PDA

View Full Version : Who is Greater? Davenport or Sanchez-Vicario?


Pages : [1] 2

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:42 PM
Who is greater Lindsay Davenport or Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario?

*slams

Sanchez-Vicario - 4GS [ '89 FO, '94 FO, '94 US, '98 FO ]
Sanchez-Vicario - 8 additional slam finals [ '91 FO, '92 US, '94 AO, '95 AO, '95 FO, '95 WB, '96 FO, '96 WB, '98 FO ] reached every slam final at least twice.

Davenport - 3GS [ '98 US, '99 WB, '00 AO ]
Davenport - 4 additional slam finals [ '00 WB, '00 US, '05 WB, '05 AO ]

Sanchez-Vicario [ AO // 42-11 (79%), FO // 73-13 (85%), W // 41-15 (73%), US // 56-15 (79%) ]
Davenport [ AO // 56-13 (81%), FO // 31-11 (74%), WB // 49-11 (82%), US // 62-16 (79%) ]

*titles

Sanchez-Vicario - 29 [ 6 Tier I, 12 Tier II ]

Davenport - 55 [ 10 Tier I, 26 Tier II ]

*#1

Sanchez-Vicario - 12 weeks overall.

Davenport - 98 weeks overall.
YE #1 4 times [ '98, '01, '04, '05 ] '01/'04 did not have even a slam F on her ranking. '01/'04/'05 did not have a slam W on her ranking.



*YEC/Olympics

YEC

Sanchez-Vicario - 1F [ '93 ]
Davenport - 1W [ '99 ] 3F [ '94, '98, '01 ]

Olympics

Sanchez-Vicario - 1S, 1B [ '96, '92 ]
Davenport - 1G [ '96 ]

*H2H

7 // Sanchez-Vicario : 5 // Davenport

Clay // 3-0 Sanchez-Vicario
Hard // 3-3
Carpet // 1-1
Mixed // 1-0 Davenport

Miss Amor
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:46 PM
ASV

(Even though Davenport's game style appealed to me a whole lot more)

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:51 PM
ASV imo but since i never liked her game and im a fan of Lindsay the later will get my vote on the poll :devil:

CrossCourt~Rally
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:53 PM
I'm a big fan of both players, but i give the edge to Dav :bounce:

Miss Amor
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Also I wonder whose multiple account the OP is, and how he will turn this thread into a 'Are Grandslams really that important ? ' thread .

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Lindsay obvs.

I have huge respect for ASV though.



I'm not sure why Lindsay not having a slam in some of her year-end no.1's is relevant to this question.

Davenport won 11 Tier I's btw.

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Also I wonder whose multiple account the OP is, and how he will turn this thread into a 'Are Grandslams really that important ? ' thread .

i thought the same :tape:

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:01 PM
Also I wonder whose multiple account the OP is, and how he will turn this thread into a 'Are Grandslams really that important ? ' thread .

The OP voted for ASV (the one with more slams) and displayed the stats in a biased way towards her though, so if anything they'd turn the thread into a "Grand Slams are all that matter" thread. :shrug:


But yes I agree it probably is a multiple account.

Noctis
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Lindsay

samn
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:12 PM
I'm not sure why Lindsay not having a slam in some of her year-end no.1's is relevant to this question.


Well, I don't think it's fair to compare Davenport's weeks at #1 with Sanchez Vicario's. The latter reached #1 under the old divisor ranking system and would likely have reached the top spot in 1994 and stayed there longer than she actually did had they used the present ranking system back then. Conversely Davenport would most likely not have been #1 in 2001 or 2004 under the divisor.

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:20 PM
Lindsay obvs.

I have huge respect for ASV though.



I'm not sure why Lindsay not having a slam in some of her year-end no.1's is relevant to this question.

Davenport won 11 Tier I's btw.

I displayed the stats as they were presented by their own racquet. Their is no intentional "playing up" of ASV's superior slam accomplishments. Anyone can see ASV did more than Davenport at the slams.

Furthermore, I voted for ASV for a legitimate reason not to push a slams are the only thing that matters agenda. On a side note, I think Clijsters > Kuznetsova. Guess who has more slams? Don't think you know everything. It isn't farfetched to think ASV is greater than Davenport. She has more slams, more slam finals reaching all four at least twice, and she was in a more competitive era.

As another poster mentioned I highlighted some of Lindsay's YE #1 to show partially what he mentioned.

No one is trying to attack Lindsay. This is a very legitimate question since they are close in achievements.

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:37 PM
I displayed the stats as they were presented by their own racquet. Their is no intentional "playing up" of ASV's superior slam accomplishments. Anyone can see ASV did more than Davenport at the slams.

Furthermore, I voted for ASV for a legitimate reason not to push a slams are the only thing that matters agenda. On a side note, I think Clijsters > Kuznetsova. Guess who has more slams? Don't think you know everything. It isn't farfetched to think ASV is greater than Davenport. She has more slams, more slam finals reaching all four at least twice, and she was in a more competitive era.

As another poster mentioned I highlighted some of Lindsay's YE #1 to show partially what he mentioned.

No one is trying to attack Lindsay. This is a very legitimate question since they are close in achievements.

I know it's a legitimate question and really can be argued either way which is why I don't think we need to be putting asteriks next to Lindsay's no.1 years. Players can only work with the ranking system they play under at the time, just like players can only play the players in front of them. Discounting Lindsay's length of time or years ended at no.1 because of the different ranking system is as silly as discounting ASV's 2 1994 slams because of the Seles stabbing.

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Well personally why do you feel Davenport is greater than ASV besides having her name in your signature?

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:43 PM
I know it's a legitimate question and really can be argued either way which is why I don't think we need to be putting asteriks next to Lindsay's no.1 years. Players can only work with the ranking system they play under at the time, just like players can only play the players in front of them. Discounting Lindsay's length of time or years ended at no.1 because of the different ranking system is as silly as discounting ASV's 2 1994 slams because of the Seles stabbing.

The two are in no way similar.

Serenita
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:52 PM
ASV by far.. more Slams / more slam finals /
all and all ASV is greater player.

jimbo mack
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:55 PM
this is a tough one to call....and i'm a huge davenport fan

but i'm gonna go with arantxa, simply because she has that extra slam and slam finals. And at the end of the day..the tally of slams are the most significant thing (alongside the number one ranking) when measuring 'greatness' in tennis.

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:00 PM
OMG are you crazy??? :weirdo: You can't compare the greatness of Lindsay to the boooring Mrs. Surnames!!! :weirdo:

Davenport beats Surnames in all aspects! (one Slam more isn't that important when you dominate on just ONE surface). Everybody knows that Graf had the PME in 1989 and probably at the US Open too... :haha:

iWill
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:01 PM
I wanted to vote for ASV but the other titles that Davenport has picked up (Olympics mostly) and the fact that she won 3 out of 4 slams made me pick her. This one is tough and I don't see Davenport ever winning another slam so this can always be debated pretty evenly because I don't feel one player totally out-does the other.

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:02 PM
Please remark also the Mrs. Surnames' slamless period during the Seles era (90-93). Mrs. Oportunistic? :scratch:

The Daviator
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:08 PM
Lindsay. I'm biased, but the fact that she has YEC/OG and 26(!) more titles, makes up for the 1 less Slam, and I really believe that LD is the more gifted player, whilst ASV, who was also hugely talented, achieved a lot because she was a such a gritty opponent and a great fighter.

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Please remark Davenport being slamless after Venus won her first slam.

Davenport's slam career. She comes up and wins one slam a year for three years. Doesn't even reach another FINAL between '01-'05. Didn't win a slam or YEC since '00 despite continuing to compete on tour for several years.

ASV being slamless in Seles' prime is comparable to Davenport being slamless once The Williams Sisters took flight. Between ASV's slams she continued to make herself relevant by reaching multiple slam finals. She has more slam finals than Davenport has slams and runner-ups combined. Not to mention reaching the final on all surfaces at least TWICE.

Both of them are obviously backseat compared to the bigger names of their generation, so don't make it seem like Davenport was at the forefront of hers either.

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:15 PM
More slams, more slam finals, finals on all surfaces... ASV is the obvious choice imo.

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:22 PM
Lindsay. I'm biased, but the fact that she has YEC/OG and 26(!) more titles, makes up for the 1 less Slam, and I really believe that LD is the more gifted player, whilst ASV, who was also hugely talented, achieved a lot because she was a such a gritty opponent and a great fighter.

But Davenport didn't even reach a slam FINAL for 4 years? '01-'05? She played in 12/16 slams during that time.

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:27 PM
12 weeks at #1 because of top players being passive is too ridiculous IMO! :tape: :haha:

Kworb
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:27 PM
ASV. Most people here are too young to remember how good she was.

The Daviator
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:32 PM
But Davenport didn't even reach a slam FINAL for 4 years? '01-'05? She played in 12/16 slams during that time.

So? As you can see in your stats, she has a better W/L record at the AO and W, and is tied with ASV at the USO. Only Slam where ASV beats Lindsay is at RG.

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:37 PM
By 1 or 2%, oh wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. She beats Lindsay at the French by double digits. That's much more telling. Davenport has a 2 point edge at the AO. ASV a big lead at the French. Davenport a lead at Wimbledon. Tied @ US.

2% better winning percentage < ASV's slam performances.

That doesn't replace a four year gap in which she didn't even get to be a runner up.

At least you did admit in your post you were biased. I can't fault you if you're honest about it.

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:43 PM
But Davenport didn't even reach a slam FINAL for 4 years? '01-'05? She played in 12/16 slams during that time.
Well its clear that there were WAY more contenders in Davenport's era, than in ASV where it was just "Steffi (, Seles) and the seven dwarfs" and anyway, lindsay had so many injury problems in that period, injuries obviously weren't as prominent back in that era.

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:45 PM
back in that error.

:sobbing:

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:45 PM
:sobbing:
I know, I changed it straight away! :crying2:I'm tired. :o

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:49 PM
Well its clear that there were WAY more contenders in Davenport's era, than in ASV where it was just "Steffi (, Seles) and the seven dwarfs" and anyway, lindsay had so many injury problems in that period, injuries obviously weren't as prominent back in that era.

Great points! :yeah:

It's unbelievable that nobody can see that all that Mrs. Surnames' greatness comes from an era with stabbed players, personal problems because of fathers, and that leading to a field of no competitivity at all. Moonballing back everything isn't the greatest way to make the HOF which sadly she will make anytime soon... :weirdo:

revolvtion
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:53 PM
Moonballing

With Nuria Llagostera Vives in your signature? Really?

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:01 PM
With Nuria Llagostera Vives in your signature? Really?
At least they don't have Wozniacki. :tears:

Mixo
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:05 PM
Come on guys, Lindsay was great, but ASV must win this. She was really amazing. I love her.

AdeyC
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:24 PM
Arantxa

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:06 AM
Davenport's slam career. She comes up and wins one slam a year for three years. Doesn't even reach another FINAL between '01-'05. Didn't win a slam or YEC since '00 despite continuing to compete on tour for several years.

Yet again, it's not just the slams that count. In that period between 2001 and 2005 Davenport won 21 titles, that's almost as many as ASV won in her entire career. 3 out of those 5 years she ended the year at no.1, which is 3 times more than ASV did in her career.



Both of them are obviously backseat compared to the bigger names of their generation, so don't make it seem like Davenport was at the forefront of hers either.

Davenport was though, which for me is one of the biggest differences between them. Davenport was the dominant player of the late 90's, she was no.1 in the world, the premier player, for a great deal of time. Sanchez-Vicario played the majority of her career in the shadow of Seles and Graf. Not just being no.1, but being the favourite to win titles, being the player to beat, Davenport was more often than Sanchez-Vicario.

But Davenport didn't even reach a slam FINAL for 4 years? '01-'05? She played in 12/16 slams during that time.

And in every one of those slams she made the second week. So she may have not played in a final between 01 and 04 but her consistency was second to none in that period.

It seems you are 100% certain ASV had a better career, jubliant. :shrug:

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:12 AM
Just as certain as you are that Davenport had a better one.

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:16 AM
Which is why I didn't start a thread :lol:

mauresmofan
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:21 AM
I loved the fight Arantxa had in her - she didn't have the big weapons but she used what she had which was tenacity to run down shots and turn rallies around in her favour that a lot if not all other players can only dream about. The only player with similar fighting qualities is Serena.

iPatty
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:26 AM
With Nuria Llagostera Vives in your signature? Really?

Llagostera Vives doesn't even moonball.

Anyway, I side with Dave in this argument. In their respective eras, Davenport just had the greater aura surrounding her. It's not hard to make Slam finals when there are only one or two players that can handle your moonballs. Davenport couldn't make Slam finals because of the emergence of great players that are still around the game today.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:34 AM
Llagostera Vives doesn't even moonball.



Yes, because you've seen every one of her career matches.

Matt01
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:38 AM
In Singles: Davenport.
Her Olympic Gold Medal, YEC-win and especially her weeks as #1 make more than up for the one less Slam win. Plus she had the better game (technically).

Mark_LLMGP
Jul 11th, 2009, 01:10 AM
Yes, because you've seen every one of her career matches.


Don't be ridicolous. LLagostera-Vives doesn't moonball. You can say it about Medina-Garrigues, Carla Suarez, Lourdes Dominguez ... but not about Nuria or MJMS. This year her best results are on hard, for instance. How many matches have you seen?

But the most important: hey guys, ASV deserves to win the poll. I love Lindsday, but ASV was better. She reached the final in every GS (I can't see Lindsday in RG final), matches Graf-ASV were epic, and ASV was able to a win slam in Navratilova's, Graf's and Hingis' eras. Of course, she also won matches again williams sisters.

ASV has a great doubles career too.

Linsday won Atlanta'96, this is remarkable, but H2H is 7-5. Arantxa was a great champion.

Marcus1979
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:37 AM
Davenport

didn't most of ASV slam finals come in periods where Seles was off the circuit

its like if Venus or Serena got injured in the 2000-2002 period. I mean davenports slam would look better with her main rivals off the circuit.

