PDA

View Full Version : Who's the best one-slam wonder?


Steffica Greles
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:11 PM
Here are the candidates that I can muster from the top of my head. I can only go back to c1980. Please do remind me if I've missed someone:

Kim Clijsters
Svetlana Kuznetsova
Anastasia Myskina
Amelie Mauresmo*
Gabriela Sabatini
Iva Majoli
Jana Novotna
Conchita Martinez

*Highly controversial, as nobody else deserved the Australian Open of 2006 more than she did. But to be honest, I'd rather forget that tournament ever happened than include a slam amongst her tally during which she came past two of the elite players of the decade, who would both have been slim favourites to beat her, due to retirements. It wasn't Amelie's fault, but unfortunately she left that tournament unproven, in my opinion, and that result is null and void.

From that list, I think we can eliminate Myskina and Kuznetsova straight away. Both haven't won a great deal since (although Sveta won Miami last year), and hadn't been prolific tournament winners prior. Next, we can also get rid of Majoli. She had greater longevity than the aforementioned two, but her other feats were not outstanding when compared with the remaining players.

So we're left with:

Kim Clijsters
Amelie Mauresmo*
Gabriela Sabatini
Jana Novotna
Conchita Martinez

This is where it gets more tricky.

Martinez, let's not forget, would have reached no.1 in the world in 1995 had the ranking system been calculated as it has been since 1996. During that season, she won six tier 2 or above titles. During her career, she also scored wins over all the great players of her heyday: Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Novotna, Sabatini, Pierce, Navratilova, Hingis. And, of course, she has more career match wins -- far more! -- than any of the players in question, with around 730. Her nearest challenger in that respect is Sabatini with around one hundred fewer; only Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Wade and Sanchez-Vicario have won more. Martinez has greater longevity than any of the other players in terms of her span of wins over top ten players (1988-2005).

Jana Novotna was a Masters winner, Wimbledon champion and twice runner-up, defeating Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Pierce, Sabatini, Navratilova, Hingis and Venus on more notable occasions than many of Martinez's victories. She also reached number two in the world, and after her Wimbledon triumph, was within only one hair's breadth of taking the number one spot in 1998.

Amelie Mauresmo has been a player capable of defeating any opponent for almost a decade now, ever since her run to the Berlin final as an 18 year-old in 1998. She has as many titles, or thereabouts, as Novotna, as well as wins over all of the top players of her day. She has won Wimbledon as well as the Masters, and numerous tier 1 victories.

However...I have written those eulogies in acknowledgement, because I believe the greatest competition is between Clijsters and Sabatini.

Clijsters vs Sabatini

Longevity - Sabatini, easily. Her first slam semi-final came in 1985, her last over a decade later in 1995 - and she retired at 26! Clijsters' first tier 2 or above victory was at the end of 2000, her last will be in 2007. Sabatini's last tier 2 tournament victory was in 1995 while her first, at a guess, would have been in 1986.

Career match wins - Again, this is an area in which Sabatini wins easily. She won well over 600, while Kim is unlikely to reach above 450 by the end of the year.

Career titles - Clijsters wins handsomely, although a number of her titles have been below tier 2. Around 5 or 6 have been tier 3. Having said that, without checking the ITF database, some of Sabatini's earlier titles may also have been lower grade.

Major achievements outside the slams - Unfortunately I don't have the stats, but (and a lot of people don't know this) Sabatini scored more wins over Graf during her career than any other player, including Seles. At one stage she really had Graf's number. Sabatini was also a four-time winner of the Italian Open, twice winner of the Masters and multiple Miami winner. Sabatini really was the player who could tear apart Graf and Seles' hegemony when she was playing her best tennis. In 1991, she defeated Graf and Seles in just one month (world no.'s 1&2), and had she won the French Open, would have been anointed world no.1.

Clijsters was very similar to Sabatini in that she was a thorn in the side to all of the great players, and one of the few who presented a real challenge to the Williams sisters during their brief stranglehold of the game. She was also twice a Masters winner, winner of Toronto, twice Indian Wells champion, Italian Open winner and Miami champion. And, of course, unlike Sabatini, she reached no.1 in the world, although it may be that Sabatini also would have achieved that feat in mid-1991 had the ranking system been then as it is now.

Grandslam success -- Clijsters can't be denied this one, although Sabatini was in far more slam semi-finals (something like 18!), compared to Clijsters' 12. However, the results that count are decisively in Kim's favour. She has won a slam and been 4 times a finalist, while Sabatini played just 3 slam finals, winning 1, during her entire career.

Wins over great players -- I'd say both are fairly even in this respect. Sabatini defeated Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Novotna, Martinez, Capriati. Kim bested the likes of Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Capriati, Henin, Mauresmo, Sharapova.

I'll leave the conclusion to others :p

Demska
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Bit too early too say for some of them you listed. :p

John.
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Mauresmo is not a one slam wonder, regardless of how she won the tournament.

My vote goes to Sabatini

HenryMag.
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:26 PM
I think Martinez is the best and Sabatini the 2nd best.

The Daviator
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:30 PM
Myskina is my favourite :p

Also, I understand what you're saying about Mauresmo, but she has two Slams, it doesn't matter that she won one in bizarre circumstances, so I don't think she should be included in the discussion...

Olórin
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:31 PM
To be honest I think you've quantified it TOO much....I think it is between Clijsters and Sabatini, but it is down to personal opinion and likes and dislikes for than their stats imo.

Mikey B
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:36 PM
i pick kim, she's made numerous slam finals and semi-finals... despite being a 'one-slam wonder' its no wondering that she's a great player and champion.

hingis-seles
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Gaby's the best of the lot. And Amelie is not a one-slam wonder.

champGS1452
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:43 PM
I pick Sabatini. Mauresmo has 2 slams,no matter how she won the first one. Also,it's a bit odd when you include Kuznetsova because she's still so young in her career. She's made the French Open Finals since and she's too good to not win another slam.

tennisjunky
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:47 PM
clijsters is the best in that category

hablo
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:50 PM
Amélie Mauresmo is NOT a one-slam wonder.

Bruno71
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:51 PM
Highly controversial, as nobody else deserved the Australian Open of 2006 more than she did. But to be honest, I'd rather forget that tournament ever happened than include a slam amongst her tally during which she came past two of the elite players of the decade, who would both have been slim favourites to beat her, due to retirements. It wasn't Amelie's fault, but unfortunately she left that tournament unproven, in my opinion, and that result is null and void.

Considering Mauresmo beat Clijsters & Henin twice each since then...with no other losses to Clijsters, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. She had the Henin match well in hand and looked to be the slightly better player than Clijsters in the semis too. Retirements be damned, she won that slam!

Sabatini gets my vote.

tennisIlove09
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:57 PM
Clijsters
Martinez
Sabatini

in that order.

Helen Lawson
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:59 PM
My personal favorite is the lovely Conchita. But the best on the list is Kim, it's not an issue. Unlike those other girls, she was no. 1 in the world. She has one or two YEC titles, loads of other slam finals, was no. 1 in doubles (I think), won a couple of doubles majors. There's no denying Kim is the best of that list.

I don't consider Amelie a one-slam wonder. She might be the bottom of the two-slam wonders, but two is two. Plus, she's been no. 1 and won YEC, so it's not like she's really a "wonder" of any of the categories.

