PDA

View Full Version : Top Ten of the Noughties: a Huge Conundrum


Steffica Greles
Jul 5th, 2009, 03:31 PM
*** As of 14/9/09, I think you'd now have to move Kim above Jennifer, Amelie and Lindsay Davenport. I would even argue above Sharapova, given that Kim's won only one less slam, but has been in more slam finals and won one more YEC, as well as far more titles in general. Personally, with this US Open win, I'd now place her 4th this decade.

I remember ten years ago, when we looked at the top ten of the 1990s, and reflected on the top ten of the 1980s, there was very little to fundamentally disagree on. The top ten of this decade is almost impossible to rank, in my opinion.

I'll tell you my instinctive top ten since 2000, bearing in mind slam titles, finals and semi-finals; tour titles tier 2 and 1; Miami and Masters titles; ranking consistency; head-to-heads; and longevity across the decade in terms of match wins over a number of years. To a lesser extent, I'll look at success across all four surfaces. However, I'll be the FIRST to say this is problematic because I haven't yet looked at the minutae of statistical data, and even then, it comes down to which statistical data we value above others.

I invite any statistics junkies to shed light, and people to pull apart my ratings. As I've said, this is not diligently researched.

1. Serena Williams - with 10 slams this decade, at all four majors, we can't really argue against that. Also winner of the Masters and multiple winner of Miami.

2. Venus Williams - It's a tough call against Henin, but she has an overwhelming winning record against Justine, albeit achieved mostly before Justine's peak years (although it might be argued that Henin's peak years only commenced when the Williams sisters mentally and physically wore themselves out). Like Justine, she has an Olympic gold, and although she only once won the Masters, against the Belgian's two victories in that competition, she won Miami in 2001, which Justine never achieved. Venus has also played 13 slam finals this decade, against Henin's 11. Both reached all four slam finals in one year, although Venus was non-calendar (2002-03). Above all, I feel that by 2008 Henin had burnt herself out from stretching to great heights, whereas Venus has been able to keep going because it was she who raised the bar in the first place.

3. Justine Henin - Some would argue that Henin was more consistent, achieved more in less time, i.e more 'dominant', and would point to her far superior amount of weeks at number one, including finishing number one in 03, 06 and 07 when Venus did not finish number one ranked once. There's no credible argument for anybody else other than Venus and Serena being placed above her.

Now it gets difficult...

4. Maria Sharapova - Might well already be past her physical and mental best, and playing her last couple of years, but has shown a ruthlessness in slam finals which places her above Davenport. Masters winner (04), number one ranked, and Australian Open runner-up (07). A series of tier 1 and 2 titles in addition, as well as a lopsided winning record over Davenport, and mastered Clijsters and Henin in the end.

5. Lindsay Davenport - Lopsided losing record to Clijsters. Also, just one slam this decade against Capriati's three. Kuznetsova and Mauresmo have also won two slams. However, a vast title haul even during this decade compared with players below, and finished number one in 2001, 2004 and 2005, a hatrick which only Justine and probably Serena this year can match. Also, dominated Mauresmo in their head-to-head, was far more prolific a title winner than Capriati (with two more slam finals), and decisively defeated Hingis when it mattered during their only slam final this decade, right at the beginning in Melbourne, 2000. Lindsay has also lost all of her slams finals to Venus or Serena, and several other classic slam matches to the same pair and Justine. Lindsay won few tier 1 titles, however, compared with Mauresmo, Hingis and Clijsters, and achieved no real success on red clay after 1999.

6. Amelie Mauresmo - Good record against Sharapova and Henin, but very poor against Davenport by comparison (for this reason, I can't place her above Lindsay who time and again proved herself the better player even on green clay). Masters winner (05) and twice runner-up (03, 06), and prolific winner of tier 1 titles (Rome, Berlin, Canadian Open). Also number one ranked and successful on all four surfaces. Has won far more titles than Capriati, against whom (unless I'm mistaken?) she holds a decisive winning record. The obvious criticism would be her poor records against Clijsters, and winning one slam less than Capriati. Some might place an asterix against her Australian Open win of '06, because both Clijsters and Henin, both higher ranked, did not complete their matches and force her to close.

7. Jennifer Capriati - 3 slam wins, plus undefeated by Hingis after she awakened memorably in January 2001, winning the Australian Open against all expectations. Jennifer also has a great record against Serena Williams, some of their matches being unforgettable both for drama and quality, and one of the highlights of this decade. Also achieved a number one ranking and some success on all surfaces. The criticism again comes back to her lack of other titles. Also, a poor record against Clijsters after early 2002, and no other slam finals.

8. Kim Clijsters - Massive title haul of tier 1 and 2 titles on all surfaces, and either winning or 'respectable' records against ALL of the players I've ranked above her: Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Capriati...even Venus, Serena and Henin. Therefore, Clijsters could have been ranked higher were she to have won more slam titles. However, she reached the finals of three slams, and was twice a semi-finalist at Wimbledon as well as Eastbourne winner. Winner of Miami (05) and the Masters (02,03). **Reading this back to myself, I'm starting to wonder whether she belongs above Capriati and even Mauresmo.

9. 10. Svetlana Kuznetsova - Twice a slam champion, twice runner-up, and Miami winner (06). The only player in this top ten never to have been ranked number one this decade, but has been ranked number two. Never achieved Hingis' consistency, and her number two ranking did not last long. Also, poor records against Henin, Clijsters and Serena.