But Davenport didn't even reach a slam FINAL for 4 years? '01-'05? She played in 12/16 slams during that time.

how many losses came against a williams sister in that period tho.

2001 Wimbledon: Venus
2001 US Open: Serena
2002 US Open: Serena
2003 Wimbledon: Venus
2005 Australian Open: Serena
2005 Wimbledon: Venus

tonybotz
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:34 AM
davenport, by far. sanchez took advantage of seles' stabbing and graf's bad back to advance herself. the barcelona opportunist!

Julian
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:33 AM
Im probably one of the most biased here lol but I have to say Arantxa..

Mainly due to her longevity and how much of an impact she really had on the tennis world considering her game (she did not possess a power game, and also had huge weaknesses with her forehand and serve)...Her qualities of tenacity, stamina, and fight are one of the most unmatched in history IMO. Seriously, how do you win a GS with major weaknesses?? and 4 GS titles at that (along with 8 other GS final appearances)

Her 1989 FO final win over Steffi is seriously underappreciated (mostly by Monica's GS win over Steffi the next year who was a year younger then Arantxa)..but Arantxa had stopped Steffi's run of her 6th STRAIGHT GS final win (which included her Golden Slam the year before)..I dont think ANYONE believed she would have defeated Steffi that day.

Her 1989 FO final win 9 years later is another win that against all odds she defied against Monica (in fact she won her GS's all about 5 years apart (1989, 1994, 1998 and almost reached another final in 2000, which would have been 11 years after her first GS final)! in comparison to Lindsay who won her GS within a span of 2 years.

Anyway, I agree that she wouldn't have been as successful had Monica not left the game (1994-1995), but come on guys she still played in the prime era of Steffi Graf (who is considered the greatest tennis player of all time)..was she lucky with that??

And she not only started in the late 80's..having beaten great players like Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova (okay okay they were both in the end of their careers)..but she has also beaten recent players such as Venus and Serena (up until the early 2000s!! she was a SUCCESSFUL player for more then decade)..although both WS were still very young, on the other hand, Arantxa was near the end of her career, and gave Venus HUGE fits in their matches in 2000 and last match in 2002.

Anyway I can go on, and its a shame that Arantxa just didn't have the power game, media appeal, or was deemed successful just because of the absence of Monica Seles, but I truly believe in what I stand. It is fortunate though that Lindsay's game can transition well with today's players, because she was indeed blessed with the game to wipe players off the court....but I guess all the years, and hard-working construction to win every single point for sooo long provides Arantxa the edge for me.

Wojtek
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:17 AM
Asv

MechWarrior2k
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:39 AM
Davenport. Yes Vicario has one extra slam, but Davenport had essentially 2 careers in singles and doubles, excelling in both. Davenport is a player whose style of play was popularized and patterned by many of today's players. Davenport has legendary strokes (forehand, backhand, serve), adapted her game as she got older and slimmer, was a much better player than Vicario on grass and hardcourt, oh and Davenport BEAT Vicario in '96 Olympic final.

I'm a fan of both Vicario and Davenport. With Vicario you knew you were in for a long day at the office because she got to every ball. With Davenport you had to play your A game or get blown away with some of the fastest, cleanest ball-striking around.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:19 AM
Davenport. Yes Vicario has one extra slam, but Davenport had essentially 2 careers in singles and doubles, excelling in both. Davenport is a player whose style of play was popularized and patterned by many of today's players. Davenport has legendary strokes (forehand, backhand, serve), adapted her game as she got older and slimmer, was a much better player than Vicario on grass and hardcourt, oh and Davenport BEAT Vicario in '96 Olympic final.

I'm a fan of both Vicario and Davenport. With Vicario you knew you were in for a long day at the office because she got to every ball. With Davenport you had to play your A game or get blown away with some of the fastest, cleanest ball-striking around.

You can call her Sanchez or Sanchez Vicario , in any case Vicario

morbidangle
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:57 AM
As much as I love Lindsay, I have to say, ASV by far... Lindsay sucked on clay, ASV got to 2 slam finals on her least favourite surface and probably would have won if she wasnt playing one of the best grass court players ever. ASV has the extra slam, better results on all four surfaces, had more longevity etc etc...

samn
Jul 11th, 2009, 09:44 AM
Davenport

didn't most of ASV slam finals come in periods where Seles was off the circuit



Depends on how you define "most". Half of Sanchez Vicario's twelve Slam finals were in between January 1994 and July 1995, when Seles was off the circuit. But you can hardly hold that against ASV, though. She beat the players who were in her section of the draw at each of those events and showed remarkable consistency to get to six Grand Slam finals in that period.

Some others have mentioned that Davenport was truly awful on clay, but to be perfectly fair, ASV was just as bad indoors. She won only one title indoors in her entire career and even that one was a dogfight - something like 1-6 7-6 7-6 against Navratilova in the latter's last singles final at Oakland in 1994. (Navratilova had led 6-1 4-1 and then served for the match at 5-3 in the third before ASV scraped through to win the only indoor title of her long career.)

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:25 AM
Davenport. Yes Vicario has one extra slam, but Davenport had essentially 2 careers in singles and doubles, excelling in both. Davenport is a player whose style of play was popularized and patterned by many of today's players. Davenport has legendary strokes (forehand, backhand, serve), adapted her game as she got older and slimmer, was a much better player than Vicario on grass and hardcourt, oh and Davenport BEAT Vicario in '96 Olympic final.

I'm a fan of both Vicario and Davenport. With Vicario you knew you were in for a long day at the office because she got to every ball. With Davenport you had to play your A game or get blown away with some of the fastest, cleanest ball-striking around.

This is one of the toughest "who is better?" match ups. One can really make strong cases for both players. There is no definitive answer to this one. There are so many things to take into account here. Titles, slam success, the era they played, win-loss record and so on.

But using the argument that Davenport is better based on her doubles success doesn't cut it. Without question, Sanchez Vicario had the substantially better doubles career, although both girls were every bit as effective in doubles as they were in singles.

Ellen Dawson
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:27 AM
I know it's a close one to call but for me it's Arantxa by her determination alone.

bandabou
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:32 AM
Well if you value "empty" stats then it's Linds. Linds is the ultimate queen of empty stats. Put her in non big match/tournament and she's your girl..the Bali's of this world. Put her at a major and she WILL find a way to lose the match for you.

Linds is good, semi-great..but don't come with the YE #1 and 50+ titles as an argument for putting her in Hingis/Venus/Henin league.

S_Fahad
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:10 PM
Arantxa by a hair. 4 > 3. she was a better all court player than Lindsay, was a better fighter and was much tougher mentally.

Steffica Greles
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:17 PM
The more prodigious player? Davenport. She had possibly the best groundstrokes I've ever seen. One of the best serves, too. With a head to match, and better mobility, I actually think she'd have been pretty much invincible.

However, as Bandabou suggests, pudgy Aranxta was just a lion of a competitor, who rose to the occasion, whereas Big Lindsay so often shrunk.

I'll never forget one of Aranxta's last great performances, at RG '98. Serena was a better athlete then, just a bag of muscles, and so intimidating to opponents. She was clobbering Aranxta off the court in the 4th round of the French Open. However, when Aranxta was almost down and out, there was a dispute of some sort, and Aranxta perceived Serena to be cocky and aggressive.

Most players would have been intimidated, but Aranxta's feathers ruffled and the adrenaline she had been missing suddenly started flowing. Serena had sparked her ire - big mistake. Aranxta turned the match around in one of those feats which very few players could have managed. She just had a warrior's spirit, did Sanchez-Vicario.

And then with that confidence, she eventually went on to win the French Open of '98. Amazing player.

Steffica Greles
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:23 PM
Depends on how you define "most". Half of Sanchez Vicario's twelve Slam finals were in between January 1994 and July 1995, when Seles was off the circuit. But you can hardly hold that against ASV, though. She beat the players who were in her section of the draw at each of those events and showed remarkable consistency to get to six Grand Slam finals in that period.

Some others have mentioned that Davenport was truly awful on clay, but to be perfectly fair, ASV was just as bad indoors. She won only one title indoors in her entire career and even that one was a dogfight - something like 1-6 7-6 7-6 against Navratilova in the latter's last singles final at Oakland in 1994. (Navratilova had led 6-1 4-1 and then served for the match at 5-3 in the third before ASV scraped through to win the only indoor title of her long career.)

It's true she wasn't at her best indoors. Much more beatable.

However, she reached a few semi-finals at Filderstadt and Zurich late in her career, and what people often forget is she reached the YEC finals of 1993, taking a set from Graf. So, she was hardly inept.

Olórin
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:26 PM
Tie :shrug:

Steffica Greles
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:48 PM
Davenport. Yes Vicario has one extra slam, but Davenport had essentially 2 careers in singles and doubles, excelling in both.

LOL! Sanchez-Vicario was one of the best doubles players of all time. She was also number one in singles and doubles simultaneously.

Did you check your facts?

morbidangle
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:58 PM
I agree with you, but I seem to remember a while back when you said that slams were the be all and end all for you when it came to deciding greatness, and Venus having 6 slams over Martina's 5 made her automatically greater (this was obviously before 2008 Wimbledon).
This is your second post and you remember stuff he said more than a year back?? Whose second ID are you??

Lindsayfan32
Jul 11th, 2009, 01:53 PM
LOL! Sanchez-Vicario was one of the best doubles players of all time. She was also number one in singles and doubles simultaneously.

Did you check your facts?

Well you asked did you check your facts?. Lindsay held the number 1 ranking in singles and doubles in 1998 in memory serves me correctly. I know she had it simultaneously once in career.

Steffica Greles
Jul 11th, 2009, 02:07 PM
Well you asked did you check your facts?. Lindsay held the number 1 ranking in singles and doubles in 1998 in memory serves me correctly. I know she had it simultaneously once in career.

I never said Lindsay didn't, or denied that she was a great doubles player. Just not as great as Sanchez-Vicario - that was the point. Better read properly next time...

MH0861
Jul 11th, 2009, 02:42 PM
Realistically ASV slightly, I didn't realize her slam career was so good, but at their respective bests I think Lindsay would beat ASV more often than not.

Steffica Greles
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:18 PM
1992 Us Open Hard R64 A.Sanchez-Vicario 6-2 6-1

1992 Miami Hard R64 A.Sanchez-Vicario 6-4 6-4

1993 Amelia Island Clay R16 A.Sanchez-Vicario 6-2 6-4

1994 Fed Cup Clay R5 A.Sanchez-Vicario 6-2 6-1

1994 Oakland Carpet SF A.Sanchez-Vicario 6-2 4-6 6-3

1996 Fed Cup Final Mixed R3 L. Davenport 7-5 6-1

1996 Olympics - Atlanta Hard F L. Davenport 7-6(6) 6-2

1997 Filderstadt Hard R16 A.Sanchez-Vicario 6-4 7-6(5)

1998 French Open Clay SF A.Sanchez-Vicario 6-3 7-6(5)

1998 Filderstadt Hard SF L. Davenport 7-6(4) 6-4

2000 Fed Cup Final Carpet R5 L. Davenport 6-2 1-6 6-3

2000 Sydney Hard QF L.Davenport 6-7(5) 6-3 6-4

We can discount the pre-1993 matches, when Davenport was outside the top 20. Trouble is, after 1998, Aranxta was never quite the same player, although she had a reasonable 2000.

In that case, Davenport has a winning record, but they only played on red clay once, where Arantxa would have been expected to win. Also, interesting to note that even their matches on carpet and hard court were not all one-way traffic. There are no trouncings there, which you might expect given Davenport's power.

Here's something to feast your eyes on - Arantxa's French Open record (10 times a semi-finalist or better!):

1987 QF (aged 15)
1988 QF (defeated Evert)
1989 Winner (defeated Graf)
1990 Round 2
1991 Finalist (defeated Graf, lost to Seles)
1992 Semi-finalist (lost to Graf)
1993 Semi-finalist (lost to MJ Fernandez)
1994 Winner (defeated Pierce)
1995 Finalist (lost to Graf)
1996 Finalist (lost to Graf)
1997 Quarter-finalist (lost to Hingis)
1998 Winner (defeated Serena, Davenport and Seles en route)
1999 Semi-finalist (lost to Hingis)
2000 Semi-finalist (defeated Venus, lost to Martinez)
2001 Round 2
2002 Round 1

Shame about her last couple of years, but my what a record 1987-2000. Not many could achieve that consistency! And it took some great players to stop her most years.

The Dawntreader
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:38 PM
Sanchez Vicario was quite frankly, one of the best competitors EVER in tennis. On paper she was out-matched against every great player of her generation with Graf, Seles, Davenport, Sabatini, Novotna, Venus, Serena, even Martinez. It just shows how much she compensated to beat all of these players at some point and achieve as much as she did.

Her clay-court record is phenomonal, and her RG win in '94 was as impressive as it gets, as was her '98 win against Seles who was on an inspired run. Also even though she never won Wimbledon, the fact that she made RG and Wimbledon finals back to back in '96 is a true testament to her underated versatility on different surfaces. To beat Graf on a fast hardcourt to win the Open in '94 is a huge plus in her career box. Aided by a lengthy and highly succesful doubles career, the HOF career is entirely justified.

Davenpirt of course had the far more imposing and superlative game, but Sanchez-Vicario far out-ranks her in mental fortitude and the movement department.

It's a very close call, but i would still say the Spaniard. The one extra Slam and the consistent challenges at Slams against the VERY best for so long.

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:43 PM
Well if you value "empty" stats then it's Linds. Linds is the ultimate queen of empty stats. Put her in non big match/tournament and she's your girl..the Bali's of this world. Put her at a major and she WILL find a way to lose the match for you.

Linds is good, semi-great..but don't come with the YE #1 and 50+ titles as an argument for putting her in Hingis/Venus/Henin league.

Empty stats? :scratch: We all seem to give credit for Lindsay's amazing collection of titles and her length of time at no.1, but it's easy for some to forget she is a multiple grand slam/olympic champion.

Bali? More like the Tier I's and II's, no need to go over the top. Lindsay is great, end of.

