PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Mary Joe Fernandez is/was the best player never to win a grandslam?


samsam4087
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:29 PM
Comments on Mary Joe Fernandez, do you think she is/was the best tennis player never to win a grandslam?

samsam4087
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:32 PM
Mary Joe Fernandez was a talented player, but lacked the strength to dictate play. Her forehand was considered average on tour and not of the same caliber as the elite players. However she showed good mechanics on her backhand, often played high percentage tennis (better shot selection than her opponents), and was willing to grind out a match if she had to. Although I don't think she was the best player never to win a grandslam event, she is in the conversation. I think Amanda Coetzer, who reached a career high of # 4 in the world in 1997 and finished #11 in the world twice was a little bit better player and she never won a grandslam either. I remember that Jana Novotna won Wimbledon near the end of her career. So I would vote for Coetzer.

HenryMag.
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:43 PM
Coetzer was no.3 in November 97, she never reached a GS final...

Kart
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:44 PM
Ever heard of Sukova ?

Solitaire
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:45 PM
Mary Joe Fernandez was a talented player, but lacked the strength to dictate play. Her forehand was considered average on tour and not of the same caliber as the elite players. However she showed good mechanics on her backhand, often played high percentage tennis (better shot selection than her opponents), and was willing to grind out a match if she had to. Although I don't think she was the best player never to win a grandslam event, she is in the conversation. I think Amanda Coetzer, who reached a career high of # 4 in the world in 1997 and finished #11 in the world twice was a little bit better player and she never won a grandslam either. I remember that Jana Novotna won Wimbledon near the end of her career. So I would vote for Coetzer.


MJ was a good play and had a few chances to win a slam. She just didn't have that extra special thing to get the win. Plus she played along side Martina 1 & 2, Graf, Seles, Williams sisters, and Linds so getting a slam with these ladies around was very hard.

I don't agree that Amanda was a better player. Amanda had speed and was a fighter but over all she was one dimensional. MJ was an all around player. She could get it done from the baseline and also finish things off at the net. When u compare their careers the results speak for themselves.

spencercarlos
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:45 PM
Mary Joe Fernandez was a talented player, but lacked the strength to dictate play. Her forehand was considered average on tour and not of the same caliber as the elite players. However she showed good mechanics on her backhand, often played high percentage tennis (better shot selection than her opponents), and was willing to grind out a match if she had to. Although I don't think she was the best player never to win a grandslam event, she is in the conversation. I think Amanda Coetzer, who reached a career high of # 4 in the world in 1997 and finished #11 in the world twice was a little bit better player and she never won a grandslam either. I remember that Jana Novotna won Wimbledon near the end of her career. So I would vote for Coetzer.
Oh please shut up. You don´t have any argument to say Amanda was any better than Fernandez. Mary Joe reached 3 grand slam finals and beat great players. And you probably never saw her play, she had an all court game and had a nice forehand and backhand, all around she was very complete.

Amanda´s boring and retrieving game bought 3 wins from an ailing Graf in 1999, but beyond that she lacked the game to win a grand slam.
Just need to remmember her matches with Conchita at Roland Garros 97 or Usopen 1998 to get an idea of how boring of a player she was.

Mary Joe for her part had Graf on the ropes at Roland Garros 1993 in the final, twice up a break in the third set and lost, but she was a much more complete player than Amanda and for sure she was closer to a grand slam title and reached the latter rounds of the majors much more often than little Amanda.

spencercarlos
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:50 PM
Coetzer was no.3 in November 97, she never reached a GS final...
Coetzer´s 3 in the world in 1997 was so false and product of some fluky draws, but everybody knew that she was not the third best player in the world back then. Pretty much ala number 5 in the world finish that Conchita had in 2000.

Chrissie-fan
Mar 4th, 2007, 01:52 PM
Mary Joe Fernandez, Helena Sukova and Andrea Jaeger in recent history, Elizabeth Ryan if you look at tennis' entire history I guess. I'm sure there must be others that deserved to win one, but didn't.

xcrtbckhnd
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:23 PM
Mary Joe actually had a fantastic forehand. One of the most classic shots in tennis in my opinion. And of course her backhand was beautiful as well. Textbook shots that were both featured in tennis magazines "classic shots" at different points in time.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:28 PM
If you consider who wanted to win a Grand Slam, I would say Sukova.
If you consider who should have won a Grand Slam, I would say Jaegar.