10. Martina Hingis - No grandslam titles this decade, but spent the entire 2000 and most of 2001 ranked number one. Reached the final of the Australian Open three times, in 2000,2001 and 2002, and has good records against Serena, Venus and Davenport, defeating the latter pair even after her 2006 comeback. On that subject, she also defeated Sharapova and Kuznetsova on her return to the sport. Miami and Masters winner (2000) and won several more tier 1 titles during that year, as well as Rome in 2006. Lost classic matches to Venus at 2000 Wimbledon and the U.S Open, yet defeated the Williams sisters back-to-back in a grandslam championship, at the 2001 Australian Open, which only Henin could repeat years later when they might have been past their physical peak. Her downfall is that she never won a slam this decade, nor even indeed reached a final outside of the Australian Open, so it's difficult, however tempting, to place her above Kuznetsova with two slams, as well as runner up positions at the French AND U.S Opens.

Other credible contenders...

11. Elena Dementieva - I think Elena's consistency across the decade places her above Pierce. Elena will finish 2009 in the top 10, which will be for the 6th time, her 7th in the top 11, and her 10th in the top 20, which will make her the ONLY woman to finish all seasons of the last decade in the top 20. She's also been a semi-finalist at all the majors, including a semi-final at the Masters of 2000, and runner-up at Miami in 2004. Most notably, perhaps, a singles GOLD (2008) and SILVER (2000) medallist at the Olympics, which only Steffi Graf has achieved (88G, 92S). Losing records against most or all of the top ten in the list above, but wins over almost all of them in major championships (including Miami, the Masters and the Olympics). Twice a slam finalist, of course, with a clutch of tier 1 and 2 titles. 500+ career wins and rising, something Clijsters, Kuznetsova, Capriati, Henin, Serena and Sharapova have yet to, or did not, achieve.

12. Mary Pierce - Thunderous performance at the 2000 French Open, having demolished Sanchez-Vicario in the 2000 Hilton Head final (now Charleston) as a harbinger of things to come. Despite injuries and lack of match fitness, managed to post victories over Sharapova and Venus in 2004, before a sensational return to form in 2005, which, despite lack of grandslam titles, might well have been her best year. During 2005, she collected wins over Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Dementieva and Clijsters. However, lack of constancy across the decade places her below the others in my view. Half of her grandslam success, as well as most of her career in terms of match wins, and tier 2 or above titles came in the 1990s.

Other outside considerations:
Dinara Safina
Ana Ivanovic
Jelena Jankovic
Anastasia Myskina

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 03:41 PM
Justine over Venus for sure.

Justine has had seven slams for since US 07. Venus has played every slam since then and only been able to tie her.

More Tier I titles, 3/4 slams won, 1 more YEC, Year End #1, More Weeks @ #1.

Since 2000,

Serena, Justine, Venus.

Steffica Greles
Jul 5th, 2009, 03:48 PM
Justine over Venus for sure.

Justine has had seven slams for since US 07. Venus has played every slam since then and only been able to tie her.

More Tier I titles, 3/4 slams won, 1 more YEC, Year End #1, More Weeks @ #1.

Since 2000,

Serena, Justine, Venus.

Venus led their head-to-head overwhelmingly, and was able to 'hack it' for longer. But I agree, it's a very tough call. Justine has some key stats in her favour.

Temperenka
Jul 5th, 2009, 03:48 PM
Venus > Justine.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 03:53 PM
Venus led their head-to-head overwhelmingly, and was able to 'hack it' for longer. But I agree, it's a very tough call. Justine has some key stats in her favour.

Anyways. Hingis in 2000 won more Tier I titles than some of these girls on the list in the entire decade. Also since this is from 2k, Hingis would have 3 slam finals and would still have been #1 during this decade. YEC title as well and YE #1.

Let alone a host of QF and SF. Hingis deserves higher than 10.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 03:55 PM
Venus led their head-to-head overwhelmingly, and was able to 'hack it' for longer. But I agree, it's a very tough call. Justine has some key stats in her favour.

I guess to me Justine should be over Venus. All in all the list is more or less right. Justine's stats are better than Venus everywhere except grass and that deceptive H2H.

We all know that post slam winning Henin had her and Venus played 8 times, Venus would have not won seven of them.

Steffica Greles
Jul 5th, 2009, 03:59 PM
Anyways. Hingis in 2000 won more Tier I titles than some of these girls on the list in the entire decade. Also since this is from 2k, Hingis would have 3 slam finals and would still have been #1 during this decade. YEC title as well and YE #1.


As I mentioned, although you obviously didn't read it.

However, since you mention it, Hingis was ranked number one through 2000 primarily based on 1999's results which were still on the computer. She had a great fall in 2000, so she finished the year as number one, but to say Hingis was number one through 2000 and most of 2001, as I did, is taking 1999 results into consideration, which should not count.

miffedmax
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:00 PM
I'm afraid I'm one of those annoying people who insists on 10-year decades. So I'll knock Hingis and Pierce (too dependent on year 2000 accomplishments) off the list and wait until the end of 2009, let alone 2010, before I start arguing. It's unlikely, but TOB or Vee could conceivably rearrange the rankings in the next 17 months.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:03 PM
1999 results would have no bearing on Hingis being #1 in '01. That's all '00 and '01.