I don't understand how you say we can't be putting Linds (3) in Hingis (5) league, but you're putting Hingis (5) in Henin/Venus (7) league. :confused:

MistyGrey
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:50 PM
ASV. And its not even close in my book.

bandabou
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:06 PM
Empty stats? :scratch: We all seem to give credit for Lindsay's amazing collection of titles and her length of time at no.1, but it's easy for some to forget she is a multiple grand slam/olympic champion.

Bali? More like the Tier I's and II's, no need to go over the top. Lindsay is great, end of.

I don't understand how you say we can't be putting Linds (3) in Hingis (5) league, but you're putting Hingis (5) in Henin/Venus (7) league. :confused:

Oh Lindsay is great..had a memorable career. Only thing is that people sometimes get blinded in seeing 50+ titles, 3 YE #1, etc.. and then they can go kinda blow things out of proportion and make Lindsay greater than she really was.

No, I didn't put Hingis in Henin/Venus category..but some Linds fans don't only wanna put Linds into Hingis category but wanna even put her Henin/Venus territory...based solely on "empty"s stats.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:43 PM
This poll is scary close.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:47 PM
Lindsay is great, end of.

I don't understand how you say we can't be putting Linds (3) in Hingis (5) league, but you're putting Hingis (5) in Henin/Venus (7) league. :confused:

Lindsay will go down in my book as a good, but not great, player. I can't consider anyone great with just 3 slams. She never dominated even with those 3 slams. She never even won two slams a year, never took an entire year or more completely over like the true GREAT players.

Lindsay is a good player, whose talent is/was great. She didn't do enough.

Also, Hingis sorta has a right to be in the Henin/Venus league despite being two slams behind. She has won at more places than Venus (3/4 slams), and she has done more outside of the slams than both Henin and Venus (17 Tier I titles). You as a Davenport fan should be used to looking at titles.

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:03 PM
Lindsay will go down in my book as a good, but not great, player. I can't consider anyone great with just 3 slams. She never dominated even with those 3 slams. She never even won two slams a year, never took an entire year or more completely over like the true GREAT players.

Lindsay is a good player, whose talent is/was great. She didn't do enough.

Also, Hingis sorta has a right to be in the Henin/Venus league despite being two slams behind. She has won at more places than Venus (3/4 slams), and she has done more outside of the slams than both Henin and Venus (17 Tier I titles). You as a Davenport fan should be used to looking at titles.

Well in my book and many others she does go down as a great. Twice she actually held 2/4 slams and dominated on plenty of occasions, especially the summer of 1998, end of 1999-start of 2000. If you'd argue that Hingis can be in the league with Henin/Venus then you'd also agree Davenport can be in the league of Hingis (she did dominate her rivalry with her afterall), and ASV.

iPatty
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Yes, because you've seen every one of her career matches.

And you have?

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:07 PM
If you compare Hingis to Davenport? Who wins? Hingis would win for sure.

Davenport can't even distance herself out of Sanchez-Vicario clearly according to the tightness of this poll. She surely doesn't have the greatness to be in the next echelon of women. How on earth could she be great? She's a good player. Not a great one.

You're kidding yourself if Davenport deserves "great." Way too many people in her era outdid and outshined her.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:09 PM
And you have?

I've seen her moonball before.

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:12 PM
Lindsay will go down in my book as a good, but not great, player. I can't consider anyone great with just 3 slams. She never dominated even with those 3 slams. She never even won two slams a year, never took an entire year or more completely over like the true GREAT players.

Lindsay is a good player, whose talent is/was great. She didn't do enough.

Also, Hingis sorta has a right to be in the Henin/Venus league despite being two slams behind. She has won at more places than Venus (3/4 slams), and she has done more outside of the slams than both Henin and Venus (17 Tier I titles). You as a Davenport fan should be used to looking at titles.

That's a lame stat because guess what Lindsay did these too.

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:12 PM
If you compare Hingis to Davenport? Who wins? Hingis would win for sure.

Davenport can't even distance herself out of Sanchez-Vicario clearly according to the tightness of this poll. She surely doesn't have the greatness to be in the next echelon of women. How on earth could she be great? She's a good player. Not a great one.

You're kidding yourself if Davenport deserves "great." Way too many people in her era outdid and outshined her.

Don't take polls on here too seriously. :lol:

It's not over the top to put Davenport ahead of Hingis. Another one she has more titles over, and far greater longevity. That argument is only enhanced by the way Linds pushed her around in many of their matches.

You started this comparison between Linds and Arantxa so clearly you have some respect of her being great else you wouldn't compare her with these other greats.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Lindsay leads the H2H by 3. Hingis came back in '06 and snatched her around for old times sake while Davenport was the higher ranked player and the heavy favorite.

I agree Lindsay won more of the important slam matches in their H2H, but Hingis is undoubtedly greater than her.

Generally, for all purposes this poll is an accurate reflection. Davenport and ASV are close. If you say who is greater ASV or Seles, you will generally get the right results.
Polls can tell a tale. Not everyone on here just sees their favorite and votes from them on a bias.

You're delusional if you think Davenport > Hingis AND that Davenport belongs in a group of women who have over 2x the slams as Lindsay. She is a good player, not a great one. Even Davenport knew that which is why she kept "searching for that extra slam."

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:27 PM
Lindsay leads the H2H by 3. Hingis came back in '06 and snatched her around for old times sake while Davenport was the higher ranked player and the heavy favorite.

I agree Lindsay won more of the important slam matches in their H2H, but Hingis is undoubtedly greater than her.

Generally, for all purposes this poll is an accurate reflection. Davenport and ASV are close. If you say who is greater ASV or Seles, you will generally get the right results.
Polls can tell a tale. Not everyone on here just sees their favorite and votes from them on a bias.

You're delusional if you think Davenport > Hingis AND that Davenport belongs in a group of women who have over 2x the slams as Lindsay. She is a good player, not a great one. Even Davenport knew that which is why she kept "searching for that extra slam."

..and heavily injured I might add, she didn't play for 4 months after that match.

You only just started here, how do you know whether or not people vote for their favourites or not or how accurate polls here are?

We'll just have to disagree on whether Linds is "good" or "great", doesn't really mean anything anyway. She'll be in the HOF which is good enough for me, she made her mark on the sport.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Davenport's talent was undeserving of her career. I'll give you that. ON her actual career compared to the upper echelon, Davenport isn't even close to belonging no matter how many Tier IIs she wins.

Yes she will be in HOF, who lets anyone in these days. :)

Marionated
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:36 PM
I think it's Serenidad, Dave :spit: Anyway, I give the edge to Lindsay here. She has one less slam but beats ASV nearly everywhere else, including records against fellow elite players, a factor which hasn't been discussed much in this thread.

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:41 PM
Lindsay will go down in my book as a good, but not great, player. I can't consider anyone great with just 3 slams. She never dominated even with those 3 slams. She never even won two slams a year, never took an entire year or more completely over like the true GREAT players.

Lindsay is a good player, whose talent is/was great. She didn't do enough.

Also, Hingis sorta has a right to be in the Henin/Venus league despite being two slams behind. She has won at more places than Venus (3/4 slams), and she has done more outside of the slams than both Henin and Venus (17 Tier I titles). You as a Davenport fan should be used to looking at titles.

Lindsay leads the H2H by 3. Hingis came back in '06 and snatched her around for old times sake while Davenport was the higher ranked player and the heavy favorite.

I agree Lindsay won more of the important slam matches in their H2H, but Hingis is undoubtedly greater than her.

Generally, for all purposes this poll is an accurate reflection. Davenport and ASV are close. If you say who is greater ASV or Seles, you will generally get the right results.
Polls can tell a tale. Not everyone on here just sees their favorite and votes from them on a bias.

You're delusional if you think Davenport > Hingis AND that Davenport belongs in a group of women who have over 2x the slams as Lindsay. She is a good player, not a great one. Even Davenport knew that which is why she kept "searching for that extra slam."

So you can put Hingis with them, but Lindsay, who has the same reasons you put Hingis with them, isn't even close to Hingis and them? Yuh yuh ok.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:42 PM
What does Davenport have that Henin doesn't besides a Wimbledon title? They won the same amount of Tier I. Henin has OG. Henin has more YEC. Henin has 3 YE #1. Henin has just a few weeks less at #1.

Henin has 2x more slams. Davenport has 14 more random titles.

Uranium
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:44 PM
What does Davenport have that Henin doesn't besides a Wimbledon title? They won the same amount of Tier I. Henin has OG. Henin has more YEC. Henin has 3 YE #1. Henin has just a few weeks less at #1.

Henin has 2x more slams. Davenport has 14 more random titles.

11 > 10:wavey:

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:47 PM
1 more Tier I < 4 slams.

Davenport is at the top of the tertiary tier of good players.

Morrissey
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:48 PM
Arantxa was obviously the superior player she was BETTER then Lindsay on all surfaces. Lindsay NEVER reached the French Open finals. Also, Lindsay has a losing record to Arantxa. In addition, Arantxa was better at the slams then Lindsay she beat Seles and Graf in slam finals so that's pretty amazing. Arantxa also has a winning record over Serena Williams.

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:52 PM
4 year end no.1s >> 3 year end no.1s :)

That Davenport still leads Henin in plenty areas is enough for them to be in the same league. Unless a player is totally ahead in every category I don't think the question is ever fully set in one direction like you seem to think it is with ASV and Linds.



Slumptoli, yeah it is, it's always the same style of posting and same players he likes or dislikes and posts about (mainly Davenport). He makes it too obvious.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:54 PM
:rolls: Davenport in the same league as Justine. Getting mangled 7 or more times in a row.

Even admitting herself that basically she had no chance of winning.

I guess next you're going to say Davenport is in the same league as Serena. She IS winning enough categories after all right? 4x YE #1, 1 more Tier I, more titles.

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:56 PM
Nah Serena's out of the question now I'd say with her recently added slams and weeks at no.1.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:57 PM
But I thought she was leading in enough categories. I don't understand this Davenport formula. :sobbing:

So in your mind Davenport > Hingis/ASV. And = Henin/Venus.

spencercarlos
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:58 PM
Who is greater Lindsay Davenport or Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario?

*slams

Sanchez-Vicario - 4GS [ '89 FO, '94 FO, '94 US, '98 FO ]
Sanchez-Vicario - 8 additional slam finals [ '91 FO, '92 US, '94 AO, '95 AO, '95 FO, '95 WB, '96 FO, '96 WB, '98 FO ] reached every slam final at least twice.

Davenport - 3GS [ '98 US, '99 WB, '00 AO ]
Davenport - 4 additional slam finals [ '00 WB, '00 US, '05 WB, '05 AO ]

Sanchez-Vicario [ AO // 42-11 (79%), FO // 73-13 (85%), W // 41-15 (73%), US // 56-15 (79%) ]
Davenport [ AO // 56-13 (81%), FO // 31-11 (74%), WB // 49-11 (82%), US // 62-16 (79%) ]

*titles

Sanchez-Vicario - 29 [ 6 Tier I, 12 Tier II ]

Davenport - 55 [ 10 Tier I, 26 Tier II ]

*#1

Sanchez-Vicario - 12 weeks overall.

Davenport - 98 weeks overall.
YE #1 4 times [ '98, '01, '04, '05 ] '01/'04 did not have even a slam F on her ranking. '01/'04/'05 did not have a slam W on her ranking.



*YEC/Olympics

YEC

Sanchez-Vicario - 1F [ '93 ]
Davenport - 1W [ '99 ] 3F [ '94, '98, '01 ]

Olympics

Sanchez-Vicario - 1S, 1B [ '96, '92 ]
Davenport - 1G [ '96 ]

*H2H

7 // Sanchez-Vicario : 5 // Davenport

Clay // 3-0 Sanchez-Vicario
Hard // 3-3
Carpet // 1-1
Mixed // 1-0 Davenport
Arantxa the greater carreer, Lidnsay the better game.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 07:58 PM
Nah Serena's out of the question now I'd say with her recently added slams and weeks at no.1.

And so when Serena had lets say only 8 or 9 slams Davenport was as great as Serena?

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:03 PM
This Davenport formula Dave mentally has is too funny. :hysteric:

Rolling-Thunder
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:05 PM
Can someone please explain to me how the old system worked? What was the divisor system?

skanky~skanketta
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:14 PM
I think a lot of people are confusing talent/potential and achievements.

Lindsay may only have 3 slams, but I think everyone agrees that with her game she should have definitely won more despite her lack of speed. Point is, she never really had to do much moving. However her head got in the way. Arantxa was pretty much the polar opposite.

Back on topic, ASV definitely had the better career. Nobody really gives a fuck how long you stayed at #1. Fact is, you got to #1. And nobody really remembers if you won 50+ titles, tier 1 or YEC. They remember the slams. What Lindsay does have, IMO, that makes it close, is the Olympic Gold.

I'm not gonna get into the whole "But ASV didn't play Seles and LD beat Graf when Graf was retiring" debate because they can only play whoever's in front of them.

Ok I'm rambling. But honestly, both ladies were amazing. One maybe overacheived and one maybe underachieved. But both have made their marks and will be remembered for not only their achievements, but also their games (ASV for her speed and tenacity, LD for her stunning strokes). Lots of players can only dream of coming close.

revolvtion
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:18 PM
:worship: Davenport fans unhappy with her coming in 5th place behind Serena, Henin, Hingis, Venus of her generation.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 11th, 2009, 09:26 PM
Lindsay was the better player but Arantxa was more successful on the biggest stage.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:42 PM
Lindsay was the better player but Arantxa was more successful on the biggest stage.

In a sentence that sums it up really well. :yeah:

bandabou
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:42 PM
Lindsay was the better player but Arantxa was more successful on the biggest stage.

Davenport in a nutshell..