Sukova made it to four grand slam finals.
I think her best chance came in 1984 when she beat 3 top 5 seeds including Navratilova but couldn't beat Evert on grass.
She played a long time for tennis players and even has an effect on tennis now.
There might not be any validity to Anna Kournikova today if Sukova would have beaten her in 1997 in the fourth round at Wimbledon.
She still had some game on grass but just couldn't get over that hump of underachieving on the grass of Wimbledon.

Wannabeknowitall
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:37 PM
Just need to remmember her matches with Conchita at Roland Garros 97 or Usopen 1998 to get an idea of how boring of a player she was.



OMG.
That match was so awful I still remember it, US Open 1998.
I was cleaning my room and it was a windy day in NYC.
Wind and the games of Conchita and Amanda just don't mix.
So I had finished cleaning my room which took a few hours and the match was still on and going at snail's pace.
Neither player wanted to attack.
Both players acted as if the net was fashioned of a toxic poision.
So it was the attack of the moonballs with wind.
The balls took forever to come down.
I started wondering if somehow Amanda and Martinez had found the only blue colored clay court in NYC and were playing their US Open match on that.
It was the first and only time I begged Mary Carillo to talk as much as possible and she did.
Her comments about being surprised it didn't rain after all these balls going in the upper atmosphere were hilarious.
The balls were going so high some left the view of the backcourt camera.
It was the only time I considered that the winner of the match beat their opponent by boring them to death.

It was the worse conditions and matchup.
Coezter can be quite entertaining.
Martinez though can be quite depressing when she's losing and she has a tendency to stretch out that depression in a match forever.
The finals of Roland Garros in 2000 was just so weird.
I just felt bad for Mary because it was like Martinez leeched some of her happiness from winning on that court that day.

Havok
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:47 PM
Anke Huber

Solitaire
Mar 4th, 2007, 02:52 PM
Anke Huber


Oh I loved Anke she always did well at the Aus (Reaching the final and semis) and she did make the semis of the FO where Graf crushed her. :sad:


I'd like to throw in Kimiko Date. She had Graf on the ropes in the semis of Wemby but the match was called do to light and of course the urging of Graf.

alextim
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:11 PM
tauziat for her game

spencercarlos
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:20 PM
OMG.
That match was so awful I still remember it, US Open 1998.
I was cleaning my room and it was a windy day in NYC.
Wind and the games of Conchita and Amanda just don't mix.
So I had finished cleaning my room which took a few hours and the match was still on and going at snail's pace.
Neither player wanted to attack.
Both players acted as if the net was fashioned of a toxic poision.
So it was the attack of the moonballs with wind.
The balls took forever to come down.
I started wondering if somehow Amanda and Martinez had found the only blue colored clay court in NYC and were playing their US Open match on that.
It was the first and only time I begged Mary Carillo to talk as much as possible and she did.
Her comments about being surprised it didn't rain after all these balls going in the upper atmosphere were hilarious.
The balls were going so high some left the view of the backcourt camera.
It was the only time I considered that the winner of the match beat their opponent by boring them to death.

It was the worse conditions and matchup.
Coezter can be quite entertaining.
Martinez though can be quite depressing when she's losing and she has a tendency to stretch out that depression in a match forever.
The finals of Roland Garros in 2000 was just so weird.
I just felt bad for Mary because it was like Martinez leeched some of her happiness from winning on that court that day.
Not only that, but having the precedent of ROland Garros 1997 of Martinez-Coetzer they scheduled Pierce-Venus in the Grand Stand at the same time instead of the Staduim :rolleyes:

jazar
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:24 PM
no, there are more talented players now who wont win slams

janko
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:41 PM
Chanda Rubin, Amanda Coetzer, Helena Sukova, Natasha Zvereva, Maleeva sisters, Anke Huber, Zina Garrison, Lori McNeil, Irina Spirlea, Pam Shriver, Kimiko Date and (let's dream a little!) Silvia Farina deserved more to win a slam IMO, MJF is coming after...