Tennisation
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:03 PM
ok that's not cool to put Amelie on that list of one slam wonders, because the FACT is, she is NOT, so please take her out, it's insulting to her and her fans, and your so call "analysis" of her "higly controversial" grand slam is total BS!

frontier
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:04 PM
kim is the best in that bunch,its unfortunate she is retiring she would have had chances to redeem herself.outside of slams she did an outstanding job.kim is better than kuzziy,myskina,pova and at par with momo in terms of talent.
Kim we will always love you,you were a breath of fresh air.we will miss the splits and good luck in your future.

MyskinaManiac
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:04 PM
From that list, I think we can eliminate Myskina and Kuznetsova straight away. Both haven't won a great deal since (although Sveta won Miami last year), and hadn't been prolific tournament winners prior. Next, we can also get rid of Majoli. She had greater longevity than the aforementioned two, but her other feats were not outstanding when compared with the remaining players.



This is a statement from a person who obviously hasn't done their research. Pitting Myskina against Majoli is a big mistake, and to say that Majoli had longevity... pfft... her career was one injury after another. Stats say that Myskina is a far better player than Majoli.

CURRENTLY Myskina has had 355 wins and 190 losses, compared to retired Majoli's 316 wins and 225 loses. Does that spell out longevity to you? Pardon me for saying this, but Myskina's career isn't even over by a long shot... so there's plenty more victories to add to that tally. Another stat that stacks up in Myskina's favour is tournaments won; Myskina currently has one 10, compared to Majoli's 8... however, a stat that is in favour of Majoli is tier 1's won, Majoli 3 compared to Myskina's 2... however, Majoli's Charelston win was the softest tier one draw in a long time, and her opponents were regulars at tier III's and IV's. Let's not mention Myskina's career high ranking of 2, compared to Majoli's 4.

For what Myskina has achieved is not a lot, but she certainly has achieved a lot more in an unfinished career. More significantly, for what Myskina has done, her achievements could even go beyond the likes of Sabatini and Clijsters for symbolic reasons... that being the first Russian to win a slam. The point is, Myskina has many more chances to win another slam.

Jogi
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:07 PM
maybe we should consider mauresmo as a "one and a half-slam-"wonder, actually a wonder
anyway, I'd say Martinez

Poova
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Well I could be biased and say the lovely Jana Novotna :hearts: but the best is probably Conchita I would say...

woosey
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:37 PM
clijsters.

unlike others in this category, she has completely underperformed and thrown away opportunities to be greater than a one-slam wonder.

she could have at least two other slams. and that's a shame.

for her high level and talent, she was an underachiever.

Mightymirza
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:47 PM
:silly: Sabatini!!

RJWCapriati
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:54 PM
Sabatini

Elenarulez
Apr 24th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Clijsters of course.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 24th, 2007, 10:58 PM
I understand the reasons why some would rather forget about Mauresmo's AO win, but I don't agree. A Grand Slam tournament is in part a matter of the survival of the fittest. In this particular tournament that player happened to be Mauresmo.

I can't seperate between Sabatini and Clijsters. For me they are about as equal as it gets. Martinez and Novotna aren't far behind those two and are arguably bigger underachievers than Gaby and Kim. No need to talk about the severe choking problem that Jana struggled with for most of her career and Conchita should considering her otherwise outstanding record on claycourts have been able to win a French Open. Having said that, it's not exclusively their own failing that's to blame of course, the player(s) on the other side of the net also have something to do with it.

Steffica Greles
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:01 PM
This is a statement from a person who obviously hasn't done their research. Pitting Myskina against Majoli is a big mistake, and to say that Majoli had longevity... pfft... her career was one injury after another. Stats say that Myskina is a far better player than Majoli.

CURRENTLY Myskina has had 355 wins and 190 losses, compared to retired Majoli's 316 wins and 225 loses. Does that spell out longevity to you? Pardon me for saying this, but Myskina's career isn't even over by a long shot... so there's plenty more victories to add to that tally. Another stat that stacks up in Myskina's favour is tournaments won; Myskina currently has one 10, compared to Majoli's 8... however, a stat that is in favour of Majoli is tier 1's won, Majoli 3 compared to Myskina's 2... however, Majoli's Charelston win was the softest tier one draw in a long time, and her opponents were regulars at tier III's and IV's. Let's not mention Myskina's career high ranking of 2, compared to Majoli's 4.

For what Myskina has achieved is not a lot, but she certainly has achieved a lot more in an unfinished career. More significantly, for what Myskina has done, her achievements could even go beyond the likes of Sabatini and Clijsters for symbolic reasons... that being the first Russian to win a slam. The point is, Myskina has many more chances to win another slam.

I never pretended to have done my research. I don't have the time. Can you demonstrate as much, largely true, knowledge?

But you make your case well, so I'll give it to you. Who cares. Neither player is the best one-slam-wonder (and Myskina, in my own humble opinion, is never likely to be).

As for Mauresmo:

I have nothing against Amelie; she's one of the players of the decade, an exemplary athlete and professional, a beautiful player to watch (I prefer her to Henin) and an intelligent, thoughtful person.

But I stand by what I said. The Australian Open did not happen in 1986, for those who didn't know that. Twenty years later, in 2006, it also did not happen in my mind. Both Kim and Justine would have been favourites to beat Amelie, and, if I remember rightly, Kim was a break up in the final set? She certainly wasn't far behind. And Justine was clearly not well, even if physically she probably could have completed the match in the interests of sportsmanship.

Sonf@
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:15 PM
being objective...

Sabatini
Clijsters
Conchita
Novotna
Kuznetsova
Majoli/Myskina

Steffica Greles
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:16 PM
I understand the reasons why some would rather forget about Mauresmo's AO win, but I don't agree. A Grand Slam tournament is in part a matter of the survival of the fittest. In this particular tournament that player happened to be Mauresmo.

I can't seperate between Sabatini and Clijsters. For me they are about as equal as it gets. Martinez and Novotna aren't far behind those two and are arguably bigger underachievers than Gaby and Kim. No need to talk about the severe choking problem that Jana struggled with for most of her career and Conchita should considering her otherwise outstanding record on claycourts have been able to win a French Open. Having said that, it's not exclusively their own failing that's to blame of course, the player(s) on the other side of the net also have something to do with it.

I'll never forget Conchita's spring/early summer of '95.

As reigning Wimbledon champion, she won Hilton Head (now Charleston), Amelia Island, Hamburg (now Warsaw) and Rome. She went into the French Open as many people's favourite, having thrashed the world no.1, Sanchez-Vicario, in the Italian Open final, and with Graf's fitness in doubt due to severe back trouble only allowing her participation at the last minute.

She bulldozed her way to the semi-finals, with love sets everywhere, and then had a *3-4 0-40 advantage over Graf in the final set of their semi-final. At that point, I think most people expected her to take the match and probably the title.

What a difference one match can make to a career. Had Conchita taken that match, she may have been a much better player for the remainder of the 1990s, with that layer of confidence solidified from that win. But she didn't capitalise. She choked away all three break points and didn't win another game.

Steffica Greles
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:19 PM
being objective...

Sabatini
Clijsters
Conchita
Novotna
Kuznetsova
Majoli/Myskina

Novotna over Conchita is problematic.

Jana was a Masters winner, Conchita was not. She also competed in 4 slam finals (Australia '91, Wimbledon 93,97,98) to Conchita's 3.

Conchita won more titles, but many were tier 3 or below. As far as I know, not many of Jana's were below tier 2 grade, although I know some of her early triumphs might have been.

cellophane
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:21 PM
Sure, Amelie has 2 slams, but I don't think that means you can't put her in the same category as the other players on the list.

