PDA

View Full Version : Is this the weakest #3-#10 in WTA history?


Volcana
Jan 24th, 2003, 11:49 PM
Let's face it, either Venus and Serena are that much better, or everyone else is that much worse. It's never happened that the same two players contested four straight GS finals. Which either implies the two players are good, or everyone else is bad. Martina and Chris, Monica and Steffi, Margo and BJK. None of those pairs met four times in a row at a GS.

Any objective person knows it isn't all about power. Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles, Mary Pierce could all hit in that power range. Of course, you have to have the skill to CONTROL a ball you're trying to hit that hard, that low, on the run. That, of course, is a deficiency in skill, not power.

But an honest person has to admit that the evidence points to other conclusions than just the WIlliams sisters are currently playing at the highest level of any tennis pair in history. Maybe the rest of the top ten just isn't that good. It is totally possible that Venus and Serena are just average tenis players who hit hard and run fast, but the rest of the top ten is so unskilled they can't beat them in a major. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S TRUE.

But as a Venus fan, I know I sometimes attribute all of Venus' success to her ability. But, and this may be the only objective statement about Venus I ever make, maybe it ISN'T that VEnus (and Serena of course) are so good.

Maybe everyone else sucks.

selesrules
Jan 24th, 2003, 11:55 PM
No it's the not the weakest because Monica, Steffi, Navratilova etc. have also reached final after final after final. It's just that now they are 2 sisters doing it (which is very special), but all the greatest champions have reached several finals in a row while the rest of the top 10 couldn't stop them.

MLF
Jan 24th, 2003, 11:56 PM
No, I think it's just a testament to how good Serena and Venus have become. The problem with the current top 10 is that most of the girls play similar yet inferior tennis to the Williams' sisters i.e backcourt powerhitting. That's why when Seles and Graf were leading the pack it was more interesting because although these two were clearly ahead they had great contests with the other contenders such as the ageing Navratilova, Sabatini, Sanchez and Novotna. 6 players bringing six different games to the table. In this era if you have the top ten players slugging it out from the baseline there are only going to be two winners. They are all excellent sluggers but the pack need to find something else to launch a challenge with.

croat123
Jan 24th, 2003, 11:57 PM
um, kim had serena on the ropes
justine, lindsey, and daniela can also challenge them

Gowza
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:10 AM
i think within a couple of years the wta will have the best top 50 in history. let me just racak my brain and name some of the players that should be there then or already are there:

current:
serena
venus
jen
kim
justine
mauresmo
dokic
hantuchova
seles
davenport
myskina
rubin
schnyder
dementieva
daniilidou
stevenson
bovina
fernandez
shaughnessy
srebotnik
mikaelian
schett
bedanova
kournikova
zvonareva
kuznetsova

soon to be:
pierce
casanova
tulyaganova
widjaja
safina
benesova
razzano
irvin
marrero
bartoli
golovin
sharapova
krajicek
kirilenko
linteskaya
bastrikova
bratchikova
douchevina
kutuzova
petrova
krasnoroutskaya
harkleroad
koukalova
vakulenko
schwartz
foretz
mandula
molik
stosur
dlhopolcova
perebiynis
baltacha
bielik
strycova
domachowska
elke
hsieh
avants
robinson
flipkens
kurhajcova


hopefuls:
m-j martinez
bradshaw
lucic

Volcana
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:12 AM
selesrules - That's why I asked about #3 - #10, not #2 to #10. Navratilova WON six finals in a row. I'm not discussing single players. I'm asking about the top two, any pair youwant, against the other 8 top ten players. Further, to be specific, I'm talking about the CURRENT abilities of the players.

croat123 - In some ways that's the point. It's like no matter how bad these two play in a GS, everyone else plays worse. Certainly there's no Hana Mandlikova hovering out there right now.

Blogger Dives
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:15 AM
It's not that they are that much better skill wise, it's just the others haven't come up with a plan to combat the power game yet. But it's coming. They are beatable, see Justine and Kim even, they've beaten them within the past 12 months. The only problem with the same 2 in grand slam finals 4 times in a row is it makes for a very boring and predictable sport. But lately, that's all we have to expect until we get some new blood... or the others learn to combat the power game with something more entertaining to watch. ;)

Sam L
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:16 AM
To answer your question Volcana, I think possibly YES.

If you look at all of them, they are all mostly BASELINERS (some are better volleyers than others but all are reluctant to volley consistently). I think with them, if you've seen 1, you've seen them all, with the exception of Henin/Mauresmo but they play similar games anyway. So yeah possibly yes, there's not much variety.

Gowza
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:16 AM
i think the reason why other players lose to them even if they play badly is because they can't believe that they have such a good chance to beat them in a grand slam and they choke.

CJ07
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:19 AM
I think its a combonation of both

The Williams' are good, but the rest of the tour arent as fast, arent as athletic and thus they lose

Yes if you hit it right to them Monica, Lindsay, Pierce and a select others can match them pretty much stroke for stroke, but its more than just power.