:inlove:
Mar 4th, 2007, 03:46 PM
Mary-Joe. :hearts: That match against Sabatini at the French in 1993 I think was amazing. :worship: :worship:

I'd say Helena Sukova is the best player never to win a grand slam.

Kart
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:18 PM
Mary-Joe. :hearts: That match against Sabatini at the French in 1993 I think was amazing. :worship: :worship:


Have you got a copy and if so, could you give it to me ?

So I can burn it :fiery:.

:inlove:
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:21 PM
:haha:
A Gaby fan I see. :awww: Do you remember that double fault when she had MP? :D :D :p

Kart
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:26 PM
^ I've never seen the match in full.

Nowadays, when anyone shows clips of it on TV, I settle for sticking pins in my eyes ... which is probably less painful.

I do remember cheering Steffi on in the final though :angel:.

John.
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:48 PM
She is one of, but I think Sukova was probably the best never too win a slam

KV
Mar 4th, 2007, 04:52 PM
No, I'd give H. Sukova & P. Shriver the edge.

TaxPower
Mar 4th, 2007, 06:43 PM
tauziat for her game

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
that's one of the funniest things I have ever heard. To see her in a final was a miracle, but win.... That's science fiction!

stefi62
Mar 4th, 2007, 06:48 PM
I said no, for me, it's Dementieva!

serena_fan
Mar 4th, 2007, 06:55 PM
Nooooooooooo

gmak
Mar 4th, 2007, 07:05 PM
1.Helena Sukova
2.Andrea Jaeger
3.Mary-Joe Fernandez

Sammm
Mar 4th, 2007, 07:08 PM
I think she was very unlucky not to win a grandslam; Steffi, Arantxa and Monica (her best friend, incidentally) were always just a touch better than her. She's definitely one of the top 5 players never to win a slam, not sure if she's the best....it's subjectve.

Steffica Greles
Mar 4th, 2007, 07:17 PM
Many of the posters on here would have been drinking bottled milk when Mary Jo was in her heyday, so they're bound to say no.

I voted yes.

Why?

Well, in terms of accomplishment, I would say that Mary Jo, perhaps with Sukova, is the player who stands out as the best never to have won a slam. She defeated Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Sabatini, Navratilova, Capriati, Novotna, Martinez, even Serena Williams in 1999 (after Serena had begun to show devastating form), but never Graf.

In terms of ability, it is more debatable. For instance, I can think of people like Mirjana Lucic, or Karolina Sprem, who achieved comparatively very little, but who at the height of their form were almost unplayable. But even still, Mary Jo possessed a game which could trouble any player -- and did -- very much based on the Evert prototype, but a little more tailored to the greater ferocity of the 1990s. Her backhand was textbook, with a perfect follow-through and cleanliness of connection. Her forehand, contrary to what some have suggested, while not being a formidable weapon, was a shot Mary Jo hit with a vicious lacing of underspin, yet in such a way that the ball accelerated as opposed to floated defensively. It was one of the more destructive shots she employed. And additionally, Fernandez had a proficient net game and covered the court well. She had no great weaknesses, which ensured her longevity as a top player from 1986 through to 1999. That's quite a career spectrum.

Other players who either tangibly possessed slam-winning ability or were accomplished enough to have deserved a slam triumph:

Helena Sukova
Andrea Jaeger
Rosie Casals
Chanda Rubin
Elena Dementieva (I think worse players have won slams)
Nadia Petrova
Nicole Vaidisova (Young yet, but she's the only member of the young brigade who I can assuredly say will be a future grandslam champion)
Mirjana Lucic (Her achievements belittled her ability)
Karolina Sprem (Controversial because she is the player who is unplayable for at least a few points of each contest. The debate centres on whether playing at the level to which she aspires, with little margin for error, is possible on a consistent basis.)

Anna Kournikova (Just look at her pedigree)
Kimiko Date
Irina Spirlea
Anke Huber
Natasha Zvereva (Surely her talent was sufficient to win at least one slam)
Nathalie Tauziat (Should have won Wimbledon)

TomasUli
Mar 4th, 2007, 08:23 PM
I hope Nadia Petrova wins a GS... else in 10 years from now, she'll be heading the list.

Kart
Mar 4th, 2007, 08:24 PM
Many of the posters on here would have been drinking bottled milk when Mary Jo was in her heyday, so they're bound to say no.