Hingis was #1 during this decade, reached 3 slam finals, won YEC, other slam SF/QF, host of Tier I titles. Even when she came back she won two more Tier I.

She gets.... #10?

P.S. Clijsters' 1-7 record against Serena is not respectable.

Marionated
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:06 PM
I would put Justine above Venus.

Joana
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:11 PM
If we're only talking about post-2000, I cannot see how Davenport can be ahead of Clijsters. They both have the same number of Slams and Slam finals, but Clijsters has 2 YEC titles to Lindsay's none. They both have a Slam where they've never reached finals (Kim at Wimbledon, Lindsay at RG), but Kim's record at Wimbledon is much better than Lindsay's at Roland Garros. Kim has 6 additional Slam semis to Lindsay's 4. She won more titles than Lindsay. Has a winning H2H against her.

The only thing Lindsay has got going for her is that she spent more time at #1, and we see now how much that alone is worth.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:14 PM
Especially since most, if not all of it, was without a slam. Good point.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:15 PM
Not to mention to compare Lindsay and Kim. Kim was beating more of the Sharapova's and Henin's than Davenport was.

Steffica Greles
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:16 PM
Hingis was #1 during this decade, reached 3 slam finals, won YEC, other slam SF/QF, host of Tier I titles. Even when she came back she won two more Tier I.

She gets.... #10?


So who, on the basis of like-for-like evidence, would you place her above?

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:18 PM
Kuznetsova for me. Lindsay/Kim should really be changed. First poster that brought it up as a serious point.

Golovinjured.
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:22 PM
1. Serena Williams
2. Justine Henin
3. Venus Williams

4. Maria Sharapova
5. Jennifer Capriati

6. Kim Clijsters
7. Amelie Mauresmo
8. Svetlana Kuznetsova

9. Lindsay Daveport
10. Elena Dementieva
11. Martina Hingis

12. Mary Pierce
13. Anastasia Myskina
14. Ana Ivanovic



That was surprisingly difficult.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:27 PM
No way Dementieva is above Hingis. Hingis reached 1 more slam final. Won more Tier I's in one year than Dementieva's whole career. Was in more QF/SF of slams. Was #1 during this decade and a lot more relevant as a contender. YEC win. YE #1.

:rolls: Davenport over Kuznetsova for sure.

Svetlana)))
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:28 PM
post 2000, Davenport hasn't done much. Apart from slam finals, she has not really impacted the game. 20th century, she would rank up there but post 2000, no way.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:29 PM
She's done enough to be over Kuznetsova. She won a lot more. Was a lot more consistent. Kuznetsova just has one more slam over her.

Kuznetsova really hasn't done anything either outside of her two slams and random out of nowhere Miami title.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:31 PM
The first rounds of Miami you're playing nobodies. The first rounds of YEC you're playing people that actually can beat you.

Steffica Greles
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:31 PM
Kuznetsova for me. Lindsay/Kim should really be changed. First poster that brought it up as a serious point.

Zero slams and 3 top ten years should be placed above two slams and 5 top ten years? Hingis won the YEC, Kuznetsova won Miami, which takes more matches to do.

Marty-Dom
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:36 PM
Venus over Justine based on H2H, number of slam finals reached, stellar doubles career record and longevity. She is just a more complete player of the last decade.

Steffica Greles
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:54 PM
Players like Hingis, Davenport, Pierce, and to a lesser extent Capriati, Venus and Serena, are unfortunate to have their careers split between decades.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:56 PM
Serena only misses 1 major really. Capriati loses her gold medal and all of her precocious results which is her edge over Sharapova.

Jippo McScally
Jul 5th, 2009, 04:57 PM
I pretty much agree with your list. Out of interest, what would your list for the 90's look like?

To be continued
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:00 PM
Mary Pierce

Golovinjured.
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:00 PM
No way Dementieva is above Hingis. Hingis reached 1 more slam final. Won more Tier I's in one year than Dementieva's whole career. Was in more QF/SF of slams. Was #1 during this decade and a lot more relevant as a contender. YEC win. YE #1.

:rolls: Davenport over Kuznetsova for sure.

I'm putting Dementieva in the TOP 10 purely on consistency, unfortunately Hingis was the bumpee.

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:03 PM
Consistency was the cornerstone of Hingis' career. Dementieva hasn't been consistent until now. R1 - F - R1 - F?

Polikarpov
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:04 PM
I think the H2H between Venus and Justine is misleading. Eight out of their nine meetings were all before Justine's 2003 RG win.

Golovinjured.
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:05 PM
She's been in the TOP 20 for 10 years straight, those 10 years being the noughties.

When I see Hingis and Davenport, I think 90's, hence why they're so low.

Barrie_Dude
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:05 PM
I think it is fairly accurate, though my fave is Jennifer. I loved her matches with Serena.

Steffica Greles
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:06 PM
I pretty much agree with your list. Out of interest, what would your list for the 90's look like?
I can't remember that well now...something like:

1. Graf
2. Seles
3. Hingis
4. Sanchez-Vicario
5. Davenport
6. Novotna
7. Martinez
8. Sabatini (unfortunate to have her career halved between decades)
9. Navratilova
10. Pierce

Other considerations:
Venus, Serena, Capriati, Iva Majoli, Mary Jo Fernandez

jubliant11
Jul 5th, 2009, 05:06 PM
Even still Hingis has done way more than Dementieva even in this decade.