But no I dont think its the weakest, because From Late 1990 to early 1994 nobody not named Graf or Seles won much of anything

tyk101
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:20 AM
Monica will need to stay healthy to challenge them.. we still don't know how well monica is playing at the moment... she has a chance...

Robbie.
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:34 AM
As with any era of total domination there are always going to be aspersions over the quality of opposition. And in years to come people will surely ask the question of the sisters opposition. Just as we downgrade the opposition of Martina Nav and Chris Evert, the adversaries of Seles and Graf and Hingis, today's players will too be dragged over the coals for not taking the challenge up to the sisters - and the achievements of the sisters will be tainted in the process.

People will point to the fact that the only 3 active champions other than the Williams' were MIA or below par. That Hingis was burnt out. That Davenport was injured and unable to recapture her form. That Seles was 5 years past her use by date. They will say that Jenn, another great player of their era, was struggling with being the best (once dysfunctional, always dysfunctional, right? :rolleyes: ) and was effected by her eyes. They will say that dual grandslam winner Pierce was MIA.

As for the up and comers well the Williams can't win. If the likes of Henin, Clijsters and Hantuchova don't kick on and become Grand Slam champions detractors will point to the absence of a GS title in their resumes and say - "see no competition whatsoever, the best young players were not even GS material". If the aforementioned trio do become Grand Slam champions and end the William's domination of majors we will hear "The Williams' got lucky in 2002-2003, not only were Hingis, Davenport, Seles and Capriati past it but Henin, Hantuchova and Clijsters weren't fully developed yet, they weren't ready. See, as soon as they matured, the Williams domination ended "

Don't think it won't happen. Slot different names in and we have all been witness to eerily similar tripe about Hingis, 1997-1999.

Of course, we all know different and I don't buy any of it. Just as I don't buy the rhetoric about the lack of competition presented to former champions. Serena and Venus are both one in a million players. Any player who wins 4 majors is one in a million. All that matters is at this present time, they are head and shoulders above the rest. We all know the callbire of tennis they play. We all know the amazing tennis we have seen from them. I personally remember how brilliant Hingis was in her dominant years and I am certainly not going to taint her GS titles with hypothetical rhetoric - I have always spruiked this point of view. I am certainly not going to apply a double standard to the Williams' just because they are not my faves. The respective strength of each champions era is far to subjective standard to apply as a measure of greatness. Much easier to look at cold hard facts.

c2
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:40 AM
I don't think it's the weakest at all... If anything I think the men's tour is much weaker. For the men in any given tournament, anyone in the top 200 might be in the final! The women's tour is very strong and consistent..that's why ratings are growing, because people are watching their favorites and can count on them making it to the final rounds.

Bonfire
Jan 25th, 2003, 12:57 AM
Come on now...don't forget about Capriati just yet. As long as she remains in the top ten...I don't think you should call it "weak." I think that the Williams sisters are incredible atheletes that are raising the bar both physically and mentally for women's tennis as we speak.

But lets not forget that its Jen that has been able to win three grandslams in the past two years ( the only player to do that in the middle of the williams dominance.) She hasn't beaten a Williams in a while..however even when Serena is in-form, Capriati is able to take her to three tough sets...and she knows she can beat serena. As far as venus goes...she has almost beaten her and has challenged her in most of their matches (and they havn't played against each other in forever...I'm still waiting for that match-up again)

She has had a rocky last couple of months in particular...but her bad losses indoors were on her worst surface and her lack of preparation and eye problems were unlucky breaks contributing to her 1st round loss at the AO..however... she has been one of the only players to reach at least the quarterfinals of every slam in 2001 and 2002.

Do I think that Jen will dominate the sisters?...NO...they are younger, fresher, and awesome atheletes

but

I don't think they will always dominate her either...she will have her wins and her losses against them.

The Point to all of this.....

Jen's awesome forehand, speed, and fighting spirit has made her one of the greatest female players of the game's history and I wouldn't count her out to win a couple of more slams in the next couple of years....meaning that it won't always be williams vs. williams

and now that I'm done rambling on about my favorite player...the real point...

having some of the great players of tennis past and present like monica and jen and davenport mixed with young talents like kim and justine who are still developing into their top player forms means that its in no way a weak #3-10, just that venus and serena are competing that much better than them now...if anything i think the sisters are making the rest of the top ten stronger than ever so that they still hang in there and compete

and the williams sisters have a major mental edge over most of the other top players now....once someone can break that...we may see some mixup of players in the finals

okay I'm finally done now




[

disposablehero
Jan 25th, 2003, 01:02 AM
#3-#10 is probably the weakest it has been since 1998, but stronger than it has been for most of the Open Era.

mboyle
Jan 25th, 2003, 01:05 AM
Sorry but Kim is better than Venus. Unfortunately, Vee got the cake draw while Ree got the aweful draw from hell:o . (thank JEHOVAH:p for her that Monica lost early or else even Clijsters' choking abilities wouldn't have saved Rena:o )

mboyle
Jan 25th, 2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Volcana

croat123 - In some ways that's the point. It's like no matter how bad these two play in a GS, everyone else plays worse. Certainly there's no Hana Mandlikova hovering out there right now.