Corswandt
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:23 PM
if I remember rightly, Kim was a break up in the final set? She certainly wasn't behind.

You remember wrongly. Clijsters was a break down in the third.

And Justine was clearly not well, even if physically she probably could have completed the match in the interests of sportsmanship.

JH was just spent and completely off her game, much like she was at the USO SF last year before JJ went off her rocker.

Nicolás89
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:23 PM
i think amelie is the best one-slam wonder of all, i mean she has 2 slams :) :shrug:


(conchita :ras:)

Kenny
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:25 PM
Very ignorant. Who was the champion at the end of the tournament? Amelie Mauresmo. PERIOD. She won that slam.

Kim Clijsters has my vote.

Kenny
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:26 PM
i think amelie is the best one-slam wonder of all, i mean she has 2 slams :) :shrug:

Exactly.

tennismaster8820
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:26 PM
Sabatini
Novotna
Martinez
Clijsters
Majoli
Kuznjecova
Myskina

Steffica Greles
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:27 PM
I understand the reasons why some would rather forget about Mauresmo's AO win, but I don't agree. A Grand Slam tournament is in part a matter of the survival of the fittest. In this particular tournament that player happened to be Mauresmo.

Good point. But then, by that token, if every single player in the draw barring one defaulted with a stomach bug or whatever, on the eve of the tournament's commencement, then that remaining player would win by default, would they not? I'm not sure. But take the example anyway.

So I defy you to say it would be because of their survival ability.

cellophane
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:29 PM
Very ignorant. Who was the champion at the end of the tournament? Amelie Mauresmo. PERIOD. She won that slam.

What is? To say she has one slam? Yeah, that's wrong... she has 2. To put her in the category with the rest of the players who have won 1 slam for comparison isn't though.

Kenny
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:46 PM
What is? To say she has one slam? Yeah, that's wrong... she has 2. To put her in the category with the rest of the players who have won 1 slam for comparison isn't though.

I agree. On the second part of your post though.. the title of the thread is the best one-slam wonder.

Harvs
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:50 PM
You cannot call any of the active players one-slam wonders. They may very well win another grand slam before they retire.

DOUBLEFIST
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:50 PM
Clijsters, easily.

Can't call MoMo a OSW. She has two!

CaptnMatt
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:53 PM
Clijsters is the best one slam wonder in my opinon. Conchita Martinez follows her closely...

I hate agreeing with steffica-greles but for some reason, and I really like Amelie, I always think of her Wimbledon Grand Slam as her 1st.

That Aussie Open Final was a joke...I felt so sorry for Amelie, because I have a ''feeling'' that she would have won it anyway......Clijsters may have worn her down in the Semi (but even that is a long shot, because she was down a break)....but nobody will ever know.....Stupid Henin for retiring and not letting Mauresmo have her glory.....I really dislike her :fiery:

LeRoy.
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:57 PM
Gaby. Momo has TWO slams.

* are stupid.

WorldWar24
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:09 AM
Kim Clijsters purely based on emotions. And if she kept on playing she woulnd't be a one-slam wonder for long, so...

I don't see the point of this thread. It all comes down to personal choice like/dislike. And why the hell is mauresmo jammed together with the bunch, the thread starter seems to be all scientific and full of cryteria and then the hell with it and there goes mauresmo with the pack, wtf! She has 2!

They're all incredibly good, can't we leave it at that? They already are in a group called grand slam champions, they happened to win it just once, that's why they are on the same level. This endless need to rationalize and evaluate and rank everything from the number of tier5000s won to the amount of different hairstyles per season has got to end... please?! GOD

spencercarlos
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:12 AM
Here are the candidates that I can muster from the top of my head. I can only go back to c1980. Please do remind me if I've missed someone:

Kim Clijsters
Svetlana Kuznetsova
Anastasia Myskina
Amelie Mauresmo*
Gabriela Sabatini
Iva Majoli
Jana Novotna
Conchita Martinez

*Highly controversial, as nobody else deserved the Australian Open of 2006 more than she did. But to be honest, I'd rather forget that tournament ever happened than include a slam amongst her tally during which she came past two of the elite players of the decade, who would both have been slim favourites to beat her, due to retirements. It wasn't Amelie's fault, but unfortunately she left that tournament unproven, in my opinion, and that result is null and void.

From that list, I think we can eliminate Myskina and Kuznetsova straight away. Both haven't won a great deal since (although Sveta won Miami last year), and hadn't been prolific tournament winners prior. Next, we can also get rid of Majoli. She had greater longevity than the aforementioned two, but her other feats were not outstanding when compared with the remaining players.

So we're left with:

Kim Clijsters
Amelie Mauresmo*
Gabriela Sabatini
Jana Novotna
Conchita Martinez

This is where it gets more tricky.

Martinez, let's not forget, would have reached no.1 in the world in 1995 had the ranking system been calculated as it has been since 1996. During that season, she won six tier 2 or above titles. During her career, she also scored wins over all the great players of her heyday: Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Novotna, Sabatini, Pierce, Navratilova, Hingis. And, of course, she has more career match wins -- far more! -- than any of the players in question, with around 730. Her nearest challenger in that respect is Sabatini with around one hundred fewer; only Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Wade and Sanchez-Vicario have won more. Martinez has greater longevity than any of the other players in terms of her span of wins over top ten players (1988-2005).

Jana Novotna was a Masters winner, Wimbledon champion and twice runner-up, defeating Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Pierce, Sabatini, Navratilova, Hingis and Venus on more notable occasions than many of Martinez's victories. She also reached number two in the world, and after her Wimbledon triumph, was within only one hair's breadth of taking the number one spot in 1998.

Amelie Mauresmo has been a player capable of defeating any opponent for almost a decade now, ever since her run to the Berlin final as an 18 year-old in 1998. She has as many titles, or thereabouts, as Novotna, as well as wins over all of the top players of her day. She has won Wimbledon as well as the Masters, and numerous tier 1 victories.

However...I have written those eulogies in acknowledgement, because I believe the greatest competition is between Clijsters and Sabatini.

Clijsters vs Sabatini

Longevity - Sabatini, easily. Her first slam semi-final came in 1985, her last over a decade later in 1995 - and she retired at 26! Clijsters' first tier 2 or above victory was at the end of 2000, her last will be in 2007. Sabatini's last tier 2 tournament victory was in 1995 while her first, at a guess, would have been in 1986.

Career match wins - Again, this is an area in which Sabatini wins easily. She won well over 600, while Kim is unlikely to reach above 450 by the end of the year.

Career titles - Clijsters wins handsomely, although a number of her titles have been below tier 2. Around 5 or 6 have been tier 3. Having said that, without checking the ITF database, some of Sabatini's earlier titles may also have been lower grade.

Major achievements outside the slams - Unfortunately I don't have the stats, but (and a lot of people don't know this) Sabatini scored more wins over Graf during her career than any other player, including Seles. At one stage she really had Graf's number. Sabatini was also a four-time winner of the Italian Open, twice winner of the Masters and multiple Miami winner. Sabatini really was the player who could tear apart Graf and Seles' hegemony when she was playing her best tennis. In 1991, she defeated Graf and Seles in just one month (world no.'s 1&2), and had she won the French Open, would have been anointed world no.1.