Donny
Jul 5th, 2009, 06:09 PM
I think the H2H between Venus and Justine is misleading. Eight out of their nine meetings were all before Justine's 2003 RG win.

Why does that matter?

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 5th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Even still Hingis has done way more than Dementieva even in this decade.

Im agree , but you think more in 90's with Hingis than this current decade

Roookie
Jul 5th, 2009, 08:56 PM
Justine over Venus....1 more YEC.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 7th, 2009, 08:42 PM
11. Elena Dementieva - I think Elena's consistency across the decade places her above Pierce. Elena will finish 2009 in the top 10, which will be for the 6th time, her 7th in the top 11, and her 10th in the top 20, which will make her the ONLY woman to finish all seasons of the last decade in the top 20.

Actually , only woman or man finishing all seasons of this decade in the top 20

Libertango
Jul 7th, 2009, 09:28 PM
So weird to think Martina won ALL her slams in the 90's.

Steffica Greles
Jul 7th, 2009, 10:30 PM
So weird to think Martina won ALL her slams in the 90's.

That's what I was reminding people of all along. She also won all of them in 2 years, and more than half of her total in 1 year. All very well to praise her, but people also need to think of that fact too.

Anyway, to those who think Mauresmo or Clijsters should be above Davenport, I simply say that I think through the course of the decade Lindsay was more of a tour leader than either of those players. She finished number one three times, and even during her worst period in 2003, when she'd dropped off the pace a little, she was still in the top 5. She owned Mauresmo, and won her last couple against Clijsters after a terrible run against her.

Pheobo
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:30 PM
4. Maria Sharapova
5. Jennifer Capriati- to me, 3 slam titles is 3 slam titles. In 20 years a tennis fan isn't going to remember Rome or Miami titles when talking about the greatest players.
6. Amelie Mauresmo
7. Svetlana Kuznetsova
8. Lindsay Davenport
9. Kim Clijsters
10. Mary Pierce
11. Ana Ivanovic
12. Martina Hingis
13. Dinara Safina
14. Anastasia Myskina
15. Jelena Jankovic

Golovinjured.
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:44 PM
4. Maria Sharapova
5. Jennifer Capriati- to me, 3 slam titles is 3 slam titles. In 20 years a tennis fan isn't going to remember Rome or Miami titles when talking about the greatest players.
6. Amelie Mauresmo
7. Svetlana Kuznetsova
8. Lindsay Davenport
9. Kim Clijsters
10. Mary Pierce
11. Ana Ivanovic
12. Martina Hingis
13. Dinara Safina
14. Anastasia Myskina
15. Jelena Jankovic

Where is THE FUCKING ELENA DEMENTIEVA!? ~:devil:;):eek::D:wavey::wavey::bo unce::bounce:

Havok
Jul 7th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Henin > V. Williams
Capriati > Mauresmo, Davenport
Pierce > Dementieva

Ryan
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:43 AM
Nice idea, I'll post my thoughts later.

Kworb
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:57 AM
According to my special formula:

1. Serena Williams - 142.7
2. Justine Henin - 123.2
3. Venus Williams - 109.6
4. Maria Sharapova - 51.2
5. Lindsay Davenport - 44.1
6. Kim Clijsters - 42.9
7. Amelie Mauresmo - 41.9
8. Jennifer Capriati - 38.7
9. Martina Hingis - 35.2
10. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 35.0

kwilliams
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:41 AM
Venus > Henin

Better head to head (the pre-peak Henin argument doesn't really hold up since JH won their very first match and had already been to the final of Wimbledon. She was no amateur and Venus was beating her on all surfaces)
More slam finals
Longevity
Venus was successful in doubles at the same time as singles.

tennisbear7
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:50 AM
Players like Hingis, Davenport, Pierce, and to a lesser extent Capriati, Venus and Serena, are unfortunate to have their careers split between decades.

That's why your list is so arbitrary.

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:28 AM
Justine over Venus for sure.

Justine has had seven slams for since US 07. Venus has played every slam since then and only been able to tie her.

More Tier I titles, 3/4 slams won, 1 more YEC, Year End #1, More Weeks @ #1.

Since 2000,

Serena, Justine, Venus.

How many Doubles GS titles does Henin have. I think Venus has 10 or 11.

Weeks at No 1 have not been relevent for some time now including

before and after Henin. ( Hingis and Safina )

And saying Henin is better than Venus even

though her H2H is 2-7 doesn't sound right anyway you say it. H2H

is the real measure of who is best.

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:35 AM
I guess to me Justine should be over Venus. All in all the list is more or less right. Justine's stats are better than Venus everywhere except grass and that deceptive H2H.

We all know that post slam winning Henin had her and Venus played 8 times, Venus would have not won seven of them.

No we don't all know that. That is an opinion.

You can only know that if the matches are played.

What we do know is that Venus leads the H2H 7-2.

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:56 AM
Venus over Justine based on H2H, number of slam finals reached, stellar doubles career record and longevity. She is just a more complete player of the last decade.

Thank You. There are many who choose to discount the

telling H2H and doubles. When comparing 2 players careers

you can't cherry pick which stats you count because they

don't favor your player. You also don't stack up a lot of

insignicant stats in your fav's favor like weeks at No 1

and finishing the year at No1. No 1 is a joke in the WTA.