I would say that Kim is now the Hana M. , and Venus will soon be. (by next Aussie Open)

Jericho
Jan 25th, 2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by mboyle
Sorry but Kim is better than Venus. Unfortunately, Vee got the cake draw while Ree got the aweful draw from hell:o . (thank JEHOVAH:p for her that Monica lost early or else even Clijsters' choking abilities wouldn't have saved Rena:o )

you mean unfortunately kim got a cake draw, hello!!! venus beat 2 top ten players compared to kim beating a whopping NONE!!!

mboyle
Jan 25th, 2003, 01:10 AM
However, I honestly think we will have to wait until the likes of Masha Sharapova and Tatiana Golovin mature enough to challenge (and dethrone) the Willies.

mboyle
Jan 25th, 2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by iLuVenuSerena
you mean unfortunately kim got a cake draw, hello!!! venus beat 2 top ten players compared to kim beating a whopping NONE!!!

Honestly, Hantuchova doesn't hit hard enough to beat Venus, so she was never a threat, and Justine could have beaten Vee, but didn't play as she did the rest of the tournament. Venus didn't get Kim OR Monica, and had the easiest quarter (with Kim, but Natsya is just as hard as Hantuchova to play).

Jericho
Jan 25th, 2003, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by mboyle
Honestly, Hantuchova doesn't hit hard enough to beat Venus, so she was never a threat, and Justine could have beaten Vee, but didn't play as she did the rest of the tournament. Venus didn't get Kim OR Monica, and had the easiest quarter (with Kim, but Natsya is just as hard as Hantuchova to play).

oh please venus' opponents were more of an obstacle than kims were...all that matters is that vee is in the finals and kim isnt! ;)

disposablehero
Jan 25th, 2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by iLuVenuSerena
you mean unfortunately kim got a cake draw, hello!!! venus beat 2 top ten players compared to kim beating a whopping NONE!!!

Compared to Kim whipping #11 and looking bored doing it.

Sofiane
Jan 25th, 2003, 05:41 AM
Volcana, for once I don't like your post, cause if the field is so weak, dos this mean venus is the worst #2 player of history? since she lost 4 finals in a row to the exact same player.

CB
Jan 26th, 2003, 02:39 PM
Since I started following tennis (not so long), I have seen worst 3-10 range..

2000 for example. How did Nat Tauziat get to #3?!!! That's so pfff.

selesrules
Jan 26th, 2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Volcana
selesrules - That's why I asked about #3 - #10, not #2 to #10. Navratilova WON six finals in a row. I'm not discussing single players. I'm asking about the top two, any pair youwant, against the other 8 top ten players. Further, to be specific, I'm talking about the CURRENT abilities of the players.

But don't you think that in the early 90's, both Monica and Steffi were well above the #3-#10? It was very similar then now, Monica was clearly no.1, then there's a gap, Steffi was clearly no.2 then there's a gap, then you had the rest of the top 10 far behind. Sure Steffi during that time was upset more then Venus now, but her overall results in most tournaments were clearly above everyone else in the rest of the top 10. Before the stabbing, Monica & Steffi met in 3 out of the last 4 grandslam finals, and if it weren't for the stabbing they would have continued doing so which would be very similar to Serena/Venus now although the draw for Steffi would be totally different as the no.2 meaning that it wouldn't be certain she would have reached those finals. But still there was the gap you're talking about.

Volcana
Jan 26th, 2003, 02:51 PM
Blogger Dives - Everyone on the tour knows how to beat the power game. Lindsay, Monica, Jenn, Jelena, Daniela, all get beaten with regularity.

Bigkimfan
Jan 26th, 2003, 02:55 PM
Kim was one point away from beating Serena!:rolleyes:

Volcana
Jan 26th, 2003, 03:00 PM
selesrules - I agree it's the same case as when Steffi/Monica in the early 90's.

Chris/Martina had Hana. Having a Hana is always good. It keeps the levels of the final high if #1 or #2 faulter. Kim just hasn't risen to Hana level yet. (Please recall, all this is writ small. Venus and Serena aren't Martina and Chris yet, either.)

Hana won 4 GS titles competing against Martina and Chris and she's an aftert-thought now.

I'd say hold up calling any of these players alltime greats, but Serena just kicked herself way up the list.

'Le Petit Slam' may not be 'Grand', but she joins a VERY short list of other players.

Connolly
Court
Navratilova
Graf

And of course, if you think the 'career slam' is some kind of big deal, she got that too.

jay_k
Jan 26th, 2003, 03:06 PM
I think this is a trick thread baitiing all non-Williams fans into accepting that the Williams sisters are much better than their favourites .