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:47 PM
Banned :woohoo:



Bandabou, you make it seem as if Lindsay never performed on the big stage :lol: Don't forget all her slams werewon in straight sets :eek:

The Dawntreader
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:05 AM
Banned :woohoo:



Bandabou, you make it seem as if Lindsay never performed on the big stage :lol: Don't forget all her slams werewon in straight sets :eek:

Who's banned?:lol:

spiritedenergy
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:49 AM
Arantxa

Dave.
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:50 AM
Who's banned?:lol:

The OP was banned :bounce: :lol:

Kart
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:59 AM
I don't really know the answer to this question.

AcesHigh
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:29 AM
Davenport... her lead in overall titles, weeks at #1, gold singles medal and YEC title is just too much.

danieln1
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:54 AM
Davenport obviously... next

Buitenzorg
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:06 AM
Lindsay :)

Lindsayfan32
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:37 AM
I think a lot of people are confusing talent/potential and achievements.

Lindsay may only have 3 slams, but I think everyone agrees that with her game she should have definitely won more despite her lack of speed. Point is, she never really had to do much moving. However her head got in the way. Arantxa was pretty much the polar opposite.

Back on topic, ASV definitely had the better career. Nobody really gives a fuck how long you stayed at #1. Fact is, you got to #1. And nobody really remembers if you won 50+ titles, tier 1 or YEC. They remember the slams. What Lindsay does have, IMO, that makes it close, is the Olympic Gold.

I'm not gonna get into the whole "But ASV didn't play Seles and LD beat Graf when Graf was retiring" debate because they can only play whoever's in front of them.

Ok I'm rambling. But honestly, both ladies were amazing. One maybe overacheived and one maybe underachieved. But both have made their marks and will be remembered for not only their achievements, but also their games (ASV for her speed and tenacity, LD for her stunning strokes). Lots of players can only dream of coming close.


You're written a very balanced post here. I totally agree that Lindsay should've won more slams she could've had at least 6 or more and ASV had great career too. This debate is fan biased too. They both had great careers in their own ways.

bandabou
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:56 AM
Banned :woohoo:



Bandabou, you make it seem as if Lindsay never performed on the big stage :lol: Don't forget all her slams werewon in straight sets :eek:

Can you believe that Lindsay NEVER won a major when she lost a set? That's why I think she's great..but a level down from ASV, Hingis.. A nice weather champ, but not really a fighter.

AnomyBC
Jul 12th, 2009, 09:07 AM
It's ASV. The only way you can argue otherwise is if you believed that a player's overall career record is more important than their slam record and obviously in the overwhelming majority of people's minds this is not the case.

Matt01
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:37 AM
It's ASV. The only way you can argue otherwise is if you believed that a player's overall career record is more important than their slam record and obviously in the overwhelming majority of people's minds this is not the case.


Not really. Davenport won three different Slams, Sanchez only two.

AnomyBC
Jul 12th, 2009, 11:50 AM
Not really. Davenport won three different Slams, Sanchez only two.

But they both won on only 2 surfaces and ASV had much better results on the surface she didn't win on (2 GS finals on grass) then Davenport did (no GS finals on clay). ASV also made it to the finals of every slam at least twice.

Juju Nostalgique
Jul 12th, 2009, 11:52 AM
Not really. Davenport won three different Slams, Sanchez only two.

And remember Graf's PME! :haha:

Lindsay :worship:

Steffica Greles
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:29 PM
I actually think Davenport was mentally tougher than she was credit given for, while Aranxta had more game than is generally recognised.

How many players could have survived as long as Lindsay? Hingis ran away. Clijsters retired at 23. Henin not long afterwards. Lindsay could have retired at 25, when she injured her knee enough severely enough to need surgery. The rehabilitation was gruelling and repetitive enough to nearly put her 'in an institution' she told us. Most players would not have bothered, and yet Lindsay did, and when she returned, she came back in 2002 fitter than ever. And she never lost that conditioning, once she lost weight. There were no size fluctations; she was the consumate professional. That required mental equilibrium, and something I would call toughness. She took wins and losses in her stride, along with the injuries.

Arantxa on the other hand had more variety than almost any player in women's tennis. True, she wasn't fluid, and she had no huge shot, but let's look at what she brought to the court: legendary speed and athleticism; boundless energy; clever slices; a world class double-handed backhand from which she could fire winners to any part of the court; world class volleys and smashes; a high percentage first serve from which she served a handy amount of aces and few double faults; and a forehand which, though sometimes a liability, was also a strength when she was in form.

Does any player REALLY reach the finals or better of ALL the slams at least twice, as well as countless semi-finals, a YEC final and win two Miami titles with just will power and a never-say-die attitude? Would players of the calibre of Graf, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Novotna, Navratilova, Evert, both Williams sisters REALLY each fall at least once (or often many times) to such a player? That's ridiculous, and totally laughable :lol:. Aranxta had a great game, which worked on all surfaces, with far more dimensions than limitations.

BournemouthBoy
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:57 PM
no brainer, SV.

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:09 PM
Definitely Davenport.

Watching this video definitely tips the scales Davenport's way for me. :o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1MbDZaZ7os

Mark_LLMGP
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:59 PM
Oh my God, this poll is so close... All my credit to both of them. Great champions.

thrust
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:22 PM
Too close to call? At their very best, I would give a slight the edge to Dav on grass or hard court, ASV big edge on clay. The fact that ASV had to play Steffi and Seles in thier prime makes her task more difficult than Davenport. Yet, she did beat Steffi in 2 Slam finals and came very close in several others. I would not say that Lindsay is an underachiever, but ASV definintely was an overachiever. To discredit Lindsay's rankings and number of tournament wins is, IMO, very unfair.

John.
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:56 PM
Toughie. I'm a huge Lindsay fan and for me she was the better player, but Arantxa definately had the better career

Joseosu19
Jul 13th, 2009, 12:08 AM
One aspect that has been overlooked is doubles. Both players reached #1 in doubles, but Arantxa won 6 GS doubles titles, to Lindsay's 3, as well as having 69 wta doubles titles to Lindsay's 37. Also Arantxa has won 4 mixed doubles grandslams.

Also Arantxa's better stats weren't due to playing more slams. Lindsay played 55 slams and made the semis in 18, Arantxa played 58 and made the semis in 22. Quarterfinals is Arantxa 34 to Lindsay 31.

Ellen Dawson
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:36 AM
Not really. Davenport won three different Slams, Sanchez only two.

True but Arantxa made the finals of all four. And she did that two times or more for each Slam. Lindsay only had a couple of a good showings at the French but never made the final.

danieln1
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:01 AM
Definitely Davenport.

Watching this video definitely tips the scales Davenport's way for me. :o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1MbDZaZ7os

That video just shows that Sanchez was a plain pusher/retriever whatever... how someone who plays like that can be compared to Lindsay, whose game was way more effective than Arantxa´s... she may have one more slam, but Lindsay is the better player and had the better career, that´s not even a discussion...

I´m appalled that the poll is so close, some people are crazy on this board

delicatecutter
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:10 AM
The 94 US Open final still gives me nightmares. :o

I voted for Lindsay, but it's pretty even. I think talent should be the deciding factor. :worship:

Joseosu19
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:20 AM
That video just shows that Sanchez was a plain pusher/retriever whatever... how someone who plays like that can be compared to Lindsay, whose game was way more effective than Arantxa´s... she may have one more slam, but Lindsay is the better player and had the better career, that´s not even a discussion...

I´m appalled that the poll is so close, some people are crazy on this board
Have you acctually ever seen Arantxa play besides this video? I didn't think so. Arantxa was having a horrible off day in this match, and to avoid being upset at her favorite grandslam she resorted to moonballs, which kept her in the match and allowed her to sneak it out. Arantxa did not just hit moonballs on a regular basis; she had a complete game. Try watching some more matches of hers before you make uneducated remarks.

delicatecutter
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:29 AM
Have you acctually ever seen Arantxa play besides this video? I didn't think so. Arantxa was having a horrible off day in this match, and to avoid being upset at her favorite grandslam she resorted to moonballs, which kept her in the match and allowed her to sneak it out. Arantxa did not just hit moonballs on a regular basis; she had a complete game. Try watching some more matches of hers before you make uneducated remarks.

Biased much? :o

Joseosu19
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:36 AM
Biased much? :o
How was that biased? I haven't even said anything about Arantxa vs. Davenport, I was simply stating that the poster was completely wrong and off. If you would bother to take the time to click on the 96 final of Graf vs. Sanchez or the 95 wimbledon final and seen that Arantxa was not simply a "pusher/retriever". If anything the other poster is the biased one, stating that "it's not even a discussion".

For the record I think that it is a decent comparison to look at Arantxa vs. Lindsay.

skanky~skanketta
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:51 AM
Biased much? :o
How so? It's pretty much fact. Arantxa was a great tactician who had many game plans in case one wasn't working. She also took huge risks. I mean, who else would dare hit a dropshot match point down from behind the baseline?

tim2502
Jul 13th, 2009, 08:38 AM
Linds.

bandabou
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:55 AM
One aspect that has been overlooked is doubles. Both players reached #1 in doubles, but Arantxa won 6 GS doubles titles, to Lindsay's 3, as well as having 69 wta doubles titles to Lindsay's 37. Also Arantxa has won 4 mixed doubles grandslams.

Also Arantxa's better stats weren't due to playing more slams. Lindsay played 55 slams and made the semis in 18, Arantxa played 58 and made the semis in 22. Quarterfinals is Arantxa 34 to Lindsay 31.

Well, well.. so basically Arantxa was just a better big match player.

Lindsayfan32
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:42 AM
How so? It's pretty much fact. Arantxa was a great tactician who had many game plans in case one wasn't working. She also took huge risks. I mean, who else would dare hit a dropshot match point down from behind the baseline?


Arantxa had one game plan. Keep getting the ball back with very little power and wait for the opponent to make the error and she did this all match regardless if it was working or not. Arantxa couldn't go other plans as she couldn't play any other way. She took huge risks is a total joke. Where's the risk in getting the ball back until your opponent makes a mistake and hitting an occasional dropshot. :lol:

bandabou
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:51 AM
Arantxa had one game plan. Keep getting the ball back with very little power and wait for the opponent to make the error and she did this all match regardless if it was working or not. Arantxa couldn't go other plans as she couldn't play any other way. She took huge risks is a total joke. Where's the risk in getting the ball back until your opponent makes a mistake and hitting an occasional dropshot. :lol:

And that's why Lindsay having only 3 majors is even more dissapointing. She HAD the game to do better, but always found a way to NOT do better at the biggest of stages.

Sonf@
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:24 AM
Not everything is about power and you should know that

Those who say that Arantxa could only keep hitting balls all over the net again and again should see for example her final against Graf at Us Open 94 or even their final at Wimbledon one year later. In fact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9p_PeyVqC4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poXCnA0SfF8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxskActkAIs&feature=related

the classic eleventh game ;)

She wasn't constantly hitting winners I concede that. But she had a pretty good backhand, masterclass volley (and I haven't really read anything about her smash, which was voted as the best by some commentators some months ago), good serve and a steady forehand that was maybe her only "weak" shot. She could make you run from one side of the court to another a thousand times if needed and suddenly she would hit a dropshot and outbalance the opponent or some tricky shot to make you fail. And I haven't started with her athleticism yet...

Davenport had better shots than Arantxa, that's a given, but she could only use them one way. Hitting hard or harder. She sometimes could use a bit of a strategy such as the one she used against Serena at the quarters of the 2000 US Open but she was all about hard hitting.

Oh, and don't dare saying that I'm biased since I've always been a Conchita supporter and I even like Davenport better than Arantxa :lol: , but facts can't be denied here. Davenport wasn't less one-dimensional than Arantxa if you're going to use those arguments.

The poll is too tied. Arantxa had more Grand Slams, but Davenport nearly doubles Arantxa's full amount of titles and that factor should count somehow. I'd give the edge to Arantxa based mainly on her mentality and her better doubles career (which should count too)

I think there's this strange fashion based on criticizing pushers (first Clijsters and now Wozniacki). Those pushers, actually, are the only glimpses of variety seen in this era and that's really a shame.

Lindsayfan32
Jul 13th, 2009, 12:19 PM
And that's why Lindsay having only 3 majors is even more dissapointing. She HAD the game to do better, but always found a way to NOT do better at the biggest of stages.

I agree with you Lindsay had the game to win more than three majors. I think that Sanchez only had one way to win and that was getting the ball back until the opponent made the error. Just like Lindsay's real and only chance of winning was over powering opponents :)

bandabou
Jul 13th, 2009, 12:42 PM
I agree with you Lindsay had the game to win more than three majors. I think that Sanchez only had one way to win and that was getting the ball back until the opponent made the error. Just like Lindsay's real and only chance of winning was over powering opponents :)

UHum..still a shame.

mr_burns
Jul 13th, 2009, 02:22 PM
I have to disagree that ASV competetive area. Seles and Graf dominated everything, followed by then there was not that much. My conclusion, it was easier to go far in slam, but more difficult to win it


I am big fan of both...but Lindsay's ability to win so many quality titles give her the edge

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 13th, 2009, 02:23 PM
Davenport

Steffica Greles
Jul 13th, 2009, 05:22 PM
That video just shows that Sanchez was a plain pusher/retriever whatever...

lol. I hope you're not ever called up for jury service if that's enough evidence for you.

Outside of the slams, Davenport wins hands down. In the slams, Aranxta wins decisively, not just in terms of slam wins, but also in terms of finals and semi-finals.

So it comes down to whether slams or tour events matter more.

spencercarlos
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:18 PM
lol. I hope you're not ever called up for jury service if that's enough evidence for you.

Outside of the slams, Davenport wins hands down. In the slams, Aranxta wins decisively, not just in terms of slam wins, but also in terms of finals and semi-finals.

So it comes down to whether slams or tour events matter more.
I was to post the same, on tour Davenport has a clear edge and at Slams Arantxa has the clear edge.

Sam L
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:22 PM
lol. I hope you're not ever called up for jury service if that's enough evidence for you.

Outside of the slams, Davenport wins hands down. In the slams, Aranxta wins decisively, not just in terms of slam wins, but also in terms of finals and semi-finals.

So it comes down to whether slams or tour events matter more.

I don't agree with slam wins at all. There's no way 3 French Opens and 1 US Open is better than 1 Australian, 1 Wimbledon and 1 US Open.