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:07 AM
I think the H2H between Venus and Justine is misleading. Eight out of their nine meetings were all before Justine's 2003 RG win.

I am not even going to mention the details of that RG '03

win.

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:10 AM
Justine over Venus....1 more YEC.

And 1 YEC cancels out a 7-2 H2H and 11 GS

doubles.

Amazing!

Thanx4nothin
Jul 8th, 2009, 09:53 AM
The Henin Venus argument is a much more interesting one than the Serena vs Justine argument, mainly because it is REALLY feasible :lol:

Both 7 slams.
Both 41 titles.
Both olympic gold medals in singles.
Both made 4 slams finals in a row.
Both dominated 1 slam, Venus edges this 5 wimbledons vs 4 frenchs for Justine.
Justine has longer at no.1 by far (never been a stat I've found terribly significant, but many do).
Justine won 3/4 vs 2/4 for Venus - Huge advantage for Justine.
Venus made more slam finals - Advantage Venus
Venus leads the H2H 7-2 - Advantage Venus

Likelihood is that Venus WILL win more titles in her career. I doubt anyone would deny that she should win at least another 1-2 slams.
When all is said and done Venus will likely go down as greater than Ju.

ATM for me, Henin is slightly greater 51:49 close cut thing though :lol: :speakles:

If Venus wins another slam, even if it isn't at the AO/FO, she will automatically be greater than Justine, because she will have all the above stated stats, and surpass HENIN in total slams AND title count.

Ryan
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:00 PM
And 1 YEC cancels out a 7-2 H2H and 11 GS

doubles.

Amazing!



Incase you haven't realized, doubles isn't being taken into account here. If you're going to argue Venus over Justine in SINGLES, go ahead. ;)

Kworb
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:06 PM
H2H is the most meaningless stat of all. Is Nadal greater than Federer? :rolleyes:

Venus has two more GS finals, Justine has the extra YEC win. They cancel each other out. After that Justine has 10 Tier I titles and Venus has only 2. Justine has more than 100 weeks at #1 and Venus has only 11. It isn't even close; Justine is #2 on this list and Venus is #3.

AcesHigh
Jul 8th, 2009, 12:20 PM
Yea, LOVE Venus, but Henin is clearly ahead here.

Thanx4nothin
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:08 PM
H2H is the most meaningless stat of all. Is Nadal greater than Federer? :rolleyes:

Venus has two more GS finals, Justine has the extra YEC win. They cancel each other out. After that Justine has 10 Tier I titles and Venus has only 2. Justine has more than 100 weeks at #1 and Venus has only 11. It isn't even close; Justine is #2 on this list and Venus is #3.

Venus does NOT have only 2 tier 1 titles, she has 6. :rolleyes:

And I totally disagree that an extra YEC win is equal to 2 slam finals. I would FAR rather have made ONE slam final than won the YEC.

kwilliams
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:32 PM
H2H is the most meaningless stat of all. Is Nadal greater than Federer? :rolleyes:

Venus has two more GS finals, Justine has the extra YEC win. They cancel each other out. After that Justine has 10 Tier I titles and Venus has only 2. Justine has more than 100 weeks at #1 and Venus has only 11. It isn't even close; Justine is #2 on this list and Venus is #3.

H2H is far from meaningless...especially not when players have played a significant number of times. You can't pick one example from the air to exemplify that. Is Kuznetsova better than Henin? No and their head to head reflects that. Is Roddick better than Federer? No and their head to head reflects that.

Also, Nadal may end up being better than Federer. It's not likely but it's more than possible.

Each player has a player or two that they don't match up well against. Henin had Venus and there's no shame in that. She said herself that she found Venus very difficult to play.

Venus has 2 tier I titles? You must not know much about Venus. She has three Miami titles alone as well as titles in Rome, Zurich and Charleston. She also won the Grand Slam Cup which was not a tier I title but was certainly above a tier II title.

Venus' weeks at number one is perhaps one of the biggest travesties of the ranking system.

Venus has three more GS finals. Not two. I'm not sure the extra Championships win quite equals that.

They both have 41 titles but Venus has 23 other finals. Henin has 16 other finals. So Venus has a better record of making finals too.

Plus Venus has the doubles career and she has won singles and doubles titles at quite a few events. That's not easy to do!

Petersmiler
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:38 PM
H2H is far from meaningless...especially not when players have played a significant number of times. You can't pick one example from the air to exemplify that. Is Kuznetsova better than Henin? No and their head to head reflects that. Is Roddick better than Federer? No and their head to head reflects that.

Also, Nadal may end up being better than Federer. It's not likely but it's more than possible.

Each player has a player or two that they don't match up well against. Henin had Venus and there's no shame in that. She said herself that she found Venus very difficult to play.

Venus has 2 tier I titles? You must not know much about Venus. She has three Miami titles alone as well as titles in Rome, Zurich and Charleston. She also won the Grand Slam Cup which was not a tier I title but was certainly above a tier II title.

Venus' weeks at number one is perhaps one of the biggest travesties of the ranking system.

Venus has three more GS finals. Not two. I'm not sure the extra Championships win quite equals that.

They both have 41 titles but Venus has 23 other finals. Henin has 16 other finals. So Venus has a better record of making finals too.

Plus Venus has the doubles career and she has won singles and doubles titles at quite a few events. That's not easy to do!