If you say yes this is the weakest #3-#10 .....then you are in a way dissing your own fave and if you say no then your indirectly praising the Williams sisters for making the finals of the last four GS's .

c2
Jan 26th, 2003, 03:20 PM
IT'S A TRICK! good catch, jay-k ;)

Yeah, I can't buy weakest... Kim was one point away

CJ07
Jan 26th, 2003, 08:26 PM
hmm

Dokicfan17
Jan 26th, 2003, 08:33 PM
Lucic hits just as hard as the williams if not harder.........

but just like you were saying she doesnt have great control, YET

selesfan
Jan 26th, 2003, 08:45 PM
The sisters are levels above the rest and I'm honest enough to admit it includes my Favs Monica and Lindsay.

fleemkeģ
Jan 26th, 2003, 08:57 PM
Well i believe that the sisters has leveled up (?) the womens game extremly! They brought power in the game and all the others are catching up right now.

Volcana
Jan 26th, 2003, 08:59 PM
C2 - Every other #3 - #10 in HISTORY has managed at least one GS finalist in any four GS tournaments. Every single one. THIS #3 - #10 couldn't do it. Every other #3 - #10 in history didn't get 'one pint away'. THey WON that point!

Why is THIS #3 - #10 performing at a historically poor level in GS tournaments?

jay_k - Reality provided the 'trick'. I just pointed it out.

Pamela Shriver
Jan 26th, 2003, 09:05 PM
I think the rankings were weaker when I was no.3.....

Fingon
Jan 26th, 2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by jay_k
I think this is a trick thread baitiing all non-Williams fans into accepting that the Williams sisters are much better than their favourites .

If you say yes this is the weakest #3-#10 .....then you are in a way dissing your own fave and if you say no then your indirectly praising the Williams sisters for making the finals of the last four GS's .

Exactly, like 99% of Volcana's posts

Volcana
Jan 26th, 2003, 09:28 PM
Hey Fingon! Got any other juicy quotes for my sig?

TeeRexx
Jan 26th, 2003, 09:40 PM
Damn!
It took about 25 post for them to figure out Volcana's little trap. LOL :)

CJ07
Jan 26th, 2003, 10:47 PM
Venus and Serena are just the best

and 3-10 arent

o0O0o
Jan 26th, 2003, 10:58 PM
Yes I think the #3-#10 players are astoundingly weak. Look no further than Hantuchova and Dokic and Capriati and Seles to prove my point. These four playing at their current level would not have made the top 10 a few years back IMO.

TeeRexx
Jan 27th, 2003, 12:05 AM
5xO - Just figured it out, eh? LOL

Richie77
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:37 AM
No. No way is this the weakest Top 10 in history. I can prove it.

Ladies and gentlemen, here is the Top 10 rankings after the U.S. Open in 1984:

1. Martina Navratilova - 207.490 points
2. Chris Evert - 139.157
3. Hana Mandlikova - 76.628
4. Pam Shriver - 76.025
5. Kathy Jordan - 69.329
6. Manuela Maleeva - 61.472
7. Claudia Kohde-Kilsch - 47.671
8. Zina Garrison - 45.185
9. Lisa Bonder :eek: - 41.407
10. Bonnie Gadusek - 40.705

Jordan reached only one GS final (a super-weak Australian Open draw), Kohde-Kilsch and Maleeva never did. Garrison was still years away from reaching the Wimbledon final. Bonder and Badusek?! Puh-leeze!

Nos. 3-10 right now may be far away from the level that Serena and Venus are at, but at the same time, they're also relatively close together. In the 1984 rankings, Hana had almost twice as many points as Bonder and Badusek did.
Also, the current Top 7 players have each reached a GS final. In that list, only the Top 5 players had done so by the 1984 Open.

Nos. 3-10 aren't weak. Nos. 1 and 2 are just a heck of a lot better right now.

Volcana
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:10 AM
INdyRichie - A good try. But....

Hana Mandlikova won OZ '80, RG '81, US '85 and OZ '87

So in 1984, she was a multiple GS winner who still had a couple years of GS titles in her. That's a lot stronger #3 than this year. But this year's #6, #9 and #10 kick ass over 1984's 6, 9 and 10. So you may have a winner there.

Robbie.
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:14 AM
Volcana we are talking about current form aren't we?

I mean Davenport hasn't won a slam for three years, Seles for 7. And Capriati's form of the past 6 months has hardly been that of a GS threat. Yes they are definitely better credentialed career wise than the three players in the 1984 list. But are they better credentialed over the last 12 months? (I'm not sure of this) At this point in time, are either of today's three really living up to the credentials on their resume? I say not.

disposablehero
Jan 27th, 2003, 06:51 AM
If Monica Seles is so weak, how about someone tells me how many times Bonnie Gadusek beat Chris and Martina in the 18 months previous to those rankings? The same comparisons can be made for the other players, and the current ones stand up better in the majority of cases.