Clijsters was very similar to Sabatini in that she was a thorn in the side to all of the great players, and one of the few who presented a real challenge to the Williams sisters during their brief stranglehold of the game. She was also twice a Masters winner, winner of Toronto, twice Indian Wells champion, Italian Open winner and Miami champion. And, of course, unlike Sabatini, she reached no.1 in the world, although it may be that Sabatini also would have achieved that feat in mid-1991 had the ranking system been then as it is now.

Grandslam success -- Clijsters can't be denied this one, although Sabatini was in far more slam semi-finals (something like 18!), compared to Clijsters' 12. However, the results that count are decisively in Kim's favour. She has won a slam and been 4 times a finalist, while Sabatini played just 3 slam finals, winning 1, during her entire career.

Wins over great players -- I'd say both are fairly even in this respect. Sabatini defeated Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Novotna, Martinez, Capriati. Kim bested the likes of Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Capriati, Henin, Mauresmo, Sharapova.

I'll leave the conclusion to others :p
I would go with Kim on this one. More titles, most of them big, and world number one ranking. A tough call but i think Kim deserves it because she achieved more than Gaby in some categories in less time. Gaby a close second.

DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:16 AM
I'd have to go with mary pierce....(she was not on the list) to me..its almost like nobody even noticed that Myskina and Kuetnesova won a grand slam...

LoveFifteen
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Kim is the best of the bunch, and if she wasn't so gung-ho about being a housewive, she could definitely add to her slam total.

Sabatini is my fave. :inlove:

WorldWar24
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:19 AM
I'd have to go with mary pierce....(she was not on the list) to me..its almost like nobody even noticed that Myskina and Kuetnesova won a grand slam...

pierce has 2

like mauresmo but someone fails to acknowledge that

spencercarlos
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:28 AM
I'll never forget Conchita's spring/early summer of '95.

As reigning Wimbledon champion, she won Hilton Head (now Charleston), Amelia Island, Hamburg (now Warsaw) and Rome. She went into the French Open as many people's favourite, having thrashed the world no.1, Sanchez-Vicario, in the Italian Open final, and with Graf's fitness in doubt due to severe back trouble only allowing her participation at the last minute.

She bulldozed her way to the semi-finals, with love sets everywhere, and then had a *3-4 0-40 advantage over Graf in the final set of their semi-final. At that point, I think most people expected her to take the match and probably the title.

What a difference one match can make to a career. Had Conchita taken that match, she may have been a much better player for the remainder of the 1990s, with that layer of confidence solidified from that win. But she didn't capitalise. She choked away all three break points and didn't win another game.
Sorry but Conchita´s record against Graf and Arantxa did not suggest that she should have won Roland Garros 1995. Graf lost only 1 time to Conchita, beat her 10 times in straight sets out of 13 wins, and Arantxa won most of their important matches against each other as well, including a semifinal match against Conchita at Roland Garros 1994.

The match score was 3-3 0-40 and Conchita ended up losing 6-3 6-7 6-3 to Graf that day, she was not as close as you say. Take in consideration that clay was Conchita´s best surface, while it was probably the worst for Graf (as she admited many times)

If someone lost a big chance to get the world number one ranking and being a better factor at the slams was Gaby who had it in her racket at the lawn of Wimbledon which happened to be Graf´s best surface. 6-4 3-6 8-6 loss after serving for it twice and being 30-30 and a easy putaway volley.

Conchita had a very poor record at the Masters no even a semifinal for her record, poor record against the greatest in the game (21% of total wins against players that have been number one), so sorry i doubt that she would have become something of a huge force post 1995, simply because she never gave any signs of that.

veesbest
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:19 AM
mauresmo

Scotso
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:25 AM
Conchita Martinez. 33 singles titles, 13 doubles titles. Won her grand slam on her worst surface. Did extremely well time and time again in all grand slams. Two silver medals in doubles. She also always gave good fights to the top players over three decades and had wins over all of them.

I would put Sabitini second... had she played better, she would definitely be first, but she didn't. Tough luck, but it was her choice.

A lot of people here really overestimate Clijsters. Likely because many of the people on this board were never exposed to tennis before Clijsters was a part of the tour, and many of them are fanboys/girls. Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, she was a good player, but not a great one.

Scotso
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:27 AM
its almost like nobody even noticed that Myskina and Kuetnesova won a grand slam...

Because they shouldn't have. They got lucky.

DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:34 AM
Because they shouldn't have. They got lucky.

OH okay well that answers my question then :lol:

goldenlox
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:38 AM
They won slams. Your opinion of those slams is irrelevant.
Sveta is 21. She has years and years to go in her career. She's from a sports family of champions, and she wants to have a long career.

LoveFifteen
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:40 AM
A lot of people here really overestimate Clijsters. Likely because many of the people on this board were never exposed to tennis before Clijsters was a part of the tour, and many of them are fanboys/girls. Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, she was a good player, but not a great one.

You're wrong. If Clijsters hadn't fired her coach and started focusing on marriage, she could still the be same player that tore through the field and won the 2005 American Double. If Clijsters trained and focused, she could still contend for Slams.

lecciones
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Mauresmo is not oneslam wonder as mentioned by another poster. Sabatini won plenty of quality titles. This is hard because even if Sabatini was not able to reach no.1 the quality of titles she won should have brought her there, but that is not the case though. Kim has reached no.1 in the world and her number of titles can make up for the difference. Like what Helen_Lawson said, she won other things the rest didn't win, so I also go for Kim.

WorldWar24
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:51 AM
They won slams. Your opinion of those slams is irrelevant.

exactly. And a lot of players who have loads of slams got lucky in several of them, yet no one says they don't deserve them coz they got more to back them up. I personally don't give a fuck when people say Myskina Kuznetsova Majoli and so on won their slams didn't deserve them or got lucky. It's just a narrow minded way to look at things. Imagine if you went to talk to Myskina or Gaudio or Costa or whoever and say the things people say behind their back, like "hey Gaston, I really think you didn't deserve that Roland Garros title, it's such a fluke, you're a lucky bastard. How come you were on court that final day and happen to win?" Imagine the reaction on someone who devoted his life to the sport, and even though is no legend, is an exceptional athlete and without a doubt DESERVED every bit of that trophy, and imagine the hours he spent dreaming of lifting that title, the sweat he left on the courts every day for 20+ years, travelling around the world 11 months a year, and someone comes and says: "he/she just got lucky!" it's a total lack of respect and only demonstrates ignorance regarding what it takes to succeed imo

Scotso
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:55 AM
You're wrong. If Clijsters hadn't fired her coach and started focusing on marriage, she could still the be same player that tore through the field and won the 2005 American Double. If Clijsters trained and focused, she could still contend for Slams.

That doesn't make me wrong.

Just because she COULD doesn't mean she would or will. You can't base how great a player was on their potential, only on their results.

Scotso
Apr 25th, 2007, 01:57 AM
exactly. And a lot of players who have loads of slams got lucky in several of them, yet no one says they don't deserve them coz they got more to back them up. I personally don't give a fuck when people say Myskina Kuznetsova Majoli and so on won their slams didn't deserve them or got lucky. It's just a narrow minded way to look at things. Imagine if you went to talk to Myskina or Gaudio or Costa or whoever and say the things people say behind their back, like "hey Gaston, I really think you didn't deserve that Roland Garros title, it's such a fluke, you're a lucky bastard. How come you were on court that final day and happen to win?" Imagine the reaction on someone who devoted his life to the sport, and even though is no legend, is an exceptional athlete and without a doubt DESERVED every bit of that trophy, and imagine the hours he spent dreaming of lifting that title, the sweat he left on the courts every day for 20+ years, travelling around the world 11 months a year, and someone comes and says: "he/she just got lucky!" it's a total lack of respect and only demonstrates ignorance regarding what it takes to succeed imo

Gaston played great to win that slam, and beat the hottest claycourt players of the year.