Some of those tournament wins came before 2000 so they don't count here. For me, Justine still edges it, despite that H2H. The weeks at number 1 and the slams on 3 different surfaces make the difference. But then, it's just my opinion. And if Vee had won that final last weekend, it would have swung it in her favour I think.

Kworb
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:43 PM
Venus does NOT have only 2 tier 1 titles, she has 6. :rolleyes:

And I totally disagree that an extra YEC win is equal to 2 slam finals. I would FAR rather have made ONE slam final than won the YEC.

We are talking about 2000-2009. Venus has won only two Tier 1 titles in that period.

Victories are far more important and relevant than near-victories. Most Slam finals are reached by defeating just one top 10 player, if that. A YEC victory usually means at least four victories over top 10 players, and is a much bigger achievement in tennis than a lone Slam final.

kwilliams
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:45 PM
^ I forgot about that but then these threads often devolve into merely "who is better" arguments.

Well the head to head is the most crucial thing for me and 7-2 (4-0 in finals) is really quite resounding. I guess it doesn't really matter anyway. Venus has more time left and ultimately will be regarded as the greater player. Rightfully so.

Petersmiler
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:51 PM
^ I forgot about that but then these threads often devolve into merely "who is better" arguments.

Well the head to head is the most crucial thing for me and 7-2 (4-0 in finals) is really quite resounding. I guess it doesn't really matter anyway. Venus has more time left and ultimately will be regarded as the greater player. Rightfully so.

You're right, although it depends on what Venus achieves during her extra time that will ultimately decide whether her legacy is greater. I'll still be very suprised if she doesn't overtake Justine though.

kwilliams
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:52 PM
We are talking about 2000-2009. Venus has won only two Tier 1 titles in that period.

Victories are far more important and relevant than near-victories. Most Slam finals are reached by defeating just one top 10 player, if that. A YEC victory usually means at least four victories over top 10 players, and is a much bigger achievement in tennis than a lone Slam final.

Venus' latest journey to a slam final involved thrashings of Ivanovic, Radwanska and the biggest upset a number one has ever suffered.

Victories are more important than near-victories but they each have 41 titles and they each have 7 grand slam titles. Thus appearances in finals become more important in this particular discussion.

Kworb
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:01 PM
Venus' latest journey to a slam final involved thrashings of Ivanovic, Radwanska and the biggest upset a number one has ever suffered.

Victories are more important than near-victories but they each have 41 titles and they each have 7 grand slam titles. Thus appearances in finals become more important in this particular discussion.

2000-2009:

Venus has 32 titles; 7 Slams, 1 YEC, 1 Olympics, 2 Tier 1, 15 Tier 2, 5 Tier 3, 1 Tier 4.
Justine has 41 titles; 7 Slams, 2 YEC, 1 Olympics, 10 Tier 1, 17 Tier 2, 3 Tier 3, 1 Tier 4.

rockstar
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:28 PM
How many Doubles GS titles does Henin have. I think Venus has 10 or 11.

Weeks at No 1 have not been relevent for some time now including

before and after Henin. ( Hingis and Safina )

And saying Henin is better than Venus even

though her H2H is 2-7 doesn't sound right anyway you say it. H2H

is the real measure of who is best.

that's a flawed point you have there.

i'm a jelena fan, but she has a healthy h2h against the WS, doesnt make her better than them does it :spit:

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:02 PM
Incase you haven't realized, doubles isn't being taken into account here. If you're going to argue Venus over Justine in SINGLES, go ahead. ;)

Of course its not being counted. It never is when Heninites

compare the two because along with the H2H it would render

the argument moot.

When you compare players you can't cherry pick which stats

to count because it doesn't favor the player you like.

Kart
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:04 PM
My gut instinct is that Venus is the better player but it's hard to argue against Henin if we're counting only since 2000.

Serena
Henin
Venus
Sharapova
JenCap
Mauresmo
Clijsters
Davenport
Sveta
Hingis

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:10 PM
2000-2009:

Venus has 32 titles; 7 Slams, 1 YEC, 1 Olympics, 2 Tier 1, 15 Tier 2, 5 Tier 3, 1 Tier 4.
Justine has 41 titles; 7 Slams, 2 YEC, 1 Olympics, 10 Tier 1, 17 Tier 2, 3 Tier 3, 1 Tier 4.

I think Venus has 3 olympic GM

rjd1111
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:12 PM
that's a flawed point you have there.

i'm a jelena fan, but she has a healthy h2h against the WS, doesnt make her better than them does it :spit:


Jelena doesn't have any GS titles. 7 better than 0

Olórin
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:59 PM
Only counting since 2000 is moronic considering the second best player of this generation began her career several years earlier, and the best player won her first slams a few months earlier. The parameters of the thread should be adjusted accordingly.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:19 PM
According to my special formula:

1. Serena Williams - 142.7
2. Justine Henin - 123.2
3. Venus Williams - 109.6
4. Maria Sharapova - 51.2
5. Lindsay Davenport - 44.1
6. Kim Clijsters - 42.9
7. Amelie Mauresmo - 41.9
8. Jennifer Capriati - 38.7
9. Martina Hingis - 35.2
10. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 35.0
How does your special formual put Sharapova above Davenport? The both have the same number and type of slams, but Lindsay has many more weeks at number 1. In addition, Lindsay has way more tittles to her resume than does Sharapova.