Robbie.
Jan 27th, 2003, 07:07 AM
DH, this is not a slight on Monica's glorious career, merely on her level of competitiveness with the top 2 in the past 12 months.

You have cleverly selected 18 months inorder to make Monica's wins over Serena on the US Hardcourts in 2001 and over Venus in the Australian Open in 2002 count. However they really have no relevance in this thread, as we all know that Serena was not the player she is today back in the summer of 2001. Furthermore we are talking about the dominance of the top 2 - and the top 2 have only been dominating since post Oz Open 2002.

The fact is that in the past 12 months Davenport, Capriati and Seles have gone a collective 0-11 against the Williams Sisters. Only Capriati has won a set. If you want to argue that these three players were all at their ABSOLUTE best during the past twelve months, then it only reinforces the belief that this top ten really is weak. I do not believe that any of these three champions have been at their peak for ATLEAST 12 months.

Volcana
Jan 27th, 2003, 03:35 PM
dh - noting that I favor the current #6,9,10 over the 1984 #6,9,10, the rankings are based on a 12 month cycle. Going back 18 months kinda takes us out of the useful range of rankings. Serena wasn't even #2 18 months ago.

If you want to be rigorous, you really have to limit it to the period when the Williamses were #1 and #2, which didn't happen til clay season.

disposablehero
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:46 PM
It's not about 12 months any more than it is about 18, or about 3 months. The question is, if they played tomorrow, do Monica and Lindsay have a better shot against Serena and Venus than than Lisa and Bonnie did against Martina and Chris at that time, and the answer is yes.

supremeross
Jan 27th, 2003, 05:03 PM
The fact that you've got 5 Grand Slam Winners in the top 10 makes it a very strong top 10: Serena, Venus, Jennifer, Monica and Lindsay, not to mention that Mauresmo, Henin and Clijsters have all played in a GS final and have won numerous Tier I's and II's. I think the field is very deep and getting even more deeper.

Volcana
Jan 27th, 2003, 07:03 PM
Dh - If that's really the question I think the answer's 'no'. There's so little chance in either case, it's almost a draw.

Robbie.
Jan 27th, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by supremeross
The fact that you've got 5 Grand Slam Winners in the top 10 makes it a very strong top 10: Serena, Venus, Jennifer, Monica and Lindsay, not to mention that Mauresmo, Henin and Clijsters have all played in a GS final and have won numerous Tier I's and II's. I think the field is very deep and getting even more deeper.

Just the fact that Jennifer, Monica and Lindsay HAVE been Grandslam winners in the PAST does not mean that they are playing Grandslam Callibre tennis now. I mean Mary Pierce, Iva Majoli and Conchita Martinez are all Grandslam Champions (Pierce and Majoli more recently than Seles, Pierce more recently than Davenport) and nobody is going to use them as a standard for the depth of the women's game. Just because these 3 champs are still in the top 10, does not mean they are playing anything like their best ball.

And I'm with Volcana here. At what point in the last 12 months did Monica or Lindsay seem a chance for the upset during the course of a match against either of the sisters? The answer is never.

disposablehero
Jan 28th, 2003, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Volcana
Dh - If that's really the question I think the answer's 'no'. There's so little chance in either case, it's almost a draw.

Volcana, your Williams myopia and tendency toward analytical shortsightedness makes it easy for you to say that, but the fact is that Martina lost only twice in 1984, once which was to the world #3. Serena had a lot more losses last year than just to Kim. Chris lost 8 times in 1984, but 6 of them were to Martina, so clearly the rest of the tour didn't have much to offer her either. That's light years ahead of Venus "against the rest" record.

You are welcome to your opinion, but the facts clearly refute it. I may do an addenda on the first Graf era later, that will be ugly.

Larrybid
Jan 28th, 2003, 04:02 AM
Hero, I agree with your analysis. The top 10 of today is clearly better than it has been in the women's game in my 20 year history of the sport. The problem is some folks want to make the standard how #3 thru 10 can compete with the top two. That's not the valid comparison, since the Williams sister's have a level of athleticism that frankly is unprecedented in the woman's game.

Navrotilova was the first woman to take pride in training to be a top athlete, and tennis snobs treated her as if she were from Mars. Today's top 3-10 are much better athlete's and also much more accomplished than the top ten have ever been. Today we have former GS winners STILL in their prime playing years (Cappy, Davenport), and seasoned young up and commer's (HEnin, Clisters, Momo, Dokic?, Dementiava, Hantuckova) that at least have the potential to be GS winners should a Sister go down with injury. Looking at the list from 1984 is just eye-popping for what passed for a top player. The women's game is, right now, as deep as its EVER BEEN!!!

disposablehero
Jan 28th, 2003, 04:05 AM
Well Larry, I didn't say it was the strongest ever. I said weakest since 1998, but clearly stronger than most of the Open Era.