Did you watch the matches Sveta and Myskina played in their slam wins? They were awful tennis. Not to mention they basically got walkovers over an extremely nervous and chokey Dementieva in the final.

I'm sorry, but when you're looking at a players standings in the great scheme of things, you have to consider their competition. No one would call a player the best ever just because they won a lot of slams or titles or matches. That's why Margaret Court is never (by reasonable people) mentioned as the best ever.

So Disrespectful
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:03 AM
There's no way to judge this type of question really. Sabatini, Graf, Novotna and Martinez would be average players in today's game (IMO), below Myskina and Kuznetsova.

So that leaves Clijsters.

DownTheLine21
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:07 AM
I hate that fact that Clijsters is a "one slam wonder," but, nevertheless, she is the best out this group of women. Hopefully, she focus on doing some damage at her last grandslam event (Wimbledon). I would love to see her leave tennis with two majors.

WorldWar24
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:13 AM
Gaston played great to win that slam, and beat the hottest claycourt players of the year.

Did you watch the matches Sveta and Myskina played in their slam wins? They were awful tennis. Not to mention they basically got walkovers over an extremely nervous and chokey Dementieva in the final.

I'm sorry, but when you're looking at a players standings in the great scheme of things, you have to consider their competition. No one would call a player the best ever just because they won a lot of slams or titles or matches. That's why Margaret Court is never (by reasonable people) mentioned as the best ever.

my point is: things eventually even out. If you are good, you are probably gonna get a break. Some people take it, some fail. Myskina is an excellent player, like Majoli, the reason she gets attacked a lot is because she was one of the best players in the world for a short period of time. I'm not going to talk about her achievements, it would even seem silly trying to prove someone is a great player, she just is and everyone knows it. The reason she isn't all the time, and that applies to Majoli and many others, is consistency. Consistency has nothing to do with quality, it's motivation and hard work, and that's why Myskina shines only once in a while. Myskina beat Venus Williams and Capriati and then Dementieva. She desintegrated them. They looked like amateurs but it wasn't just because Myskina was having 3 lucky days in a row, it's because that's what she does, she sabbotages the opponents' games. I feel stupid talkign about this, it seems so obvious to me
And Svetlana Kuznetsova just beat the most in form player the Usopen series has seen in a long time. Yes Davenport got injured but she didn't give her the match. And Dementieva didn't fall apart in the final, Kuznetsova was just superb, she would have beaten anyone.
Belittleing players' accomplishments is a really lame thing to do. It's done, it's history, and it's a lack of respect towards sports in general. Even underdogs and "one slam wonders" as people call them have their place in between the Serenas and Steffis and the players who never won anything. It's sports, few will win a lot, some a few and most will win nothing

morningglory
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:38 AM
Kim!

Scotso
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:41 AM
.... Graf ... would be average players in today's game (IMO), below Myskina and Kuznetsova.

:haha:

mm1147
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:46 AM
novotna wins the list

safinfans629
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:13 AM
kim,definitely!

So Disrespectful
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:36 AM
:haha:

Laugh all you want. Every sport progresses over time. That is why most sprint records are broken by the next generation, and even when they're not, the other competitors on average are closer to that mark than the last generation was.

It would be naive to suggest that it's any different in tennis. If Steffi was born as part of this generation, her game might've developed in a way that she'd dominate. Fact is, she wasn't, and the way she played to win all of those majors 10-20 years ago just wouldn't cut it with today's generation.

spencercarlos
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:58 AM
Conchita Martinez. 33 singles titles, 13 doubles titles. Won her grand slam on her worst surface. Did extremely well time and time again in all grand slams.
I may be redundant again but including RU Finishes and Wins, Gaby was part of 18 grand slam semifinals in her 13 year carreer, while Conchita reached 12 grand slams semifinals in her 18 year carreer.
That being said Gaby not only acomplished more, but she did it in less time than Conchita and 5 extra years of carreer is a lot.


Conchita Martinez. Two silver medals in doubles.
Once again when you add up a team competition event to a singles resume, in order to make it stronger then that player is in big trouble.
Gaby did not have an estellar player on her side as a countrywoman to play with, hence she did not have the oportunity to achieve this things in "team" competition Fed Cup and olympic events. But hey she won a Silver Olympic medal in Singles :), while Conchita has nothing to show up for Olympics in the singles department.

She also always gave good fights to the top players over three decades and had wins over all of them.
That´s not exactly true, just go check head to head stats and you´ll see that Gaby in that department showed year after year the most part of her carreer that she was competitive against the top players, 40% of wins against players that have been number one at some point of their carreer compared to 21% from Conchita just explains it better.

Another interesting fact is that Conchita´s performances at the Masters year after year, where you are assured of facing top players in most of the matches, only reflects that Conchita was not a huge factor against the top players. Do i need to mention Gaby´s resume at the Masters?

Plus Conchita did not have wins over ALL of the top players she faced in her carreer, no need to mention that she went out from the game without victories against Venus, Serena, Henin, Kuznetsova and probably a few others which i just don´t want to check right now. Oh and her 30+ head to head losing records.

Sorry but you are just "trying" to show us something that does not exist..

Lets not even talk about the 33 titles which i explain on my signature.

Hardiansf
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:05 AM
1-2 Kim/Gaby, can't pick which one is the BEST

3 Martinez
4 Novotna

5 Kuznetsova
6 Myskina

7 Majoli

Orion
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:07 AM
There's no way to judge this type of question really. Sabatini, Graf, Novotna and Martinez would be average players in today's game (IMO), below Myskina and Kuznetsova.

So that leaves Clijsters.

Do I have to dig up the figures and hypothetical match-ups to argue that Graf at her best would beat Serena at her best? Again?

Orion
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:11 AM
Gaston played great to win that slam, and beat the hottest claycourt players of the year.

Did you watch the matches Sveta and Myskina played in their slam wins? They were awful tennis. Not to mention they basically got walkovers over an extremely nervous and chokey Dementieva in the final.

Guillermo Coria goes down in history, no matter what happens in the rest of his career, as one of the biggest chokers in men's tennis history. Dementieva is a steel-nerved psychologist compared to Coria.

MistyGrey
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:28 AM
Amelie doesnt belong here. She is not a one slam wonder, regardless of how she won her slam.
Of the list, its really between Gaby and Kim, and I really dont know which one to pick. I'd like to pick Gaby coz I :hearts: her but have to go with Kim. I think Kim's best was better than Gaby's.

P.S. Kim can still win Wimbledon this year and shatter the tag of a one slam wonder.

MistyGrey
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:30 AM
Coria would've smoked Gaudio in 3 sets if it hadnt been for his injury.