Kworb
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:20 PM
How does your special formual put Sharapova above Davenport? The both have the same number and type of slams, but Lindsay has many more weeks at number 1. In addition, Lindsay has way more tittles to her resume than does Sharapova.

Again, it's 2000-2009. Lindsay has only one Slam in that period.

Steffica Greles
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Only counting since 2000 is moronic considering the second best player of this generation began her career several years earlier, and the best player won her first slams a few months earlier. The parameters of the thread should be adjusted accordingly.
But then it's not the best player of this decade, you fool. Same goes for the other fool who said that. Else technically any player who played this decade could be in the list. You're saying that a player's results from other decades should be included. Martina Navratilova?

We want the best players of this decade, and the only fair way of doing that is to only look at results therein. Or why not another boring 'greatest player ever' thread? :rolleyes:

Steffica Greles
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:21 PM
How does your special formual put Sharapova above Davenport? The both have the same number and type of slams, but Lindsay has many more weeks at number 1. In addition, Lindsay has way more tittles to her resume than does Sharapova.

If you don't get it, don't post. <exasperated>

Next....

moby
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:27 PM
^ I forgot about that but then these threads often devolve into merely "who is better" arguments.

Well the head to head is the most crucial thing for me and 7-2 (4-0 in finals) is really quite resounding. I guess it doesn't really matter anyway. Venus has more time left and ultimately will be regarded as the greater player. Rightfully so.Hingis was 8-3 against Venus at one point. Evert was 6-0 against Graf at one point. Evert was 23-5 against Navratilova at one point. :shrug: The fact remains that Justine and Venus played exactly once since Justine's rise to the peak of her game and Justine won that meeting. (If we're generous and include the transitional period for Justine from good to great that was early 2003, in which case Venus's AO win counts and their H2H in the critical period is 1-all.

Let's take an arbitrary (expedient) time, March 03, for instance.
Before March 03: Venus Williams leads Amelie Mauresmo 5-0
After March 03: Amelie Mauresmo leads Venus Williams 3-0

Before March 03: Venus Williams leads Justine Henin 7-1
After March 03: Justine Henin leads Venus Williams 1-0

I would be surprised if Venus doesn't overtake Justine eventually; however right now Justine not only has the better career in the 2000s, but IMO, also overall.

Dave.
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:37 PM
Thank You. There are many who choose to discount the

telling H2H and doubles. When comparing 2 players careers

you can't cherry pick which stats you count because they

don't favor your player. You also don't stack up a lot of

insignicant stats in your fav's favor like weeks at No 1

and finishing the year at No1. No 1 is a joke in the WTA.

Cherry picking.

faboozadoo15
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:48 PM
Davenport really gets the short end of the stick as her career gaps a decade (well not really because the decade starts in 2001). Her career is a little better than Sharapova's.

faboozadoo15
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:48 PM
When you compare players you can't cherry pick which stats

to count because it doesn't favor the player you like.

:spit: Follow your own advice, you fool. :haha:

Dave.
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Davenport really gets the short end of the stick as her career gaps a decade (well not really because the decade starts in 2001). Her career is a little better than Sharapova's.

Far better. I'd say from 2000 only, Sharapova's career is a little better. Even in this decade, Davenport won more titles and reached more GS finals.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 8th, 2009, 08:28 PM
If you don't get it, don't post. <exasperated>

Next....

Hold up....no need to get your panties in bunch......I merely forgot that Lindsay won the other 2 slams prior to your set criteria......I asked a question and it was answered by the poster it was addressed to. Calm down its only a tennis message board.

hingis-seles
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:23 PM
She also won the Grand Slam Cup which was not a tier I title but was certainly above a tier II title.

The Grand Slam Cup was an exhibition. It didn't even award any ranking points. This is also why matches from this event are not included in the official head-to-head from the ITF. That makes even a Tier IV title more valuable.

Donny
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:35 PM
But then it's not the best player of this decade, you fool. Same goes for the other fool who said that. Else technically any player who played this decade could be in the list. You're saying that a player's results from other decades should be included. Martina Navratilova?

We want the best players of this decade, and the only fair way of doing that is to only look at results therein. Or why not another boring 'greatest player ever' thread? :rolleyes:

If you REALLY want t be pedantic, the decade began in 2001.

Kworb
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:39 PM
No, decades start at 0. Centuries and millennia start at 1. When we say "the 90s" we don't include 2000, and we do include 1990.

Steffica Greles
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:42 PM
If you REALLY want t be pedantic, the decade began in 2001.

Come again? The decade began in 2000, known as the 'noughties'.

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 - that's ten years.

xan
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:28 AM
Far better. I'd say from 2000 only, Sharapova's career is a little better. Even in this decade, Davenport won more titles and reached more GS finals.

In this decade Sharapova won 3 slams. Davenport 1.

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:43 AM
In this decade Sharapova won 3 slams. Davenport 1.

Which is why I said hers is a little better.

Donny
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Come again? The decade began in 2000, known as the 'noughties'.

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 - that's ten years.

No, actually, the decade began in 2001.

The first decade began AD 1. The second decade began in AD 11. And so on.

You can say that an arbitrary time period known as the 2000's began in 2000, but seeing as that period isn't even over yet, I don't see the point in doing that.

Kworb
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:12 AM
All definitions of time periods are arbitrary. The 2000s or the "noughties" are a generally used term for the decade meaning 2000-2009. And this decade is what the topic is about.