Larrybid
Jan 28th, 2003, 04:06 AM
Tell me when it was stronger. I'm willing to be convinced.

Larrybid
Jan 28th, 2003, 04:09 AM
I agree it may have been closer, and more competitive in 1998, since the Williams sisters hadn't quite pulled it together - but better? No.

WtaTour4Ever
Jan 28th, 2003, 04:14 AM
I think a very objective way to look at this since we can't use #s is comparing the results of #1 and #2 vs #9 #10 of various years......or has that already been done........

I really have no opinion one way or another....just a thought.

Richie77
Jan 28th, 2003, 04:30 AM
Volcana - Tell you what: I'll do a comparative analysis of the 1984 players to the 2002 players. Maybe that will decide this.

Number 3 - Hana won five tournaments, Kim won five tournaments. Hana reached two Grand Slam semis, Kim...didn't.
AD: HANA

Number 4 - Justine won two tournaments, Pam won two tournaments. Pam reached two GS quarterfinals, Justine reached the semis at Wimbledon, but lost before the QFs at the other three Slams. AD: PAM

Number 5 - Kathy Jordan reached one Wimbledon semifinal, but never won any tournaments. Daniela reached two GS quarters, and did win a Tier I. AD: DANI

Number 6 - Maleeva did win three tournaments, as opposed to Capriati's now zero tournaments. But - Capriati reached at least the QF of 13 of 17 tournaments. Maleeva could only manage the quarters at 10 of 19. Capriati got to the QFs of all three remaining Slams, Maleeva only one. PUSH

Number 7 - Kohde-Kilsch won one tournament, Monica won two. Kohde-Kilsch reached the 16's at RG, Wimbledon and the U.S. open, Monica reached the QF at each of them. AD: MONICA

Number 8 - Zina won a tournament, and reached the QFs at 13 of 20 tournaments. But, none of those were at the Big 3. Mauresmo won two tournaments, and reached the semis at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. She only lost three times out of 16 before the QFs, and one of those a R16 effort at Roland Garros. AD: MAURESMO

Number 9 - Bonder got to the Roland Garros QFs, as did Dokic. Bonder got to five QFs in 16 events (31.25 percent), Dokic got to 15 QF at 29 events (just over 50 percent). Bonder didn't win any events, Dokic won two. AD: DOKIC

Number 10 - Gadusek won one event to Davenport's none. Gadusek reached nine QFs in 14 events, Davenport reached nine QF's in 10 events in an injury-shortened year. Gadusek reached the 4th round at the U.S. Open (the only Slam she played all year), Davenport reached the semifinal of the U.S. Open (the only Slam she played all year). Clinch. AD: DAVENPORT

So, I'll agree with you that Hana and Pam are a stronger 3-4 than Kim and Justine. But 5-10, from my vantage point, look better now than they did in '84.

Asmus
Jan 28th, 2003, 05:52 AM
2003
3. Jennifer Capriati
4. Kim Clijsters
5. Justine Henin
6. Amelie Mauresmo
7. Monica Seles
8. Daniela Hantuchova
9. Jelena Dokic
10. Lindsay Davenport

2000
3. Venus Williams
4. Monica Seles
5. Conchita Martinez
6. Serena Williams
7. Mary Pierce
8. Anna Kournikova
9. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
10. Nathalie Tauziat

1997
3. Lindsay Davenport
4. Amanda Coetzer
5. Monica Seles
6. Iva Majoli
7. Mary Pierce
8. Irina Spirlea
9. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
10. Mary Joe Fernandez

(OK: Coetzer, Majoli, Spirlea, and ASV and MJF both past their primes? They'd get killed by today's top players)

I think today's top ten definitely holds their own.

Asmus
Jan 28th, 2003, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by o0O0o
Yes I think the #3-#10 players are astoundingly weak. Look no further than Hantuchova and Dokic and Capriati and Seles to prove my point. These four playing at their current level would not have made the top 10 a few years back IMO.

By "a few years back," are you referring to 2000, when Anna Kournikova was #8? Or were you referring to 1997, when Amanda Coetzer was #4?

disposablehero
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:12 AM
No Larry, I consider 98 the last year weaker than 02-03 have been. 99 to 01 were the strongest. Venus was as good as she is now for half that period, and very close the rest of the time. Serena was reasonably close to where she is now, on and off. Davenport and Hingis were very strong, Steffi Graf was strong in 99, Monica was on about the same level then that she is now, JenCap really wasn't much worse in 99 and 00 than she is now, but was far better in 01. Mary Pierce was strong for 99 and the first half of 2000. Clijsters, Henin, Dokic were pretty strong in 01, and even towards the end of 00.

LOL@Asmus. That's a purely evil rebuttal. Don't know what he can say to that.

jenglisbe
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:18 AM
I am with Gowza; the other players choke. Look at how many times Capriati (and Clijsters) has taken Serena deep into a 3rd set and lost. Look at Mauresmo taking on Venus at the U.S. Open.