MistyGrey
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:31 AM
Graf, average in TODAY's game!
OMG thats some fucked up shit! :spit:

So Disrespectful
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:37 AM
Oh yeah, and I'm sure Daphne Akhurst would just kill Serena if she played now :rolleyes:

1jackson2001
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:44 AM
IMO, a one-slam wonder is someone who overachieved and didn't win much else other than that surprising run to a GS title. :) The "wonder" part kinda gives off an element of surprise that they won the major. Someone like Kim, for example, could be said to have underachieved, and has won loads of other tournaments. As such, I wouldn't rate her as a "one-slam wonder". Other than Myskina, Majoli, and Kuzy on your list, I don't think any of them are one-slam wonders, though these three ladies have a career many could only dream of as well. :cool:

MistyGrey
Apr 25th, 2007, 08:26 AM
Oh yeah, and I'm sure Daphne Akhurst would just kill Serena if she played now :rolleyes:

Daphne Akhurst probably wont, but Steffi Graf probably will :p

Mileen
Apr 25th, 2007, 08:51 AM
I wouldn't call Clijsters a one-slam "wonder". A 'one-slam wonder' has a different meaning. The Russians are one-slam wonders, 'cause they won the slams in 2004 because the absolute top was absent.

DimaDinosaur
Apr 25th, 2007, 09:04 AM
go gaby, it's yo birthday!

SUPER
Apr 25th, 2007, 10:24 AM
I may be redundant again but including RU Finishes and Wins, Gaby was part of 18 grand slam semifinals in her 13 year carreer, while Conchita reached 12 grand slams semifinals in her 18 year carreer.
That being said Gaby not only acomplished more, but she did it in less time than Conchita and 5 extra years of carreer is a lot.



Once again when you add up a team competition event to a singles resume, in order to make it stronger then that player is in big trouble.
Gaby did not have an estellar player on her side as a countrywoman to play with, hence she did not have the oportunity to achieve this things in "team" competition Fed Cup and olympic events. But hey she won a Silver Olympic medal in Singles :), while Conchita has nothing to show up for Olympics in the singles department.


That´s not exactly true, just go check head to head stats and you´ll see that Gaby in that department showed year after year the most part of her carreer that she was competitive against the top players, 40% of wins against players that have been number one at some point of their carreer compared to 21% from Conchita just explains it better.

Another interesting fact is that Conchita´s performances at the Masters year after year, where you are assured of facing top players in most of the matches, only reflects that Conchita was not a huge factor against the top players. Do i need to mention Gaby´s resume at the Masters?

Plus Conchita did not have wins over ALL of the top players she faced in her carreer, no need to mention that she went out from the game without victories against Venus, Serena, Henin, Kuznetsova and probably a few others which i just don´t want to check right now. Oh and her 30+ head to head losing records.

Sorry but you are just "trying" to show us something that does not exist..

Lets not even talk about the 33 titles which i explain on my signature.

:lol: What a fight you have against Conchita:lol:

Gaby:drool:
Conchi:drool:

BTW, in this 5 years she played more than gaby, Conchi just reached 2 QF, so numbers only were getting worse for her during that span. She played because she needed to play, but of course she destroyed her numbers:p

Brαm
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:36 PM
player Clijsters Sabatini Martinez

total singles titles 34 27 33
YEC titles 2 2 0
slam finals 5 3 3
highest ranking 1 3 2
win/loss % 0.81 0.77 0.73

best result at:
Australian Open F SF F
Roland Garros F SF F
Wimbledon SF F WON
US Open WON WON SF

doubles titles 11 12 13
doubles slams 2 1 0
highest ranking 1 ? 7
win/loss 0.72 0.72 0.64

Kim :)

.honey.
Apr 25th, 2007, 02:42 PM
I couldn't really decide between Kim Clijsters and Svetlana Kuznetsova but if I just had to pick, I'd go for Kim.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Oh yeah, and I'm sure Daphne Akhurst would just kill Serena if she played now :rolleyes:
:lol: But it's not only a matter of how Akhurst would do against Serena in 2007 but also about how Serena would do against Akhurst in 1928, playing with the rackets of that time, training in the same manner, eating the same food, etc. I don't see why in these imaginary match-ups between players from different eras it always has to be the oldie that has to adjust to todays way of doing things and never the other way around. Ok, maybe Serena would beat Akhurst anyway, even in 1928, but against Helen Wills it would be a very different story IMO..

TennisGuy21
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:13 PM
I want to say that Kim is the best listed up there, but I'm so mad at her right now... er..

I always thought Iva Majoli was not that good, but I saw her on the Road to RG and I thought she played awesome against Hingis in that final. She had a wicked backhand.

VeeTennisFan
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Best tied Kim Clijsters and Gabriela Sabatini
Svetlana Kuznetsova – too early to tell
Anastasia Myskina- too early to tell
Amelie Mauresmo -a win is a win. Should not be listed.

shirley
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:37 PM
I'd go for Jana

brickhousesupporter
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:40 PM
player Clijsters Sabatini Martinez

total singles titles 34 27 33
YEC titles 2 2 0
slam finals 5 3 3
highest ranking 1 3 2
win/loss % 0.81 0.77 0.73

best result at:
Australian Open F SF F
Roland Garros F SF F
Wimbledon F F WON
US Open WON WON SF

doubles titles 11 12 13
doubles slams 2 1 0
highest ranking 1 ? 7
win/loss 0.72 0.72 0.64Kim :)

Was Kim in the Wimbledon Final? What year and against whom. I am just not recalling any such results.

Ryan
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:41 PM
I think its clearly Clijsters, and thanks to Bram for the cool stats! Gaby definately pushed Graf, arguably the best player ever, more than anyone else, but IMO her stats just dont match up against Kim. Gaby's second, but Kim's singles and doubles prowess put her at #1.

Craigy
Apr 25th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Amelie should not be on this list at all!

Brαm
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Was Kim in the Wimbledon Final? What year and against whom. I am just not recalling any such results.
Oops, that was an error ;) Kim's still better than Gabriela and Conchita, though :p

crazillo
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:02 PM
Martinez
Sabatini
Novotna

Steffica Greles
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:51 PM
Sorry but Conchita´s record against Graf and Arantxa did not suggest that she should have won Roland Garros 1995. Graf lost only 1 time to Conchita, beat her 10 times in straight sets out of 13 wins, and Arantxa won most of their important matches against each other as well, including a semifinal match against Conchita at Roland Garros 1994.

The match score was 3-3 0-40 and Conchita ended up losing 6-3 6-7 6-3 to Graf that day, she was not as close as you say. Take in consideration that clay was Conchita´s best surface, while it was probably the worst for Graf (as she admited many times)

If someone lost a big chance to get the world number one ranking and being a better factor at the slams was Gaby who had it in her racket at the lawn of Wimbledon which happened to be Graf´s best surface. 6-4 3-6 8-6 loss after serving for it twice and being 30-30 and a easy putaway volley.

Conchita had a very poor record at the Masters no even a semifinal for her record, poor record against the greatest in the game (21% of total wins against players that have been number one), so sorry i doubt that she would have become something of a huge force post 1995, simply because she never gave any signs of that.

I was wrong. But it was still 3 break points she wasted to give her an advantage over Graf in the final set, so I was right on that crucial point.

And what is it about Conchita that really hits a nerve with you?:rolleyes: For Christ's sake, I didn't place her above your beloved Gabi. I simply argued that she was a great player with a great record, which she was.

What's more, Conchita was many people's favourite for RG 1995. Why not? She was reigning Wimbledon champion, Sabatini was past her best in most people's eyes (and they turned out to be right), Sanchez-Vicario had been thrashed by Martinez in the Rome final, Pierce had flattered to deceive since winning the Australian Open that January, and Graf's tournament, even her career, was in doubt. She said as victor on the podium that she hadn't thought she'd be able to play.

I remember on the BBC that many commentators picked Conchita as the favourite.