In other words, I'd rather have a Wimbledon and Australian than 3 French Opens.

From '98 US Open to '00 Australian Open, Lindsay won 3/6 slams. That's pretty dominant compared to ASV's 89, 94 and 98 successes.

With Lindsay at least there was a period where she could say I was the dominant player in the slams. You can't with ASV.

VivalaSeles
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:29 PM
I don't agree with slam wins at all. There's no way 3 French Opens and 1 US Open is better than 1 Australian, 1 Wimbledon and 1 US Open.

In other words, I'd rather have a Wimbledon and Australian than 3 French Opens.

From '98 US Open to '00 Australian Open, Lindsay won 3/6 slams. That's pretty dominant compared to ASV's 89, 94 and 98 successes.

With Lindsay at least there was a period where she could say I was the dominant player in the slams. You can't with ASV.
Please read the post carefully :) Steffica and Spencer are saying that Sanchez achievements Slams-wise are better, not just wins: wins, semis, quarters. Here is a woman who reached the finals twice at ALL slams.

spencercarlos
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:30 PM
I don't agree with slam wins at all. There's no way 3 French Opens and 1 US Open is better than 1 Australian, 1 Wimbledon and 1 US Open.

In other words, I'd rather have a Wimbledon and Australian than 3 French Opens.

From '98 US Open to '00 Australian Open, Lindsay won 3/6 slams. That's pretty dominant compared to ASV's 89, 94 and 98 successes.

With Lindsay at least there was a period where she could say I was the dominant player in the slams. You can't with ASV.
Actually the topic you bring puts Davenport in dissadvantage as Sanchez Vicario won 2/3 slams at one point (1994) (better ration than 3/6), won 2 slams in the same year, which Lindsay was never able to, and her big years span 1989-1998 only says how Arantxa was good enough to win slams for a bigger period of time than Lindsay.. so...


With Lindsay at least there was a period where she could say I was the dominant player in the slams. You can't with ASV.
Lies. Arantxa more slams than any woman in 1994, hence the best player that year. Lindsay won 1 slam in 1998 in her only final appearance and got the number one ranking but with a big asterisk as Hingis won a slam as did Davenport, but reached a final and won the YEC. In 1999 Lindsay won another slam but in her lone final but it was Hingis who played 3 grand slam finals that year winning one just like Lindsay. So sorry Linday was never the best player at the slams on any season.

raquel
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:56 PM
It's been a while since this debate has been on here. Where's Robbie from Australia? :p We had quite a few discussions on this one over the years! This time though Lindsay and Arantxa are both married with children ;)

I'm giving the edge to ASV as usual. I am surpised this poll is this close though. When I voted for ASV I tied it at 85-85. Usually in the past I think Lindsay used to always get the edge. It's encouraging that ASV is maybe getting more respect in retrospect when people look at some of her stats. I think they are both great champions though and can see the argument from both sides.

Dave.
Jul 13th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Actually the topic you bring puts Davenport in dissadvantage as Sanchez Vicario won 2/3 slams at one point (1994) (better ration than 3/6), won 2 slams in the same year, which Lindsay was never able to, and her big years span 1989-1998 only says how Arantxa was good enough to win slams for a bigger period of time than Lindsay.. so...



Lies. Arantxa more slams than any woman in 1994, hence the best player that year. Lindsay won 1 slam in 1998 in her only final appearance and got the number one ranking but with a big asterisk as Hingis won a slam as did Davenport, but reached a final and won the YEC. In 1999 Lindsay won another slam but in her lone final but it was Hingis who played 3 grand slam finals that year winning one just like Lindsay. So sorry Linday was never the best player at the slams on any season.

Lindsay won 2/3 slams from Wimbledon 99 to Australia 00.

1999 is a toss up. One side you have Hingis with 3/4 finals incl. 1 title but a 1R cannot be overlooked. Then you have Lindsay who reached 4/4 QF, SF's 3 times and winning one like Hingis. 21-3 record for Lindsay, 19-3 for Hingis.

Joseosu19
Jul 13th, 2009, 07:04 PM
I don't agree with slam wins at all. There's no way 3 French Opens and 1 US Open is better than 1 Australian, 1 Wimbledon and 1 US Open.

In other words, I'd rather have a Wimbledon and Australian than 3 French Opens.

From '98 US Open to '00 Australian Open, Lindsay won 3/6 slams. That's pretty dominant compared to ASV's 89, 94 and 98 successes.

With Lindsay at least there was a period where she could say I was the dominant player in the slams. You can't with ASV.
Don't forget Arantxa made it to 6/7 slam finals at one point...

LeonHart
Jul 13th, 2009, 07:19 PM
I voted for Davenport, but after reading some of this thread I would vote for Sanchez-Vicario. I just remember Davenport being so dominate, every tournament she entered she was the favorite, and of course the player to beat if you wanted to win the tournament. Sanchez-Vicario I always felt she was the under-dog (of course when you're up against the likes of Graf).

KV
Jul 13th, 2009, 07:36 PM
On clay Sanchez on the other surfaces Davenport. I'd say Davenport cause Davenport faced tougher opposition.

Hingiswinsthis
Jul 13th, 2009, 07:37 PM
The Barcelona Bumble Bee, but barely.

propi
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:20 PM
Lindsay won 2/3 slams from Wimbledon 99 to Australia 00.

1999 is a toss up. One side you have Hingis with 3/4 finals incl. 1 title but a 1R cannot be overlooked. Then you have Lindsay who reached 4/4 QF, SF's 3 times and winning one like Hingis. 21-3 record for Lindsay, 19-3 for Hingis.
So what?? ASV won 2/3 GS from Roland Garros to USO in 94 :p

ASV; she reached all the Grand Slam finals :)
and as sonfo, I'm far from being a fan of her, but credit to her career :worship:
As someone pointed out, it's tiring to hear the same moans about players being pushers whatever... everyone has his tactic and that is as good as brainless hitting which is the main tactic on tour currently :rolleyes: :yawn:

Nicolás89
Jul 13th, 2009, 09:32 PM
Hingis. Definitely Hingis, there's no doubt in my mind that Hingis is greater, she broke so many records when playing.

danieln1
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Hingis. Definitely Hingis, there's no doubt in my mind that Hingis is greater, she broke so many records when playing.

:worship:

Indeed, Hingis was the better player! :haha: :haha:

Steffica Greles
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:19 PM
With Lindsay at least there was a period where she could say I was the dominant player in the slams. You can't with ASV.

First of all Aranxta's slam-winning span was 9 years; Lindsay's was 18 months. Secondly, if Aranxta failed to win in Australia or at Wimbledon, she was a finalist twice in both tournaments. Davenport managed one semi-final at the French (losing to Aranxta).

And as to the above quote, when was Davenport dominant? late '99 to early '00? So we're talking a period of 3-4 months? Aranxta was dominant throughout most of 1994. She would have been number one for most of the second half of it in today's ranking system.

Randy H
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:35 PM
To me the slams are what count the most. Arantxa's longevity in success in the slams, the edge in titles won, the edge in the amount of times she reached the late stages of the slams, and the players she beat to win them outweighs Lindsay. There is definitely something to be said for Lindsay's success on the tour, but Arantxa was the better big match player. I feel like Lindsay *should* have done more, but her at times questionable attitude is what prevented that from happening. What I admired so much about Arantxa is that no matter who she was playing throughout her career, you *never* got the sense that she felt she was going to lose. She has so much confidence in herself, and such a fighter's attitude, and I think that played such a huge part in her success in the slams. I think if Lindsay would have shared that same quality we may very well have seen her win several more slams than she did over a longer stretch of time.

bandabou
Jul 13th, 2009, 10:41 PM
Good point about Lindsay's longevity...18 months? That's it? Never again a factor, only two more finals after that 18 month/ 2 year period. Contrast that with ASV, who despite being deemed as just a pusher, managed to be a factor and even WIN majors almost 10 years apart.

LindsayRulz
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:00 PM
Of course Arantxa reached the later rounds in slams more often than Lindsay ; the main threats at slams at that time were only Graf and Seles. Sure there also were good players like Sabatini, Pierce and Martinez, but the road to the finals/SFs/QFs was IMO much more open than having Hingis/Graf/Seles/Serena/Venus/Henin/Pierce/Clijsters/Mauresmo in the draw like during the period Lindsay played her best tennis.

Aranxta even didn't have to face any top 20 players en route to the 95 AO and 96 Wimbledon finals.

This being said, I don't get why the conversation is so axed on slams. Lindsay simply dominates every other aspects such as the number of titles won, weeks at #1, #1 end year rankings. She also has the Olympics gold and a YEC title.

VivalaSeles
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:07 PM
Of course Arantxa reached the later rounds in slams more often than Lindsay ; the main threats at slams at that time were only Graf and Seles. Sure there also were good players like Sabatini, Pierce and Martinez, but the road to the finals/SFs/QFs was IMO much more open than having Hingis/Graf/Seles/Serena/Venus/Henin/Pierce/Clijsters/Mauresmo in the draw like during the period Lindsay played her best tennis.
Let's not try to kid ourselves: Henin, Clijsters were nowehere to be seen when Davenport won her Slams, Amélie was a shadow of a future self (except for the AO final) and Seles was a shadow of her former self. Davenport had to battle Hingis, Venus and Serena, and even they were just starting. So ...

Matt01
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:07 PM
To me the slams are what count the most. Arantxa's longevity in success in the slams, the edge in titles won, the edge in the amount of times she reached the late stages of the slams, and the players she beat to win them outweighs Lindsay.


In her Slam finals, Lindsay beat Hingis, Hingis, Graf.
Arantxa beat Graf, Pierce, Graf, Seles.

No big difference there.

VivalaSeles
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:11 PM
In her Slam finals, Lindsay beat Hingis, Hingis, Graf.
Arantxa beat Graf, Pierce, Graf, Seles.

No big difference there.
I'll take two wins over Graf, which is FAR superior to two wins over Hingis.

Matt01
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:12 PM
Let's not try to kid ourselves: Henin, Clijsters were nowehere to be seen when Davenport won her Slams, Amélie was a shadow of a future self (except for the AO final) and Seles was a shadow of her former self. Davenport had to battle Hingis, Venus and Serena, and even they were just starting. So ...


This is crap. Hingis wasn't "just starting" when she was overpowered by Davenport in 1998 and 2000, she was already an accomplished Top player. And Venus who was beaten by Lindsay at Lindsay's US Open win 1998 had arguably already better results on hardcourt than she is having now :tape:

LindsayRulz
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:15 PM
Let's not try to kid ourselves: Henin, Clijsters were nowehere to be seen when Davenport won her Slams, Amélie was a shadow of a future self (except for the AO final) and Seles was a shadow of her former self. Davenport had to battle Hingis, Venus and Serena, and even they were just starting. So ...

I didn't say during the period Lindsay won her slams, I meant during the period she played her best tennis, around 98-2005. And Henin and Clijsters definitly were factors in the early 2000's. Venus reached her first GS final before Lindsay and Serena had won a slam during Lindsay's slams winning period.

VivalaSeles
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:20 PM
This is crap. Hingis wasn't "just starting" when she was overpowered by Davenport in 1998 and 2000, she was already an accomplished Top player. And Venus who was beaten by Lindsay at Lindsay's US Open win 1998 had arguably already better results on hardcourt than she is having now :tape:
Crap to yourself too. Venus and Serena were starting indeed when Lindsay won her Slams. Venus started playing regularly in 1997 and Serena too. AND OBVIOUSLY I didn't include Hingis in the "just starting". Duh!

Matt01
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:30 PM
Crap to yourself too. Venus and Serena were starting indeed when Lindsay won her Slams. Venus started playing regularly in 1997 and Serena too. AND OBVIOUSLY I didn't include Hingis in the "just starting". Duh!


Venus reached her first Slam final in 1997. Obviously she wasn't "just starting" in 1998, 1999 and 2000 when Lindsay won her Slams. Duh!

LindsayRulz
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:31 PM
Good point about Lindsay's longevity...18 months? That's it? Never again a factor, only two more finals after that 18 month/ 2 year period. Contrast that with ASV, who despite being deemed as just a pusher, managed to be a factor and even WIN majors almost 10 years apart.

Oh please, Lindsay held the top spot in the rankings within 8 different seasons. If that's not having a great longenity I don't know what it is. :p

VivalaSeles
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:37 PM
Venus reached her first Slam final in 1997. Obviously she wasn't "just starting" in 1998, 1999 and 2000 when Lindsay won her Slams. Duh!
1997 was her first regular year at the WTA. Please tell me how she was not starting? Was she in the middle of her career?

The Daviator
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Good point about Lindsay's longevity...18 months? That's it? Never again a factor, only two more finals after that 18 month/ 2 year period. Contrast that with ASV, who despite being deemed as just a pusher, managed to be a factor and even WIN majors almost 10 years apart.

#1 in 98,99,00,01,02,04,05 and 06 is longevity :wavey: And making at least the 4R in every Slam from Wimbledon 2000 to AO 2008 is also pretty good :D

1997 was her first regular year at the WTA. Please tell me how she was not starting? Was she in the middle of her career?

97 was Vee's breakthrough year, did you see all the titles she won in 99? Miami, Rome, Zurich to name a few, she was definitely an elite player when LD was winning her Slams.

Matt01
Jul 13th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Oh please, Lindsay held the top spot in the rankings within 8 different seasons. If that's not having a great longenity I don't know what it is. :p


Exactly.

The factor "longevity" doesn't give Arantxa a siginificant edge over Lindsay, either.

Lindsayfan32
Jul 14th, 2009, 12:22 AM
Oh please, Lindsay held the top spot in the rankings within 8 different seasons. If that's not having a great longenity I don't know what it is. :p

And don't forget Lindsay was the year end number 4 times as well. 2005 held the number 1 ranking for all bar 7 weeks.

Dave.
Jul 14th, 2009, 12:23 AM
So what?? ASV won 2/3 GS from Roland Garros to USO in 94 :p



I know, mine was a response to someone saying Lindsay never did it.




