitness (read: weight). The big reason Davenport and Navratilova and Henin improved was because they had to tune up quite a bit. Davenport and Navratilova lost a great deal of weight, and Henin put on quite a bit of weight (well, eight pounds or so). Sharapova didn't emerge lacking in the physique department, and she's hit the age where the actual game doesn't improve much. I can't think of any players who won multiple slams whose game markedly improved with age. The closest would be Mauresmo, but her game pretty much changed entirely. Sharapova can't do that; she doesn't have the movement. What we see now is pretty much what we're going to get.

DA FOREHAND
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:30 PM
I don't know who will be remembered as the better player. Before her "comeback" definitely Hingis. But she damaged her legacy with her comeback and of course the debacle called: coke affair.
As Maria still has her best year ahead of her I hope she will be the one who will be remembered the better player.

Martina is def the better player, her coke tainted retirement, doesn't change that.

Dawn Marie
Jul 16th, 2008, 02:27 AM
Without a doubt Hingis. I don't think Maria could quit the game for 2 years and kick Martina's ass on the court. Yet little ole Hingis did the deed.

Hingis got on my nerve, but she loved tennis. She isn't a cheater.

frontier
Jul 16th, 2008, 02:49 AM
I think Maria will not have a long career that will take her beyond 25yrs,her shoulder is now chronic and she will lose to the likes of Ana,Aga,Azeranka and other up and comers.Her career will probably end because of the shoulder like Capriati.....