As far as physical, athletic, and talent attributes do, this is a VERY deep top 10. As far as *mental* attributes go, it is a weak top 10. It seems like some of these players either don't believe they can win, or they expect the Williams sisters to give it to them. When Kim was up 5-1 last week, she should have taken it to Serena and closed it out. Instead, it's like she wanted Serena to give it to her...

I think the top 10 now is the strongest ever in terms of talent and athleticism, but there is a lot to be desired in terms of intangibles.

disposablehero
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by IndyRichie
Volcana - Tell you what: I'll do a comparative analysis of the 1984 players to the 2002 players. Maybe that will decide this.

Number 3 - Hana won five tournaments, Kim won five tournaments. Hana reached two Grand Slam semis, Kim...didn't.
AD: HANA

Number 4 - Justine won two tournaments, Pam won two tournaments. Pam reached two GS quarterfinals, Justine reached the semis at Wimbledon, but lost before the QFs at the other three Slams. AD: PAM

Number 5 - Kathy Jordan reached one Wimbledon semifinal, but never won any tournaments. Daniela reached two GS quarters, and did win a Tier I. AD: DANI

Number 6 - Maleeva did win three tournaments, as opposed to Capriati's now zero tournaments. But - Capriati reached at least the QF of 13 of 17 tournaments. Maleeva could only manage the quarters at 10 of 19. Capriati got to the QFs of all three remaining Slams, Maleeva only one. PUSH

Number 7 - Kohde-Kilsch won one tournament, Monica won two. Kohde-Kilsch reached the 16's at RG, Wimbledon and the U.S. open, Monica reached the QF at each of them. AD: MONICA

Number 8 - Zina won a tournament, and reached the QFs at 13 of 20 tournaments. But, none of those were at the Big 3. Mauresmo won two tournaments, and reached the semis at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. She only lost three times out of 16 before the QFs, and one of those a R16 effort at Roland Garros. AD: MAURESMO

Number 9 - Bonder got to the Roland Garros QFs, as did Dokic. Bonder got to five QFs in 16 events (31.25 percent), Dokic got to 15 QF at 29 events (just over 50 percent). Bonder didn't win any events, Dokic won two. AD: DOKIC

Number 10 - Gadusek won one event to Davenport's none. Gadusek reached nine QFs in 14 events, Davenport reached nine QF's in 10 events in an injury-shortened year. Gadusek reached the 4th round at the U.S. Open (the only Slam she played all year), Davenport reached the semifinal of the U.S. Open (the only Slam she played all year). Clinch. AD: DAVENPORT

So, I'll agree with you that Hana and Pam are a stronger 3-4 than Kim and Justine. But 5-10, from my vantage point, look better now than they did in '84.

I'd even argue 3 and 4. If you count Capriati with no Slams, that means you are including not just last year, but right now, which mean you have to give JHH 2 Slam Semis. I'd call that a push. Also, Kim's biggest title was much bigger than Hana's biggest, and you are basically looking at similar achievements when Kim was hampered by an injury. I'd call it a push if Kim did all that healthy. Kim doing that with a injury that is gone, I would say Ad Kim.

Robbie.
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:18 AM
Asmus, I think we start to tred on very shaky ground, when we start to pick apart past top tens. What evidence do we possibly have that the Majoli or Spirlea of 1997 would have been killed by today's top ten? Majoli actually won a grandslam in 1997 beating Hingis and Davenport (as well as Coetzer who had taken out Graf and Martinez) which is more than we can say about today's young players and Spirlea was 1 point away from reaching the US Open final after defeating Seles. Both were cut down by injuries, and in Spirlea's case her own horrid temperament. But they were genuine top 5-10 players - with WEAPONS. I certainly don't rate Dokic any higher than them in terms of talent. And Sanchez-Vicario was past her prime? Perhaps. But it didn't stop her from beating both the Williams sisters to win sydney in 1998 or beating Davenport and Seles to win at RG in the same year. Mary Joe had one of her best years of her career in 1997 believe it or not. She made the last 16 at each major, including the semis of the AO (losing to Hingis) and the quarters of Roland Garros (where she almost upset Seles). She lost to Novotna at the other two majors. She won the biggest title of her career at Berlin when she beat Pierce in the final. As for Coetzer, well you can dismiss her all you like, but the fact was she had multiple wins over Graf (#1, then #2) and Novotna (#2) to go with a win over Hingis (all conquering world #1) - thats 6 wins over players ranked either 1 or 2. So I think she earnt her top 5 ranking as much as either Dani or Justine have, who, by the way, have combined for 1 lonely victory over the top two players in the past 12 months.