#1 in 98,99,00,01,02,04,05 and 06 is longevity :wavey: And making at least the 4R in every Slam from Wimbledon 2000 to AO 2008 is also pretty good :D



Exactly. The suggestion that Lindsay was "only a factor" for 18 months is laughable. In the modern game, she is easily the one who had the greatest longevity. 2009 is the first year since 1992(!!!) that a WTA singles final does not feature Lindsay Davenport.

MH0861
Jul 14th, 2009, 12:43 AM
In 1996, Arantxa made the Australian QF, French Open Final, Wimbledon Final, and US Open R16.

In those 4 tournaments combined, she beat a grand total of 2 Top 20 players.

I'm not so sure her grand slam credentials are *that* much of a deal breaker with stats like that. Lindsay beat twice as many top 20 players for her Zurich title alone in 2005 :spit:

(She also lost to Lindsay in the Olympic final that year :angel: )

Randy H
Jul 14th, 2009, 02:47 AM
Of course Arantxa reached the later rounds in slams more often than Lindsay ; the main threats at slams at that time were only Graf and Seles. Sure there also were good players like Sabatini, Pierce and Martinez, but the road to the finals/SFs/QFs was IMO much more open than having Hingis/Graf/Seles/Serena/Venus/Henin/Pierce/Clijsters/Mauresmo in the draw like during the period Lindsay played her best tennis.

Aranxta even didn't have to face any top 20 players en route to the 95 AO and 96 Wimbledon finals.

This being said, I don't get why the conversation is so axed on slams. Lindsay simply dominates every other aspects such as the number of titles won, weeks at #1, #1 end year rankings. She also has the Olympics gold and a YEC title.

If you're going to allow a list like that for Lindsay when many of those players were not even in the mix for slams when Lindsay won hers, then it's only fair to evenly credit Arantxa's list of slam winners that she was competing against during her span...Arantxa competed against *all* of those players during her career, as well as players like Novotna, Martinez, Sabatini, Navratilova, and Evert. I hardly think that Lindsay competed against a much tougher group of people...

Nacho
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:09 AM
top 5 wins in slams

ASV: 12 (including Graf x4)

1988 FO - # 4 Evert
1989 FO - # 1 Graf
1990 US - # 4 Garrison Jackson
1991 AO - # 5 Sabatini
1991 FO - # 5 Fernandez
1991 FO - # 2 Graf
1992 US - # 2 Graf
1994 FO - # 3 Martinez
1994 US - # 1 Graf
1995 W - # 3 Martinez
1998 FO - # 2 Davenport
2000 FO - # 4 V. Williams

Davenport: 8

1994 AO - # 5 Fernandez
1997 US - # 3 Novotna
1998 US - # 5 V. Williams
1998 US - # 1 Hingis
1999 W - # 3 Graf
1999 US - # 5 Pierce
2000 AO - # 1 Hingis
2005 W - # 3 Mauresmo

I also checked top 10 and top 20 wins and ASV still leads in both :shrug:

LindsayRulz
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:19 AM
If you're going to allow a list like that for Lindsay when many of those players were not even in the mix for slams when Lindsay won hers, then it's only fair to evenly credit Arantxa's list of slam winners that she was competing against during her span...Arantxa competed against *all* of those players during her career, as well as players like Novotna, Martinez, Sabatini, Navratilova, and Evert. I hardly think that Lindsay competed against a much tougher group of people...


By 2001 all of the players I listed had either won several slams or reached a slam final. :shrug:

And by the mid 90's when Aranxta won most of her slams both Evert and Navratilova were retired. And most of the players in my list weren't playing on the tour yet. :p

spencercarlos
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:41 AM
I know, mine was a response to someone saying Lindsay never did it.






Exactly. The suggestion that Lindsay was "only a factor" for 18 months is laughable. In the modern game, she is easily the one who had the greatest longevity. 2009 is the first year since 1992(!!!) that a WTA singles final does not feature Lindsay Davenport.
I stand correct as i said that Davenport never won 2 slams on the same year not the winning ratio. That my response to the "dominant" player at the slams at some point. Which i already proved you that Lindsay never was.

Randy H
Jul 14th, 2009, 03:41 PM
By 2001 all of the players I listed had either won several slams or reached a slam final. :shrug:

And by the mid 90's when Aranxta won most of her slams both Evert and Navratilova were retired. And most of the players in my list weren't playing on the tour yet. :p

So? :p By the time Venus, Justine, Kim, and Amelie were winning slams, Lindsay failed to win any more, and she only just managed to win one after Serena won her first ;)

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Oh please, Lindsay held the top spot in the rankings within 8 different seasons. If that's not having a great longenity I don't know what it is. :p

"empty" stats.. Lindsay being no.1 after 2000 was totally laughable and due, much like with Safina now, to her being consistent and playing often...much more than her being the best player. Heck, she didn't even reach a major final in 2001..still finished no.1...so even worse than Jankovic finishing no.1 last year.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:27 PM
#1 in 98,99,00,01,02,04,05 and 06 is longevity :wavey: And making at least the 4R in every Slam from Wimbledon 2000 to AO 2008 is also pretty good :D



97 was Vee's breakthrough year, did you see all the titles she won in 99? Miami, Rome, Zurich to name a few, she was definitely an elite player when LD was winning her Slams.

Playing often and being ocnsistent. Lindsay wasn't a factor at the majors, save for a resurrection in 2005..was never a threat to the top players.

Matt01
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:33 PM
bandabou: :weirdo:

Being #1 and finishing a season at #1 is hardly an empty stat.

LindsayRulz
Jul 14th, 2009, 08:46 PM
"empty" stats.. Lindsay being no.1 after 2000 was totally laughable and due, much like with Safina now, to her being consistent and playing often...much more than her being the best player. Heck, she didn't even reach a major final in 2001..still finished no.1...so even worse than Jankovic finishing no.1 last year.

She had more titles than Venus and Jennifer in 2001 and played the same number of events than Jennifer. :shrug:

You considering being #1 as an empty stats is much more laughable than Lindsay being ranked #1 in 2001 in fact. ;)

Playing often and being ocnsistent. Lindsay wasn't a factor at the majors, save for a resurrection in 2005..was never a threat to the top players.

That's why Lindsay has only 131 victories over top 10 players in her career. :yeah:

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2009, 09:00 PM
She had more titles than Venus and Jennifer in 2001 and played the same number of events than Jennifer. :shrug:

You considering being #1 as an empty stats is much more laughable than Lindsay being ranked #1 in 2001 in fact. ;)



That's why Lindsay has only 131 victories over top 10 players in her career. :yeah:

See..and that's the thing. You think because she won more titles than Venus, despite not winning or reaching a major final, that Linds had a better year.

no.1 isn't an empty stat..but it becomes an empty stat when people put too much stock into it. Linds ended year 2001 as no.1, doesn't mean she was the best player that year. Dinara being no.1 this year, doesn't mean she's the best player this year. Great achievement..but should be put in context.

How many of those came at a major? That'd be interesting to know. And specially after 2000.

LindsayRulz
Jul 14th, 2009, 09:28 PM
See..and that's the thing. You think because she won more titles than Venus, despite not winning or reaching a major final, that Linds had a better year.

no.1 isn't an empty stat..but it becomes an empty stat when people put too much stock into it. Linds ended year 2001 as no.1, doesn't mean she was the best player that year. Dinara being no.1 this year, doesn't mean she's the best player this year. Great achievement..but should be put in context.

How many of those came at a major? That'd be interesting to know. And specially after 2000.

I've never said she had a better year than venus. I'm just saying that her finishing 2001 ranked #1 wasn't as undeserved as you seem to think. It's just like 2000, Venus won 2 slams and Lindsay reached 3 slams finals winning one, but still it was Hingis who finished the year ranked #1 without reaching a slam final. And she plenty deserved to finish the year at the top spot IMO. It just shows that slams aren't everything in tennis unlike too many people seem to think on this board.

I don't know, the stats are somewhere in the statistics forum, it was a thread started by Anna_K if I remember correctly. :p

KBdoubleu
Jul 14th, 2009, 09:49 PM
I've never said she had a better year than venus. I'm just saying that her finishing 2001 ranked #1 wasn't as undeserved as you seem to think. It's just like 2000, Venus won 2 slams and Lindsay reached 3 slams finals winning one, but still it was Hingis who finished the year ranked #1 without reaching a slam final. And she plenty deserved to finish the year at the top spot IMO. It just shows that slams aren't everything in tennis unlike too many people seem to think on this board.

I don't know, the stats are somewhere in the statistics forum, it was a thread started by Anna_K if I remember correctly. :p

Hingis lost to Davenport in the final of the Australian Open that year. She won Tokyo, Miami, Hamburg, 'S-Hertogenbosch, DuMaurier, Filderstadt, Zurich, Moscow, and the YEC. She lost to eventual champion Pierce in the semis of the French and eventual champion Venus at Wimbledon and the US Open in the quarters and semis respectively. Davenport had a great year as well. However, she lost early in a few tournaments and played just two clay events. Venus was the best player that year, but her season did not start until the clay season. It is easy to see how Hingis ended that year ranked #1.

LindsayRulz
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Hingis lost to Davenport in the final of the Australian Open that year. She won Tokyo, Miami, Hamburg, 'S-Hertogenbosch, DuMaurier, Filderstadt, Zurich, Moscow, and the YEC. She lost to eventual champion Pierce in the semis of the French and eventual champion Venus at Wimbledon and the US Open in the quarters and semis respectively. Davenport had a great year as well. However, she lost early in a few tournaments and played just two clay events. Venus was the best player that year, but her season did not start until the clay season. It is easy to see how Hingis ended that year ranked #1.

I forgot Hingis reached the AO final. It was a very similar situation in 2001 with venus not playing a full shedule (didn't play after the USO) and Capriti having inconsistant results despite winning two slams.

Dave.
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:15 PM
"empty" stats.. Lindsay being no.1 after 2000 was totally laughable and due, much like with Safina now, to her being consistent and playing often...much more than her being the best player. Heck, she didn't even reach a major final in 2001..still finished no.1...so even worse than Jankovic finishing no.1 last year.


Comparing Linds to Jankovic now? :eek: You say no.1 is an empty stat when people put too much stock into it, well I say the same with results in majors. You see US Open final and automatically assume Jankovic was more deserving of her no.1, never mind that at one point she had just 1 title on her no.1 ranking and in total only 4, when Lindsay had 7. Twice Jankovic fell before the QF's, Lindsay was in the QF's of EVERY tournament she played. Jankovic finished no.1 in a year with 4 different major champions. In 2001 only Capriati and Venus won majors which shows just HOW GOOD her results had to be that she could still finish on top, 17 match winning streak in fact. And you say Jankovic's year was better because of one final she made. This is what happens when we start putting too much weight on those majors....




Playing often and being ocnsistent. Lindsay wasn't a factor at the majors, save for a resurrection in 2005..was never a threat to the top players.

In 2001 when Lindsay was no.1 she missed the entire claycourt season with injuries so no she wasn't no.1 by playing too much, if there's such a thing.

Never a threat to top players? It's hard when you are THE top player for so long. ;) Up to the others to threaten her...

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:18 PM
I've never said she had a better year than venus. I'm just saying that her finishing 2001 ranked #1 wasn't as undeserved as you seem to think. It's just like 2000, Venus won 2 slams and Lindsay reached 3 slams finals winning one, but still it was Hingis who finished the year ranked #1 without reaching a slam final. And she plenty deserved to finish the year at the top spot IMO. It just shows that slams aren't everything in tennis unlike too many people seem to think on this board.

I don't know, the stats are somewhere in the statistics forum, it was a thread started by Anna_K if I remember correctly. :p

Hingis at the final at the '00 oz open, but yeah...another example. Of course it'd be great if you could win majors AND be no.1..but if it can only be one, I'd rather win majors and not be no.1 than be no.1 without winning majors.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:23 PM
I forgot Hingis reached the AO final. It was a very similar situation in 2001 with venus not playing a full shedule (didn't play after the USO) and Capriti having inconsistant results despite winning two slams.

WON (3) Australian Open, Roland Garros, Charleston
RU (4) Oklahoma City, Miami, Berlin, Canadian Open
SF (5) Wimbledon, US Open, Zurich, Scottsdale, New Haven
QF (3) Tour Championships, San Diego, Filderstadt

Sure, JCap was so "inconsistant"...

Dave.
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:27 PM
WON (3) Australian Open, Roland Garros, Charleston
RU (4) Oklahoma City, Miami, Berlin, Canadian Open
SF (5) Wimbledon, US Open, Zurich, Scottsdale, New Haven
QF (3) Tour Championships, San Diego, Filderstadt

Sure, JCap was so "inconsistant"...

2R of Sydney, Rome, Filderstadt*, YEC*

*QF, but still lost in her second match played.


Sure, Cap was consistent in 2001, but still 2 pre-QF losses is not going to be good enough when you have Lindsay with 0 pre-QF losses.

QUEENLINDSAY
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:38 PM
Oh Lindsay is great..had a memorable career. Only thing is that people sometimes get blinded in seeing 50+ titles, 3 YE #1, etc.. and then they can go kinda blow things out of proportion and make Lindsay greater than she really was.

No, I didn't put Hingis in Henin/Venus category..but some Linds fans don't only wanna put Linds into Hingis category but wanna even put her Henin/Venus territory...based solely on "empty"s stats.
Empty stats???? Ur a moron!!!
It only sounds empty to you because those are the stats that Venus would never had. Lindsay is more dominant in a whole year while Venus could be more dominant in 2 weeks thats why she has more slams. But Lindsay has more titles and number ones because she is more consistent and not a fluke slam winner!
Sorry to divert this a little, but this poster is just plain stupid to put Lindsay down again!

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 14th, 2009, 10:40 PM
2R of Sydney, Rome, Filderstadt*, YEC*

*QF, but still lost in her second match played.


Sure, Cap was consistent in 2001, but still 2 pre-QF losses is not going to be good enough when you have Lindsay with 0 pre-QF losses.