How old are you if you don't mind my asking ?

Mr. Magassi
Mar 4th, 2007, 09:45 PM
Not sure... never really enjoyed watching Mary Jo play as her game was a bit underwhelming... never really liked Coetzer, but she did have Steffi Graf's # for a while...

Steffica Greles
Mar 4th, 2007, 09:54 PM
How old are you if you don't mind my asking ?

25, just turned, although 96 according to the average estimation on this board, I'm told.

:lol:

I've watched women's tennis since c1992, intensely since 1994. So I would have been 10-12. I've watched many of Mary Jo's matches from that period and earlier, and also I have read what a prodigy she was, reaching the '86 French Open quarter-finals at 14.

History was my degree area, and tennis has long been an interest of mine. So knowing the game's history is concomitant. :)

What about you? PM me if you like.

*Jool*
Mar 4th, 2007, 10:09 PM
Coetzer´s 3 in the world in 1997 was so false and product of some fluky draws, but everybody knew that she was not the third best player in the world back then. Pretty much ala number 5 in the world finish that Conchita had in 2000.

:rolleyes:

Winston's Human
Mar 4th, 2007, 10:10 PM
IMO, it is very close between Fernandez and Sukova. Sukova has the edge in finals (4-3) and Fernandez has the edge in H2H (6-5).

mm1147
Mar 4th, 2007, 11:15 PM
if novotna didn't won wimbledon in 98 i would say her lol:)

Shenanigans
Mar 5th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Well my vote goes to Sukova I think she reached three or four slam finals. she was the clijsters of her day but at least Kim got one. Poor Helena :sad:

LukasM
Mar 5th, 2007, 12:25 AM
I think that one of the best players who never won a Grand Slam title was Anke Huber,I think that she was one of the most talentes players

égalité
Mar 5th, 2007, 12:43 AM
Iva Majoli.

Oh, wait... :hysteric:

thelittlestelf
Mar 5th, 2007, 01:09 AM
Chanda Rubin, Amanda Coetzer, Helena Sukova, Natasha Zvereva, Maleeva sisters, Anke Huber, Zina Garrison, Lori McNeil, Irina Spirlea, Pam Shriver, Kimiko Date and (let's dream a little!) Silvia Farina deserved more to win a slam IMO, MJF is coming after...Wow... that's the most bizarre opinion I've ever seen. Surely 3 slam (singles) finals ranks MJF higher than several of those players.

Aryman3
Mar 5th, 2007, 04:06 AM
No
The best was probably Jadwiga Jędrzejowska of Poland. Finalist of both
Wimbledon and US Open in the late thirties. Her career was sadly broken by
WWII At her peak years she was as good as Marble.

spencercarlos
Mar 5th, 2007, 05:16 AM
:rolleyes:
Everybody knows that Conchita was not the fifth best player around in 2000.
Serena, Venus, Davenport, Lindsay, Seles, Hingis, Pierce were better players at the time. In fact dear Conchita went 1-9 against these players i mentioned in 2000, and lost 23 times during the year, and of course her ONLY top ten win came against Hingis in Berlin, beyond that every time she faced a top ten she lost. Sorry but her being fifth in the rankings was pretty fake and product of cheap draws at the Australian Open and Roland Garros.

kittyking
Mar 5th, 2007, 06:04 AM
No
The best was probably Jadwiga Jędrzejowska of Poland. Finalist of both
Wimbledon and US Open in the late thirties. Her career was sadly broken by
WWII At her peak years she was as good as Marble.

I was thinking along the same lines

SeanyQ
Mar 5th, 2007, 06:48 AM
OK, I'd say the best since I've been watching tennis (since 1989) would definitely be:
1. Mary-Joe Fernandez;
2. Anke Huber;
3. Helena Sukova;
4. Zina Garrison-Jackson, &
5. Amanda Coetzer.

Someone who'd rank up there as well who hasn't already been mentioned is Manuela Maleeva Fragniere. Though she's not in the same leaugue as the others mentioned.
I vaguely remember seeing Natasha (Natalia) Zvereva get slammed 6-0,6-0 by Steffi in the '88 French Final (after being match point down in the semi's against Nicole {Provis} Bradtke in the semi's). I don't think she ever quite got over that.
Mary-Joe definitely gets my vote!

rhz
Mar 5th, 2007, 07:36 AM
I voted for YES! Not because she's my favorite, but she definately deserves at least one slam. Her career was filled with a lot of injuries, and she didn't play enough tournaments per year because of them. If only she was healthier during those years, she would have won 1 of them. Most probably at Australian Open, where she has had great results.