Robbie.
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by disposablehero
No Larry, I consider 98 the last year weaker than 02-03 have been. 99 to 01 were the strongest. Venus was as good as she is now for half that period, and very close the rest of the time. Serena was reasonably close to where she is now, on and off. Davenport and Hingis were very strong, Steffi Graf was strong in 99, Monica was on about the same level then that she is now, JenCap really wasn't much worse in 99 and 00 than she is now, but was far better in 01. Mary Pierce was strong for 99 and the first half of 2000. Clijsters, Henin, Dokic were pretty strong in 01, and even towards the end of 00.

I agree whole heartedly with this DH

Mary Pierce, Steffi Graf, Martina Hingis and Lindsay Davenport in close to peak form, along with Venus, Serena and Monica close to their best beat today's top 3-10 hands down.

Asmus
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:32 AM
Rob--I know a lot of people will hate this, but the truth is that Majoli's FO win was a bit of a fluke. Just look at the rest of her results and her game--she is no better than Dokic, and is probably less talented. Yet she managed to win a major in 1997, whereas Dokic has never come close. Iva managed to win the FO because Davenport at that time was about 40 lbs heavier than now, on her worst surface, choking, Coetzer (who other than being Graf's nemesis has achieved very little, and failed to win a significant title in 1997, unlike Henin and Hantuchova last year) wasn't able to put her away, and Hingis was exhausted from coming back from injury as well as a very tough singles and doubles match. Spirlea was certainly a dangerous competitor, but she never managed to win even a set from Martina Hingis. The current top ten is able to challenge the Wiliams sisters, even though the Williamses are much tougher than Hingis was in '97.

Sharapower
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:51 AM
The today's #3 to #10 are far from being the weakest. The #1 & 2 seemingly are the strongest (but don't forget the time when it was Navratilova-Evert in most af GS finals... All-Williams GS finals yet are just a 1 year history).
Every #1 player seems invincible until she gets beaten (or unfortunately injured).
The tour goes on and the likes of Kim, Justine, Daniela or Amelie are getting closer and closer to the Williams sisters (and the younger newcomers are promising).

Volcana, everyone agree that Serena and Venus are dominating and that their level to date is too high for the others. But you never know what will be the season which is just beginning and moreover you can't predict what the women's tennis will be like in 2004, 2005 and so on.

Robbie.
Jan 28th, 2003, 07:08 AM
Asmus - I do understand that Majoli has never again reached the highs that she achieved at RG 1997 but what people forget is that before that tournament Majoli had been one of the brightest lights on the tour since her arrival in 1994 as a 16 yr old. People often make the wrong assumption that her Roland Garros victory was an abberation, rather than what it was - a natural progression. Majoli had only been getting better in the three years prior to her victory. She won major titles on the tour such as the Pan Pacific (beating Seles, Hingis and Sanchez Vicario) and Zurich as well as being a quarterfinalist at the Australian Open and Roland Garros. In 1995-1996 she finished the year inside the top ten as a 18/19 yr old. In fact she spent a period as world #4 in the fall of 1996. She was always one of the best clay courters on the tour, and this is evidenced by the fact that in her first six appearances at RG (even at 16 when losing a tight 2 set match to Graf) she never lost before the round of 16, including making the quarterfinals 3 times outside of her victory year. Yes it was a suprise to see her beat Hingis at that particular French Open, but given her history up to that point it was not inconceivable that she would eventually win RG, infact it was quite likely. Lets not confuse the post 1997 Majoli with the Majoli of 1994-1997 because they are simply not comparable.

Secondly I don't see how today's top 10 is more competitve with either sister, than the top ten was with Hingis in 1997. Serena has lost 4 matches in the past 12 months and only 2 of those were to top tenners. 4 of Hingis' 5 1997 losses were to top tenners (Davenport, Seles, Coetzer, Pierce). You note that Spirlea, the 1997 year end World #8, never took a set from Hingis. Well Serena never dropped a set to Hantuchova, the year end world #8, in 2002 so what exactly is your point? I don't think there is any definitive way to say the williams sisters were tougher than Hingis was in 1997 (Although I think they are). It is all a matter of conjecture.

As for Coetzer, well if you classify being intermittently ranked in the top 10 from 1997-2001 combined with a year end appearance in the top 5, 7 Grandslam Quarterfinal appearances, 3 that reaped GS semifinals, 10 straight years in the top 20, 9 straight appearances at the season ending championships, 8 career titles (including a Tier 1), 500 career wins, over 6 million dollars in prizemoney and wins over the likes of Seles, Graf, Martinez, Sanchez Vicario, Sabatini, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, Pierce, Venus Williams and many many other top notch stars as very little well then obviously at least 85% of todays top 100 who will never achieve anything like that may as well give up tennis and look for another more rewarding job ASAP.

DiZZiA
Jan 28th, 2003, 12:03 PM
It's getting harder and harder now.... Coz' both Williams have been maturing from boy's power into men's power now.... simply look at Venus' 201km serve... not even some of the pro guys on the ATP tour can do it......

And well.... the rest of the girls can only maintain their girls' or women's power and try to fight for the #3 spot on what we call the WTA "Women's Tennis Association" Rankings.......

;)