Two pre-QF losses at pre-Slam events mean absolutely NOTHING if you win the subsequent slams.

NeeemZ
Jul 15th, 2009, 02:22 AM
Two pre-QF losses at pre-Slam events mean absolutely NOTHING if you win the subsequent slams.

I agree! The same can be said for Amelie who lost her opening matches in 06 at Sydney and Eastbourne before she won the subsequent slams.

~Cherry*Blossom~
Jul 15th, 2009, 02:30 AM
I remember that match Jen had against Rita Kuti Kis in Rome. It was a night match IIRC and I was cheering so hard for Rita :lol:

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2009, 05:12 AM
Empty stats???? Ur a moron!!!
It only sounds empty to you because those are the stats that Venus would never had. Lindsay is more dominant in a whole year while Venus could be more dominant in 2 weeks thats why she has more slams. But Lindsay has more titles and number ones because she is more consistent and not a fluke slam winner!
Sorry to divert this a little, but this poster is just plain stupid to put Lindsay down again!

What'd you rather have: 3 majors and 100 weeks as no.1 or 11 majors and only 60 weeks as no.1?

Or let's phrase it differently: Who's had the better more consistent career...Linds or Serena?

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2009, 05:17 AM
Comparing Linds to Jankovic now? :eek: You say no.1 is an empty stat when people put too much stock into it, well I say the same with results in majors. You see US Open final and automatically assume Jankovic was more deserving of her no.1, never mind that at one point she had just 1 title on her no.1 ranking and in total only 4, when Lindsay had 7. Twice Jankovic fell before the QF's, Lindsay was in the QF's of EVERY tournament she played. Jankovic finished no.1 in a year with 4 different major champions. In 2001 only Capriati and Venus won majors which shows just HOW GOOD her results had to be that she could still finish on top, 17 match winning streak in fact. And you say Jankovic's year was better because of one final she made. This is what happens when we start putting too much weight on those majors....






In 2001 when Lindsay was no.1 she missed the entire claycourt season with injuries so no she wasn't no.1 by playing too much, if there's such a thing.

Never a threat to top players? It's hard when you are THE top player for so long. ;) Up to the others to threaten her...

So I guess..you'd say this year Dinara is THE top player, only because she's/ will be ranked no.1 so long this year..despite her not having no majors, right?

Don't you find it even more frustrating. Linds was the top player for so long as you say yourself, couldn't she eek even just ONE more major after 2000..to give her top billing more credibility?

Steffica Greles
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:35 AM
This could go on forever...when, I think the stats are quite stark.

Davenport was far more successful in tour events; Arantxa was considerably more successful in majors. If, along with the YEC, you count Miami among majors, which given its amount of rounds and the strength of its draw, I think we should, Arantxa won twice there as well (1992,1993).

Their head-to-head was 7-5 to Sanchez-Vicario....but that was mostly from matches which were before Lindsay hit the top 10 in 1994. But almost all of their matches, right until the end, were close. Davenport once referred to Venus Williams as, "Sanchez-Vicario with power to hit winners chasing balls", which I thought was a nod to Arantxa's speed and ability to frustrate.

At their respective bests, I think Davenport would have won on hard courts 60%-40%, on grass 55%-45%, on carpet 65%-35%....on red clay I'd go with Arantxa 65%-35%, and on green clay probably 50%-50%. Having said that, Arantxa was more of an all-court player than Lindsay; she had success on all surfaces, even carpet (reached the YEC final in 1993).

Morrissey
Jul 15th, 2009, 12:00 PM
The grand slams matter MORE then regular WTA events so I don't even know why this is a debate it is obvious Sanchez Vicario is superior. What slam event is Davenport going to be remembered for? Lindsay may of won 3 out of the 4 slams but she also only won them ONCE. Davenport has ZERO legacy. By contrast, Sanchez Vicario is remembered for being an incredible champion she won the French OPEN three times and made the final six times in total. People remember Arantxa. We also remember Arantxa was one of Graf's greatest rivals. Arantxa along with Seles were the ONLY players that consistently challenged Steffi.

Nobody cares about how many minor events a player wins it's all about the slams. Tennis greatness at the end of a career is measured by slam victories and Arantxa is superior she has 4 and Lindsay has 3. Also, I don't know why people aren't pointing out Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf when she was an unknown a 17 year old from Barcelona to stop Graf at the French Open in 1989 that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf a second time in a slam final at the 1994 US OPEN. Sanchez Vicario has also beaten SELES in a grand slam final that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez is superior because when it mattered the most in the slams she over achieved. Davenport for all her consistency at the WTA events UNDERACHIEVED at the high pressure situations in grand slams.

Davenport should of won a lot more then just 3 slams. Davenport is six foot three the woman did not use her height to her advantage. Davenport clearly should of won a lot of slams but her lack of mental toughness cost her in high pressure situations.

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2009, 12:34 PM
That's just the bottom line. Linds has almost twice as many titles as ASV but ASV still has won more majors...just shows you who was the more mentally capable player. Knew when to STEP it up..

Lindsay's stats may look nice at first glance, but when you analyse them...you can't shrug the feeling that she was like a Karl Malone of tennis. Career scoring record, but choker in the clutch.

VivalaSeles
Jul 15th, 2009, 02:24 PM
It is a joy to see this thread still going on :D And the poll so close :)

QUEENLINDSAY
Jul 15th, 2009, 04:18 PM
What'd you rather have: 3 majors and 100 weeks as no.1 or 11 majors and only 60 weeks as no.1?

Or let's phrase it differently: Who's had the better more consistent career...Linds or Serena?

I'm not talking about Serena, hands down to Serena!! Serena is climbing to be the best ever and only comparable now to Graf-Seles-Evert-Navratilova.
I did'nt say I'd chose Lindsay over Venus with the number of slam wins because winning wimbledon 4 times is definitely impecable. My point here is that Lindsay stats are not "empty" and useless. Those stats, Venus can only dreamed of, same as Lindsay wishing she could win more slams. But no doubt in my mind, Lindsay could win more slam if only the luck was on her side as Venus had. And I will still believed Lindsay is the better tennis player and had a better consistent career than Venus.

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2009, 05:07 PM
I'm not talking about Serena, hands down to Serena!! Serena is climbing to be the best ever and only comparable now to Graf-Seles-Evert-Navratilova.
I did'nt say I'd chose Lindsay over Venus with the number of slam wins because winning wimbledon 4 times is definitely impecable. My point here is that Lindsay stats are not "empty" and useless. Those stats, Venus can only dreamed of, same as Lindsay wishing she could win more slams. But no doubt in my mind, Lindsay could win more slam if only the luck was on her side as Venus had. And I will still believed Lindsay is the better tennis player and had a better consistent career than Venus.

Hmmm...you wouldn't choose Linds over Vee, but you still think Linds had the better and more consistent career??

Steffica Greles
Jul 15th, 2009, 05:26 PM
The grand slams matter MORE then regular WTA events so I don't even know why this is a debate it is obvious Sanchez Vicario is superior. What slam event is Davenport going to be remembered for? Lindsay may of won 3 out of the 4 slams but she also only won them ONCE. Davenport has ZERO legacy. By contrast, Sanchez Vicario is remembered for being an incredible champion she won the French OPEN three times and made the final six times in total. People remember Arantxa. We also remember Arantxa was one of Graf's greatest rivals. Arantxa along with Seles were the ONLY players that consistently challenged Steffi.

Nobody cares about how many minor events a player wins it's all about the slams. Tennis greatness at the end of a career is measured by slam victories and Arantxa is superior she has 4 and Lindsay has 3. Also, I don't know why people aren't pointing out Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf when she was an unknown a 17 year old from Barcelona to stop Graf at the French Open in 1989 that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf a second time in a slam final at the 1994 US OPEN. Sanchez Vicario has also beaten SELES in a grand slam final that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez is superior because when it mattered the most in the slams she over achieved. Davenport for all her consistency at the WTA events UNDERACHIEVED at the high pressure situations in grand slams.

Davenport should of won a lot more then just 3 slams. Davenport is six foot three the woman did not use her height to her advantage. Davenport clearly should of won a lot of slams but her lack of mental toughness cost her in high pressure situations.

Pretty good analysis, I think.

spiritedenergy
Jul 15th, 2009, 07:21 PM
The grand slams matter MORE then regular WTA events so I don't even know why this is a debate it is obvious Sanchez Vicario is superior. What slam event is Davenport going to be remembered for? Lindsay may of won 3 out of the 4 slams but she also only won them ONCE. Davenport has ZERO legacy. By contrast, Sanchez Vicario is remembered for being an incredible champion she won the French OPEN three times and made the final six times in total. People remember Arantxa. We also remember Arantxa was one of Graf's greatest rivals. Arantxa along with Seles were the ONLY players that consistently challenged Steffi.

Nobody cares about how many minor events a player wins it's all about the slams. Tennis greatness at the end of a career is measured by slam victories and Arantxa is superior she has 4 and Lindsay has 3. Also, I don't know why people aren't pointing out Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf when she was an unknown a 17 year old from Barcelona to stop Graf at the French Open in 1989 that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf a second time in a slam final at the 1994 US OPEN. Sanchez Vicario has also beaten SELES in a grand slam final that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez is superior because when it mattered the most in the slams she over achieved. Davenport for all her consistency at the WTA events UNDERACHIEVED at the high pressure situations in grand slams.

Davenport should of won a lot more then just 3 slams. Davenport is six foot three the woman did not use her height to her advantage. Davenport clearly should of won a lot of slams but her lack of mental toughness cost her in high pressure situations.

I agree, Arantxa is on another level really.

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2009, 07:46 PM
The grand slams matter MORE then regular WTA events so I don't even know why this is a debate it is obvious Sanchez Vicario is superior. What slam event is Davenport going to be remembered for? Lindsay may of won 3 out of the 4 slams but she also only won them ONCE. Davenport has ZERO legacy. By contrast, Sanchez Vicario is remembered for being an incredible champion she won the French OPEN three times and made the final six times in total. People remember Arantxa. We also remember Arantxa was one of Graf's greatest rivals. Arantxa along with Seles were the ONLY players that consistently challenged Steffi.

Nobody cares about how many minor events a player wins it's all about the slams. Tennis greatness at the end of a career is measured by slam victories and Arantxa is superior she has 4 and Lindsay has 3. Also, I don't know why people aren't pointing out Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf when she was an unknown a 17 year old from Barcelona to stop Graf at the French Open in 1989 that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez Vicario BEAT Graf a second time in a slam final at the 1994 US OPEN. Sanchez Vicario has also beaten SELES in a grand slam final that's INCREDIBLE. Sanchez is superior because when it mattered the most in the slams she over achieved. Davenport for all her consistency at the WTA events UNDERACHIEVED at the high pressure situations in grand slams.

Davenport should of won a lot more then just 3 slams. Davenport is six foot three the woman did not use her height to her advantage. Davenport clearly should of won a lot of slams but her lack of mental toughness cost her in high pressure situations.

I think Davenport has plenty legacy, being the longest lasting player of the "modern era"; finishing 4 years as the world's best player, only Nav/Evert/Graf did it more; First player to really get to the top of the game without being a good mover; Being one of the original power players. Davenport was one of the premier players for over a decade, I think she more than made her mark on the sport. Yes Sanchez-Vicario is great too and her 3 French Opens are impressive to that event but personally I prefer more variety in title counts.

I care about the tour events players win. :wavey: As do the thousands of people who attend or watch tour events throughout the year.

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:16 PM
I think Davenport has plenty legacy, being the longest lasting player of the "modern era"; finishing 4 years as the world's best player, only Nav/Evert/Graf did it more; First player to really get to the top of the game without being a good mover; Being one of the original power players. Davenport was one of the premier players for over a decade, I think she more than made her mark on the sport. Yes Sanchez-Vicario is great too and her 3 French Opens are impressive to that event but personally I prefer more variety in title counts.

I care about the tour events players win. :wavey: As do the thousands of people who attend or watch tour events throughout the year.

Or maybe Linds just didn't have an extra gear. She mistakenly treated the regular tour events as if they were as important as the majors. Could go all out at a Bali or Amelia Island..but when the money season came along, she had no extra reserve to tap in..

The Daviator
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:30 PM
That's just the bottom line. Linds has almost twice as many titles as ASV but ASV still has won more majors...just shows you who was the more mentally capable player. Knew when to STEP it up..

Lindsay's stats may look nice at first glance, but when you analyse them...you can't shrug the feeling that she was like a Karl Malone of tennis. Career scoring record, but choker in the clutch.

Yeah, ASV stepped it up ONE more time than Lindsay, big deal, where's Arantxa's YEC or Olympic titles, tell me?

Morrissey
Jul 15th, 2009, 10:44 PM
Lindsay won a lot of minor events but only 3 slams and that`s her legacy she underachieved. Lindsay should of won a lot more but failed to do so.

Steffica Greles
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:11 PM
Yeah, ASV stepped it up ONE more time than Lindsay, big deal, where's Arantxa's YEC or Olympic titles, tell me?
She won Miami though, twice, which Lindsay never managed. In 1992 she defeated Capriati (who'd beaten Seles) and then Sabatini in the final. In 1993 she defeated Graf in the final.

There was only one round less at Miami than a slam, 6 matches, and a near full draw of top players in those days.

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:12 PM
Or maybe Linds just didn't have an extra gear. She mistakenly treated the regular tour events as if they were as important as the majors. Could go all out at a Bali or Amelia Island..but when the money season came along, she had no extra reserve to tap in..

Did she? News to me.


You always mention Bali or Amelia but never Tier I's, some of which she owned for years, even though you were saying Tier I's are important. You say Serena's had a brilliant career because most of her titles are majors/Tier I's but never credit Lindsay as being the most successful in the Tier I's after Hingis.

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:13 PM
She won Miami though, twice, which Lindsay never managed. In 1992 she defeated Capriati (who'd beaten Seles) and then Sabatini in the final. In 1993 she defeated Graf in the final.

There was only one round less at Miami than a slam, 6 matches, and a near full draw of top players in those days.