KV
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:54 PM
K. Clijsters

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Apr 25th, 2007, 04:59 PM
Kim!!

Steffica Greles
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:05 PM
I think its clearly Clijsters, and thanks to Bram for the cool stats! Gaby definately pushed Graf, arguably the best player ever, more than anyone else, but IMO her stats just dont match up against Kim. Gaby's second, but Kim's singles and doubles prowess put her at #1.

Not so clearly, but quite possibly. I'd give her a 55% edge, but there's more stats that I want to see first. The stats you mentioned could be misleading when taking career titles into account. I know Kim is twice the Hasselt champion, as well as Auckland (or one of those tier 4s) and Luxembourg. Come to think of it, hasn't she won Luxembourg several times?

I'm not sure as many of Gabi's titles were below tier 2, so their tallies of tier 2 or above titles may actually be fairly even.

Also, Gabi defeated Graf around ten times between 1987 and 1992. I don't think Clijsters has defeated a comparable player of her generation, such as Serena, or even Venus, anywhere near as many times.

Sabatini also twice defeated Seles as world no.1, in the Italian Open finals of 1991 and 1992.

Lulu.
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:18 PM
Kim

Dave.
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Between Gabriela, Conchita and Kim. To me, Conchi did reach number 1, it was a shame about the difference in point system. Graf was the number 1 for 1995, but Conchi should have got there at some point during that year aswell.

Peter M
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:47 PM
Mauresmo does not belong on this list. Period.

Yasmine
Apr 25th, 2007, 06:05 PM
Kim and I'm gonna repeat what many have said, Amélie has nothing to do on that list, however people look at it, she won 2 slams and her AO title will be counted as such.

irma
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:12 PM
Between Gabriela, Conchita and Kim. To me, Conchi did reach number 1, it was a shame about the difference in point system. Graf was the number 1 for 1995, but Conchi should have got there at some point during that year aswell.

Conchita not being number 1 in 1995 had nothing to do with the rankingsystem. Steffi's results were simply better and not just a little bit.

Just Do It
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Myskina favourite Kim the best :)

spencercarlos
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:49 PM
Between Gabriela, Conchita and Kim. To me, Conchi did reach number 1, it was a shame about the difference in point system. Graf was the number 1 for 1995, but Conchi should have got there at some point during that year aswell.
Another delusional post

Graf´s 1994 Results at Grand slams and the Masters. W. SF. 1R. F. QF.
Graf 1994 took her first 32 matches of the year. Won 5 straight titles, 7 for the whole year and 3 finals. 58-6 (90%) record for the year.

Conchita 1994 Results at Grand slams and the Masters. QF.SF.W.3R. QF.
Conchita´s record for the year 57-16 (78%). Won 4 titles in 1994.

So Conchita deserved to be over Graf in 1994? :lol:

Lets go to 1995.
Conchita won 4 straight clay court titles in 1995 putting her as a huge favorite for the French Open title, but guess what. Graf started her season in Paris winning 32 straight matches that gave her 6 straight titles and two Grand Slams.
Its pretty much pointless to mention the rest of the 1995 season.

Conchita´s head to head record against the top two players in the world does not suggest that she "should" have been number one either. :rolleyes:
Conchita´s record vs Graf between 1994 and 1995. 0-2
Conchita´s record vs Arantxa betwen 1994 and 1995. 2-4

I have discussed this with Sonfo before, and showed him with numbers that even if Conchita had won Roland Garros in 1995, she was still a long way until claiming the number one ranking, because Arantxa would have been at the top still. Plus going to Wimbledon where Conchita had to defend her win, would have given her no time to wrap enough points to pass either Steffi or Arantxa.
Graf was superior to Conchita in results in 1994 and 1995. Period

Natalicious
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:54 PM
amelie is NOT a non slam wonder :fiery:

spencercarlos
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:59 PM
Conchita not being number 1 in 1995 had nothing to do with the rankingsystem. Steffi's results were simply better and not just a little bit.
:worship:
You only have to blame Graf for it, and Conchita´s inability to beat the best players that often to gain it. Plain and simple.

trufanjay
Apr 25th, 2007, 08:20 PM
Kim Clijsters all the way. She has more titles than Sabatini and Martinez and has been to one more grand slam final than the both of them. Kim is the best one slam wonder.

BTW, I do not see Mauresmo as a one slam wonder at all. She won the Australian Open and Justine would have lost no matter what had happened.

goldenlox
Apr 25th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Amelie was a one slam wonder for about 5 months. Then she became the holder of 2 majors in 2006 at Wimbledon

woosey
Apr 25th, 2007, 08:47 PM
player Clijsters Sabatini Martinez

total singles titles 34 27 33
YEC titles 2 2 0
slam finals 5 3 3
highest ranking 1 3 2
win/loss % 0.81 0.77 0.73

best result at:
Australian Open F SF F
Roland Garros F SF F
Wimbledon SF F WON
US Open WON WON SF

doubles titles 11 12 13
doubles slams 2 1 0
highest ranking 1 ? 7
win/loss 0.72 0.72 0.64

Kim :)


i guess it's settled then.

terjw
Apr 25th, 2007, 11:25 PM
IMO, a one-slam wonder is someone who overachieved and didn't win much else other than that surprising run to a GS title. :) The "wonder" part kinda gives off an element of surprise that they won the major. Someone like Kim, for example, could be said to have underachieved, and has won loads of other tournaments. As such, I wouldn't rate her as a "one-slam wonder". Other than Myskina, Majoli, and Kuzy on your list, I don't think any of them are one-slam wonders, though these three ladies have a career many could only dream of as well. :cool:

Exactly. And as said before amelie has won 2 slams. But if we ignore the title and just compare every player in that list including amelie - I still go for kim. She's won titles at such a rate of knots faster than anyone else including those with multiple slams even though she was out for 2004. 9 titles 2003 and 2005 and a major surprise for much of those years if she didn't win or at least reach the finals in pretty well every tournament she entered.

She's not really an underachiever IMO per se. Just in the slams. She's slipped down the order nowadays and is nowhere near the player she was . But overall I'd actually think she's the best of that lot even if she hadn't won the USO and had no slams. Whereas slams are important - there's no doubt you can get lucky in a tournament. So I put a lot of more emphasis on how a player does day in day out than just in a handful of albeit important slams.

terjw
Apr 25th, 2007, 11:34 PM
:lol: But it's not only a matter of how Akhurst would do against Serena in 2007 but also about how Serena would do against Akhurst in 1928, playing with the rackets of that time, training in the same manner, eating the same food, etc. I don't see why in these imaginary match-ups between players from different eras it always has to be the oldie that has to adjust to todays way of doing things and never the other way around. Ok, maybe Serena would beat Akhurst anyway, even in 1928, but against Helen Wills it would be a very different story IMO..

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Medina
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:07 AM
I think Myskina is the top followed by kimmy

Mauresmo won from a retirement, doesnt mean that she did win..

spencercarlos
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:29 AM
I think Myskina is the top followed by kimmy

Mauresmo won from a retirement, doesnt mean that she did win..
Yeah now finally someone puts sense here :lol:

fammmmedspin
Apr 26th, 2007, 02:21 AM
Amelie obviously doesn't belong unless you think some of the players with one slam are better which is a different argument.

Gabi had a hot streak against Graf but otherwise under achieved against stronger opposition. She knocks out Jana who did even less well and Conchita who did even less well again.