Kunal
Mar 5th, 2007, 07:51 AM
i dont think so...although i was really rooting for her at the french open against graf

Chrissie-fan
Mar 5th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Andrea Jaeger
Rosie Casals
Mary Joe Fernandez
Helena Sukova

And if we're to believe the history books, Elizabeth Ryan who won more tournaments than anyone (singles, doubles and mixed combined), including 19 Wimbledon's in doubles and mixed, but never a slam singles title. She had the misfortune of having to compete against Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 5th, 2007, 03:51 PM
I give a small edge to Sukova over Fernandez, but it is close. Jaeger had her moments but hers was a short career and a one dimentional one too. Sukova was a top player who threatened to win a slam for more than a decade. Honourable mentions to Zvereva and Date because I loved their games.

Kart
Mar 5th, 2007, 05:12 PM
25, just turned, although 96 according to the average estimation on this board, I'm told.

:lol:

I've watched women's tennis since c1992, intensely since 1994. So I would have been 10-12. I've watched many of Mary Jo's matches from that period and earlier, and also I have read what a prodigy she was, reaching the '86 French Open quarter-finals at 14.

History was my degree area, and tennis has long been an interest of mine. So knowing the game's history is concomitant. :)

What about you? PM me if you like.

I estimated you at a bright 26 so I was not that far off.

I'm older. If you want to know by how much then you can PM me with an estimate :p.

MistyGrey
Mar 5th, 2007, 06:43 PM
For me its Andrea Jaeger, followed by Helena Sukova, Kimiko Date, Mary Jow and Anke Huber.

spencercarlos
Mar 5th, 2007, 08:39 PM
For me its Andrea Jaeger, followed by Helena Sukova, Kimiko Date, Mary Jow and Anke Huber.
I would not put Date above Mary Joe, despite her inability to beat Graf, i think Mary Joe´s game was much much more complete, and that´s why she was very good at doubles as well.
And needless to say Date never reached a grand slam final and reached very few GS semifinals to show.

FaceyFacem
Mar 5th, 2007, 09:07 PM
mary joe is in the conversation for sure, but i think sukova is a better choice probably

spencercarlos
Mar 5th, 2007, 09:20 PM
mary joe is in the conversation for sure, but i think sukova is a better choice probably
Sukova indeed i would put her topping anyone on the list.
At the Usopen 1993 Sukova won the Mixed and Womens Doubles title and lost the finals in singles :eek:

samsam4087
Apr 14th, 2007, 04:15 AM
Sukova indeed i would put her topping anyone on the list.
At the Usopen 1993 Sukova won the Mixed and Womens Doubles title and lost the finals in singles :eek:

Helena Sukova is great!

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Doublebackhand
Apr 14th, 2007, 04:32 AM
I dont remember much of Sukova's game despite starting watching tennis early 80s. My only memory of her is her consistent losses to Navratilova. Jaeger, I am even less qualified to comment. Anything pre-80s, its all history books, up to your interpretation.
MJFernandez, definitely one of the best never to have won. She just didnt have the head of a champion. Too nice, imo. Pretty much a Clijsters, lucky Kim at least took one.
My pick of the current crop will definitely be Dementieva. She actually got a spectacular attacking game, but her serve....just painful at times.
And as someone earlier mentioned, I hope Petrova will win a slam or otherwise...

ps what about Pam Shriver? I honestly dont remember much of her game either except her doubles with MN, she was #3 after MN and Evert rite at a point?

Scotso
Apr 14th, 2007, 05:29 AM
The author didn't say "most talented," he said "best." In that case, yes, MJ Fernandez was the best player to never win a slam. She may not have had the huge shots (though her forehand was good as someone said), but she was a complete player and fought harder than almost anyone.