Lindsay won Indian Wells twice, which since 1997 when it became a Tier I has been equal to Miami in terms of draw size. Anyway Miami doesn't compare with YEC or OG.

Steffica Greles
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:13 PM
Ultimately, I think both were great players who gave so much to the sport. I think it's a pity to rip either of them apart. I'm just naturally a bit more defensive of Arantxa because I feel she gets written off by kids who never watched her, when legions of adoring fans would have died for her at one time; Lindsay's beautiful groundies are still fresh in the memory for most.

That said, Arantxa will always be on my eyelids.

Steffica Greles
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:16 PM
Lindsay won Indian Wells twice, which since 1997 when it became a Tier I has been equal to Miami in terms of draw size. Anyway Miami doesn't compare with YEC or OG.

Miami certainly compares with the YEC (both were called the 5th slam), and it trumps the Olympics, where a lot of players don't compete.

And you're wrong about IW. I'm not sure about now, but as recently as 2000 there were more ranking points, and rounds, in Miami.

VivalaSeles
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Lindsay won Indian Wells twice, which since 1997 when it became a Tier I has been equal to Miami in terms of draw size. Anyway Miami doesn't compare with YEC or OG.
If Miami cannot be compared to the YEC or OG, which I agree.
Indian Wells cannot be compared to Miami either :)

VivalaSeles
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:19 PM
Anyway, it is great to see Arantxa receiving the appreciation she so deserves :) And even leading the poll :)

raquel
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:38 PM
Anyway, it is great to see Arantxa receiving the appreciation she so deserves :) And even leading the poll :)Yeah you are right, a few years ago on here she wouldn't be leading. I think her records look better when you can look back with some hindsight.

When Tennis magazine put together a panel of former players and journalists for their 40 greatest players of the last 40 years issue in 2006 they put Davenport at 29th and Arantxa at 27th. Very close again but it just shows how Arantxa's records do stand up and her career is held in high regard by the experts and those who have been there and done it.

As they said in that issue about ASV - "They say no one remembers who finished second, but Sanchez-Vicario, who ended three seasons at No. 2, should be an inspiration to anyone who strives for greatness in this game. Few played smarter, fought harder, or ran farther to get a shot at the top" That last line is so true..

TennisMindCamp
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:47 PM
ASV...I loved her scrappiness!

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:52 PM
Miami certainly compares with the YEC (both were called the 5th slam), and it trumps the Olympics, where a lot of players don't compete.

And you're wrong about IW. I'm not sure about now, but as recently as 2000 there were more ranking points, and rounds, in Miami.

I rate the YEC as the "5th slam" as you have to beat the best to win it, and it's the "indoor major" (another surface which ASV did not win one of these "major" titles).


Anyway, it is great to see Arantxa receiving the appreciation she so deserves :) And even leading the poll :)

She isn't, it's a tie. At least 4 of the votes for ASV are from the same person.

raquel
Jul 15th, 2009, 11:55 PM
She isn't, it's a tie. At least 4 of the votes for ASV are from the same person.
They are?:confused:

VivalaSeles
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:05 AM
A tie?

Dave.
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:09 AM
Well there are 3 or 4 accounts, including the one that started this poll, which voted for ASV, that have all been banned. Not that it really matters I'm only pointing it out. The poll would be even without these multiple accounts.

VivalaSeles
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:13 AM
Well there are 3 or 4 accounts, including the one that started this poll, which voted for ASV, that have all been banned. Not that it really matters I'm only pointing it out. The poll was even before this happened.
And? How do you know they all voted for Arantxa? I am sure a lot of fake junior members voted too ... We all know these polls are not hawkeye-perfect. It doesn't mean, however, that we can start disregarding particular votes at will. Anyway, the most important thing for me is that Arantxa, whether or not she ends up winning this poll, is regarded as she should be: as a great champion :)

Dave.
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:20 AM
And? How do you know they all voted for Arantxa? I am sure a lot of fake junior members voted too ... We all know these polls are not hawkeye-perfect. It doesn't mean, however, that we can start disregarding particular votes at will. Anyway, the most important thing for me is that Arantxa, whether or not she ends up winning this poll, is regarded as she should be: as a great champion :)

You click on the number of votes then you can see who voted where. All of those banned accounts I'm talking about voted for ASV. Not sure what you mean about fake junior members voting. If by junior you mean younger people, remember Lindsay was Arantxa's generation too, and the majority of younger people here (including me) will probably not have missed most of both player's careers.

VivalaSeles
Jul 16th, 2009, 12:23 AM
You click on the number of votes then you can see who voted where. All of those banned accounts I'm talking about voted for ASV. Not sure what you mean about fake junior members voting. If by junior you mean younger people, remember Lindsay was Arantxa's generation too, and the majority of younger people here (including me) will probably not have missed most of both player's careers.
Fake junior members = new posters that are old posters in disguise

bandabou
Jul 16th, 2009, 05:23 AM
Did she? News to me.


You always mention Bali or Amelia but never Tier I's, some of which she owned for years, even though you were saying Tier I's are important. You say Serena's had a brilliant career because most of her titles are majors/Tier I's but never credit Lindsay as being the most successful in the Tier I's after Hingis.

How else do you explain that a girl who was ranked no.1 for soo long only reached 7 majors finals, in fact has lost more SF's than she won?
Witness her career record in finals...3-4 at majors, 1-3 at YEC,11-10 at tier I's.....and 39-21 at tier II and lower. See?! The lower the stakes, the better Linds performed.

I do this for Serena because people go on saying: she's only 34 career titles. Yeah..but those career titles start looking more impressive when you tell people that they include 10 tier I's and 11 majors and no title below tier II.

Craig.
Jul 16th, 2009, 05:45 AM
She isn't, it's a tie. At least 4 of the votes for ASV are from the same person.

Dave :weirdo:

Matt01
Jul 16th, 2009, 09:40 AM
Miami certainly compares with the YEC (both were called the 5th slam), and it trumps the Olympics, where a lot of players don't compete.



LOL

Steffica Greles
Jul 16th, 2009, 01:53 PM
I rate the YEC as the "5th slam" as you have to beat the best to win it, and it's the "indoor major" (another surface which ASV did not win one of these "major" titles).




She isn't, it's a tie. At least 4 of the votes for ASV are from the same person.

Somebody else bizzarely said that ASV had the better career, but voted for Davenport...

Ellen Dawson
Jul 17th, 2009, 12:42 AM
ASV...I loved her scrappiness!

That's the primary reason why I'm an Arantxa fan. She didn't just give a match away. You had to really concentrate to beat her! :worship:

pascal77
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:39 AM
lindsay, of course. Everyone knows Sanchez took advantage of the absence of Seles (stabbed by Graf's fan on the court in 1993), if Seles hadnt been stabbed, Sanchze wouldnt have stood any chance to win 2 salms in 1994. Even when coming to her 98 FO, She has to thank Seles for defeating Hingis, a player she lost to for many many many times.

Steffica Greles
Jul 17th, 2009, 07:53 AM
lindsay, of course. Everyone knows Sanchez took advantage of the absence of Seles (stabbed by Graf's fan on the court in 1993), if Seles hadnt been stabbed, Sanchze wouldnt have stood any chance to win 2 salms in 1994. Even when coming to her 98 FO, She has to thank Seles for defeating Hingis, a player she lost to for many many many times.

Everybody who reads from your book of simplicity aimed at 5 year-olds does.

I think there's every chance Arantxa would have won at least 1 slam even if Seles hadn't been stabbed: she'd beaten both of them in 1992.

bandabou
Jul 17th, 2009, 08:13 AM
lindsay, of course. Everyone knows Sanchez took advantage of the absence of Seles (stabbed by Graf's fan on the court in 1993), if Seles hadnt been stabbed, Sanchze wouldnt have stood any chance to win 2 salms in 1994. Even when coming to her 98 FO, She has to thank Seles for defeating Hingis, a player she lost to for many many many times.

:lol: You do realise that ASV had beaten both Graf and Seles in majors before, don't you?

Miranda
Jul 17th, 2009, 10:54 AM
i think its Sanchez, given her small size and short height, she managed to stay with the mighty champions as Graf and Seles :wavey:

darkchild
Jul 17th, 2009, 03:27 PM
:lol: You do realise that ASV had beaten both Graf and Seles in majors before, don't you?

:lol:You do realize that Lindsay had beaten both Serena and Venus in majors before, don't you?

bandabou
Jul 17th, 2009, 07:05 PM
:lol:You do realize that Lindsay had beaten both Serena and Venus in majors before, don't you?

Not in a major final..

thrust
Jul 18th, 2009, 12:07 AM
:lol:You do realize that Lindsay had beaten both Serena and Venus in majors before, don't you?

True, but never in finals. There is a difference.

Dave.
Jul 18th, 2009, 12:11 AM
What's the point here..Lindsay has beaten Graf, just like ASV, and Hingis in finals. Nobody better to beat than Graf in a slam final.

thrust
Jul 18th, 2009, 12:16 AM
Ultimately, I think both were great players who gave so much to the sport. I think it's a pity to rip either of them apart. I'm just naturally a bit more defensive of Arantxa because I feel she gets written off by kids who never watched her, when legions of adoring fans would have died for her at one time; Lindsay's beautiful groundies are still fresh in the memory for most.

That said, Arantxa will always be on my eyelids.

Well put!

azinna
Jul 18th, 2009, 09:24 PM
Close, but ASV's mental fortitude tips things for me in her direction. It's typically what separates top players anyway.

Golovinjured.
Mar 13th, 2010, 12:48 PM
Davenport doesn't even compare, no matter how much I liked her.

ASV :bowdown:

thrust
Mar 13th, 2010, 02:08 PM
Davenport doesn't even compare, no matter how much I liked her.

ASV :bowdown:

FOOLISH STATEMENT! Of course Lindsay compares. Too close to call, really. ASV could not beat either Seles or Hingis, at their best. Also, I do not think she would do well against the Williams, Davenport at their best either. Lindsay was a late bloomer, the Williams were young when they lost to her. Serena nearly beat her at the FO at a very young age. ASV was the ultimate overachiever in women's tennis till Henin.

samsam4087
Mar 13th, 2010, 03:46 PM
Asv

SoClose
Mar 23rd, 2010, 08:44 PM
Lindsay by far :)

Ellen Dawson
Apr 1st, 2010, 11:12 PM
Close, but ASV's mental fortitude tips things for me in her direction. It's typically what separates top players anyway.

Agreed. Arantxa doesn't get enough credit for mental toughness. If everyone had that self-belief, the tour right would be in much better shape.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 10:24 AM
I say Davenport. One less slam, but she leads in every other category, and has 3/4 slams.

Filippo-Nastya
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:29 AM
I say Lindsay.
Anyway, I have to admit that I have a lot of respect for Arantxa. I loved to watch her matches, above all when she played vs. Graf.

BartoliBabes
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:39 PM
Arantxa.

BartoLiNa
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:48 PM
4 > 3. End.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:56 PM
4 > 3. End.

So it all comes down to slams? Okay, Margaret Court GOAT, Steffi Graf second, Helen Wills third. No need for any debate.

thrust
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:59 PM
Not in a major final..

TRUE! I really is hard to compare Lindsay with ASV, because, their prime, was in different eras. ASV was at her best in the Graf-Seles era. Lindsay played her best in the short Hingis and then the Williams era. Lindsay finally overtook Hingis when her power game became more consistant, however, she was not as good a natural athlete as the Williams to overtake them. Lindsay could dominate a young Henin, but once Justine developed more power, her athletic superiority overtook Lindsay too. Overall, at their best, I think Lindsay would have the advantage over ASV, primarily due to her superior power.

fede33
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:27 PM
Davenport !!!!!!!

The Kaz
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:31 PM
ASV played the majority of her career and won 3/4 of her slams (in '89 & '94) in one of the strongest eras in tennis (1987-1996).

Lindsay however won all her slams in the lull era post the 1997 Hingis domination (man I loved that year :drool:) and the emergence of the WS dominance in latter of 2000 (Starting at Wimby). IMO the Jan 1998 - May 2000 period was the weakest in nearly 50 years and the only period Lindsay had any hope of winning slam in, credit to her in winning 3/10 slams on offer in that period :shrug:.

ASV is far and away the better player at the end of the day IMO.

spiceboy
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:37 PM
in one of the strongest eras in tennis (1987-1996).


That's way too long :lol:
I would say from 1990 to mid 1993 when Monica got stabbed, Jennifer went downhill and Gaby was not a major force as she was the previous years (with the exception of her randon YEC title in 1994)

spiceboy
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:40 PM
BTW both Arantxa and Lindsay are pregnant right now :D

Lucemferre
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:51 PM
ASV played the majority of her career and won 3/4 of her slams (in '89 & '94) in one of the strongest eras in tennis (1987-1996).

Lindsay however won all her slams in the lull era post the 1997 Hingis domination (man I loved that year :drool:) and the emergence of the WS dominance in latter of 2000 (Starting at Wimby). IMO the Jan 1998 - May 2000 period was the weakest in nearly 50 years and the only period Lindsay had any hope of winning slam in, credit to her in winning 3/10 slams on offer in that period :shrug:.

ASV is far and away the better player at the end of the day IMO.

:haha:

The Daviator
Jul 8th, 2011, 06:00 PM
ASV played the majority of her career and won 3/4 of her slams (in '89 & '94) in one of the strongest eras in tennis (1987-1996).

Lindsay however won all her slams in the lull era post the 1997 Hingis domination (man I loved that year :drool:) and the emergence of the WS dominance in latter of 2000 (Starting at Wimby). IMO the Jan 1998 - May 2000 period was the weakest in nearly 50 years and the only period Lindsay had any hope of winning slam in, credit to her in winning 3/10 slams on offer in that period :shrug:.

ASV is far and away the better player at the end of the day IMO.

:lol: Why do you think the Hingis domination didn't continue on into 1998/1999/2000?

Um, Lindsay's presence, that's why. If anything, Davenport's success post-97 shows how weak that year was. Hingis couldn't win nearly as many events when Lindsay got into her groove.