Donny
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:19 AM
All definitions of time periods are arbitrary. The 2000s or the "noughties" are a generally used term for the decade meaning 2000-2009. And this decade is what the topic is about.

The 2000's aren't over yet. Why not do from July 1999 to July 2009 for a true decade long period? Starting with 2000 for absolutely no reason seems pretty pointless to me.

Junex
Jul 9th, 2009, 03:08 AM
Jelena doesn't have any GS titles. 7 better than 0

So who is Chery-picking now?.....:rolleyes:

AMEEZING!!!!!!!!!!!!:tape:

Steffica Greles
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:03 AM
The 2000's aren't over yet. Why not do from July 1999 to July 2009 for a true decade long period? Starting with 2000 for absolutely no reason seems pretty pointless to me.

Because we only have 6 months left, and given that Capriati, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Hingis and Davenport seem to have aroused so much debate, I doubt positions will change after the U.S Open. Very unlikely at this point that Sharapova or Mauresmo will win it.

And thanks Kworb, for pointing out what should be obvious :)

rjd1111
Jul 17th, 2009, 06:15 PM
So who is Chery-picking now?.....:rolleyes:

AMEEZING!!!!!!!!!!!!:tape:

Thats only 1.

Just what significant stat does JJ lead Serena.

rjd1111
Jul 17th, 2009, 06:17 PM
:spit: Follow your own advice, you fool. :haha:

I see Flapadoodle is still spouting idiocy.

rjd1111
Jul 17th, 2009, 06:23 PM
Cherry picking.

That term is being used extensively by an idiotic

Pova fan on the other board who claims that the

Sisters are " Cherry picking " Pova to beat and

( quote )" losing to everyone else ".

bandabou
Jul 17th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Nice list...no debate really about no.1, as it should. no.2 and no.3, all depends if you value the h2h or not for Vee and Juju.

jujufreak
Jul 17th, 2009, 08:04 PM
Interesting thread :)

1. Serena
2. Justine
3. Venus
4. Lindsay
5. Maria
6. Jennifer
7. Amelie
8. Svetlana
9. Kim
10. Elena/Martina (not sure yet)

Steffica Greles
Sep 14th, 2009, 04:33 PM
Rankings amended.

manu
Sep 14th, 2009, 06:02 PM
I'd rank them:

1. Serena
2. Justine
3. Venus
4. Capriati
5. Sharapova
6. Davenport
7. Clijsters
8. Mauresmo
9. Pierce
10. Kuznetsova

Even though I'm a big Kim fan, I think number of Slam wins is basically THE statistic to rank all-time-greatness of players. I think it's silly not to include all Lindsay's Slam wins in the discussion. If you include her into the discussion, you should include all her achievements, not just half of them. We're not talking about one half or one third of Lindsay.

Overall tournament wins and weeks at #1 come into play, but to a much lesser extent. Head-to-heads don't matter all that match, except for Slam head-to-head.

Lastly, I really don't have a clue why people consider Venus's and Justine's head-to-head record when discussing who's better. These records are far less important than Slam wins to begin with, let alone this one: it's totally unfair to Justine and gives way too much credit to Venus. Who cares if she beat Justine in some clay warm-up tourney in the year 2001? Justine was still developing then bigtime. I am a Justine fan, but in all objectivity: all other statistics are in favour of Justine, so that alone should ring a bell to people that the h-2-h isn't of any use.

Steffica Greles
Sep 14th, 2009, 09:20 PM
I'd rank them:

1. Serena
2. Justine
3. Venus
4. Capriati
5. Sharapova
6. Davenport
7. Clijsters
8. Mauresmo
9. Pierce
10. Kuznetsova

Even though I'm a big Kim fan, I think number of Slam wins is basically THE statistic to rank all-time-greatness of players. I think it's silly not to include all Lindsay's Slam wins in the discussion. If you include her into the discussion, you should include all her achievements, not just half of them. We're not talking about one half or one third of Lindsay.

Overall tournament wins and weeks at #1 come into play, but to a much lesser extent. Head-to-heads don't matter all that match, except for Slam head-to-head.

Lastly, I really don't have a clue why people consider Venus's and Justine's head-to-head record when discussing who's better. These records are far less important than Slam wins to begin with, let alone this one: it's totally unfair to Justine and gives way too much credit to Venus. Who cares if she beat Justine in some clay warm-up tourney in the year 2001? Justine was still developing then bigtime. I am a Justine fan, but in all objectivity: all other statistics are in favour of Justine, so that alone should ring a bell to people that the h-2-h isn't of any use.

It's not silly at all. Navratilova competed in the singles in the 2000s - am I supposed to add her? If there's no hard and fast rule, then you might as well make it another greatest ever discussion. You have to be consistent for it to be fair.

The value of it? Well, that's up to the individual. But it ranks those who have been best within a set time period. Without a set time period, you have to go back to the beginning.

And Pierce above Kuznetsova?! How would you explain that?

I think slam wins are important, but a bulk of tier 1 and even tier 2 titles is significant. Capriati barely won anything on the tour, so her 3 slam wins to another's who has 40 tier 2 or above titles but just 2 slams, is actually not that impressive; I'd go with the person who led the tour.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Sep 15th, 2009, 01:43 AM
Pierce is a helluva player , but aside her title in RG she was not a great factor during the decade (5 titles)