Sveta its too early to say

Kim on her day was better than nearly all of her generation but couldn't pull it out in GS but she has the record outside GS and the record of GS performances minus the win.

Iva had one really great week.

Nastya is too quickly written out of the equation. At her best with a decent shoulder and her serve working and her head on she could beat anyone on that list which is more than you can say for most of them except Kim.

Simplicity.
Apr 26th, 2007, 03:12 AM
Sabatini

By the way, LOVE seeing Mauresmo's name there :haha:

mankind
Apr 26th, 2007, 03:37 AM
I think Myskina is the top followed by kimmy

Mauresmo won from a retirement, doesnt mean that she did win..

She was kicking the shit out of Justine in the first set when she wasn't even injured, and in the second set, when she was "injured", it was just a stomach ache! Plus she beat her at Wimbledon.

hwanmig
Apr 26th, 2007, 04:00 AM
Steffica Greles you are an IDIOT

Orion
Apr 26th, 2007, 04:41 AM
Highly controversial, as nobody else deserved the Australian Open of 2006 more than she did. But to be honest, I'd rather forget that tournament ever happened than include a slam amongst her tally during which she came past two of the elite players of the decade, who would both have been slim favourites to beat her, due to retirements. It wasn't Amelie's fault, but unfortunately she left that tournament unproven, in my opinion, and that result is null and void.

While I do think Clijsters was a slight favorite, I would have put money on Mauresmo to beat Henin. Of all the players in the world, Mauresmo is the only one who has repeatedly been able to bring Henin to earth on big stages while Henin was at her very best. Really, starting in 2003 (when Henin replaced Serena as the most terrifying player on tour), Mauresmo has been the ONLY thorn in Henin's side, season after season.

Also worth noting that Mauresmo is one of the only players to ever beat Henin on both clay and grass. There are a couple players capable of beating her on either, but I can't imagine anyone else (not named Serena) being able to beat Henin on both surfaces.

kittyking
Apr 26th, 2007, 04:53 AM
I have to go with Kim, close 2nd is Jana

SAEKeithSerena
Apr 26th, 2007, 06:20 AM
the fact that you included miss amelie mauresmo in the "one-slam-wonder" list
1)shows that you are a pathetic idiot
and
2)the thread should be closed

out of those, kim would be the best. but i'm very dissappointed in you for ever putting amelie's name in there. she won that major, i don't care if henin retired or not, amelie was kicking her ass.

So Disrespectful
Apr 26th, 2007, 06:48 AM
But it's not only a matter of how Akhurst would do against Serena in 2007 but also about how Serena would do against Akhurst in 1928, playing with the rackets of that time, training in the same manner, eating the same food, etc. I don't see why in these imaginary match-ups between players from different eras it always has to be the oldie that has to adjust to todays way of doing things and never the other way around. Ok, maybe Serena would beat Akhurst anyway, even in 1928, but against Helen Wills it would be a very different story IMO..

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the imaginary competition altogether? Even back in the 1920's, people knew that working out in a gym, or lifting heavy objects would make them stronger. They also knew that the longer they trained, the better they'd be. Nobody was really fanatical (by today's standards) about their fitness at that time, and therefore the most talented players would end up at the top of the game. Just because Daphne didn't need to train doesn't mean she wouldn't of improved had she done so.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the game is so much better now that players need to be a hundred times fitter, and today's rackets are used because they produce more powerful and accurate strokes. If we told Serena to go back to 1928 and become unfit, then she would be ruining herself in order to be on Daphne's level, which basically means she was better than Daphne to start with anyway.

bandabou
Apr 26th, 2007, 10:33 AM
When you look at all what Kim's done...such dissapointment that she couldn't win a couple more majors..

CORIA01
Apr 26th, 2007, 03:12 PM
definetely kim!

Chrissie-fan
Apr 26th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the imaginary competition altogether? Even back in the 1920's, people knew that working out in a gym, or lifting heavy objects would make them stronger. They also knew that the longer they trained, the better they'd be. Nobody was really fanatical (by today's standards) about their fitness at that time, and therefore the most talented players would end up at the top of the game. Just because Daphne didn't need to train doesn't mean she wouldn't of improved had she done so.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the game is so much better now that players need to be a hundred times fitter, and today's rackets are used because they produce more powerful and accurate strokes. If we told Serena to go back to 1928 and become unfit, then she would be ruining herself in order to be on Daphne's level, which basically means she was better than Daphne to start with anyway.
At each point in history players try to become as good as possible based on the knowledge available at the time as to what is the best way to go about it. Todays training methods, nutrition, medical supplements (;) ) and what have you are modern to us, but may thirty or forty years from now be frowned upon. To me that won't mean that the best tennis players of the future will intrinsically be better than those of today because if you transport the tennis genius from 2047 back to 2007 and you let her play against Serena with todays racquets and with Serena's type of preperation I think that Serena would have an excellent chance to win. Same goes IMO when you transport todays players back to the past, or past players to today.

Besides, success in tennis is not only determined by fitness, speed, power and stamina. Technique plays a huge part also. Would todays power players be able to adapt to playing serve and volley (which is entirely different from todays game) which was the dominant style in the 60's and 70's? Sure, there were baseliners like Chris Evert, but her style was based on precision and steadiness, making a minimum of UE. Quite different from todays power baseliners, many of whom find it hard to keep the ball in play for more than three or four strokes in a row (and this with the modern racquets with their huge sweet spots that leave much more room for error). Surely, if they tried to hit their opponents of the court with small woods they would make even more UE, and you can't generate as much power anyway with wood as you can with todays snowshoe-sized trampolines.

IMO racquet technology makes a HUGE difference, much more than most people think. Everyone accepts the fact that surface makes a difference with some players being better on grass, some better on hard courts while others are at their best on clay....I think that the racquets make even more of a difference than the surfaces and the best players from each era have proven that they were great with the technology available at the time. Players from other eras haven't. Helen Wills hasn't proven that she would be great with todays racquets and Serena hasn't proven that she could have been as effective with the primitive tools of Wills. If you would ask them to play with each other's material you could just as well ask them to play badmington or pingpong because the difference from what they were/are used to would be nearly as big.

Rafael Mourinho
Apr 26th, 2007, 04:56 PM
Ana Ivanovic. :D

Steffica Greles
Apr 26th, 2007, 07:18 PM
Steffica Greles you are an IDIOT

In your definition, I'm sure I am :)

VS Fan
Apr 26th, 2007, 07:30 PM
Amelie has won TWO no matter how you figure it.

hingisGOAT
Apr 26th, 2007, 08:04 PM
I'm shocked he didn't put Hingis on the list :weirdo:

Helen Lawson
Apr 26th, 2007, 08:14 PM
I don't think she belongs on the list because of a fairly long time at No. 1 and YEC title, but most film buffs routinely rate Luise Rainer as one of the worst Oscar winners of all time, and she won twice. And she was pretty awful. She must have been fantastic in bed, I mean, better than your average tramp Hollywood starlet of the 1930s.

Kart
Apr 26th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Steffica Greles you are an IDIOT

He is not.

On topic, I wouldn't put Mauresmo on this list.

On the list, Kim is the best.

As a die hard Sabatini fan until I die you won't see me admit that often.

Steffica Greles
Apr 26th, 2007, 09:55 PM
I'm shocked he didn't put Hingis on the list :weirdo:

Hingis is not a one-slam wonder.

Okay, so she is in the last nine and a half years, but that's not what the thread is about.