Scotso
Apr 14th, 2007, 05:30 AM
I dont remember much of Sukova's game despite starting watching tennis early 80s. My only memory of her is her consistent losses to Navratilova. Jaeger, I am even less qualified to comment. Anything pre-80s, its all history books, up to your interpretation.
MJFernandez, definitely one of the best never to have won. She just didnt have the head of a champion. Too nice, imo. Pretty much a Clijsters, lucky Kim at least took one.
My pick of the current crop will definitely be Dementieva. She actually got a spectacular attacking game, but her serve....just painful at times.
And as someone earlier mentioned, I hope Petrova will win a slam or otherwise...

ps what about Pam Shriver? I honestly dont remember much of her game either except her doubles with MN, she was #3 after MN and Evert rite at a point?

Pam was a solid singles player who won a lot of titles, but mostly small ones. When she faced the top tier players she always lost.

I don't like it when people say someone is "too nice" to win. I don't think that has anything to do with it, and is just a being too "nice" to players like Clijsters. Clijsters lost so many slam finals because she was a choker, not because she was nice.

iWill
Apr 14th, 2007, 05:58 AM
Pam was a solid singles player who won a lot of titles, but mostly small ones. When she faced the top tier players she always lost.

I don't like it when people say someone is "too nice" to win. I don't think that has anything to do with it, and is just a being too "nice" to players like Clijsters. Clijsters lost so many slam finals because she was a choker, not because she was nice.

Some people see that as being too nice because she didnt attack all the time and try and take it to Justine in the finals she played and against Jen the one time they played maybe it isnt correct to say "too nice" but I think when people say that it means that person lacked the killer instinct to beat their opponents but its just my honest opinion....................................

cant really comment about Mary Jo she seems really nice but I was too young to know what was going on exactly back then so i'm not qualified to make a comment on her

setpoint
Apr 14th, 2007, 06:07 AM
Chanda Rubin

Medina
Apr 14th, 2007, 06:10 AM
i thought she was the best player to never win a grand slam

Greenout
Apr 14th, 2007, 06:57 AM
Natasha Zvereva

Declan
Apr 14th, 2007, 07:38 AM
Rosie Casals. Pam Shriver. Andrea Jaeger. Then Wendy Turnbull and Helena Sukova. I'd place Fernandez on a par with the second group.

Ackms421
Apr 14th, 2007, 08:30 AM
Everybody knows that Conchita was not the fifth best player around in 2000.
Serena, Venus, Davenport, Lindsay, Seles, Hingis, Pierce were better players at the time. In fact dear Conchita went 1-9 against these players i mentioned in 2000, and lost 23 times during the year, and of course her ONLY top ten win came against Hingis in Berlin, beyond that every time she faced a top ten she lost. Sorry but her being fifth in the rankings was pretty fake and product of cheap draws at the Australian Open and Roland Garros.

Fifth may have been slightly high for her that year (though she reached #3 at some point during the year) but she had a *spectacular* clay season in 2000, and she beat Hingis in a final *before* Hingis had sort of lost her aura-she really outplayed her. She probably earned 75% of her year-end points in the clay season, but 2000 was one of her best years and I'm not sure #5 is really such an unrealistic measure for her overall.

As for who is the best not to win a slam-Sukova was sort of before my time, but I've seen a ton of Fernandez matches, and Fernandez, as others have noted, just didn't have any real weapons. She was sort of like Hingis with a *notch* less ability and competing against a notch highr field. Just enough to rob her of winning a slam final (incidentally, compare this to all the times Hingis has come up short in GS finals against opponents with more weapons than her-plenty). I'm partial to Rubin. She was a hard hitter, apt at net, good mover, and good thinker. She was coming up fast in 96, taking out ASV at the Aussie b/f narrowly losing to Seles, and she made it to the finals of the one of the big american hc tournaments following this and lost to Graf. She's been plagued by injuries her entire career and was never really healthy for long enough to come into her own. There have been a couple periods since '96 where she sort of showcased what might have been. She interrupted two 16 match winning streaks of Serena Williams in 2002 where she beat Davenport in the final of Los Angeles (and had defeated Serena en route there); she also nearly took out Venus at the USO one of the years that she won it, so I think she really should have snagged a slam somewhere along the way.

sonnys
Apr 14th, 2007, 09:25 AM
Yes,she was so close at the Aussie Open 91 sf, but no chance in 92s final!!!