PDA

View Full Version : True #1 of 2000 : Hingis, Davenport or Venus Williams


@danieln1
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:11 PM
Martina - won 9 titles, including Miami, reached a slam final, RG and US Open semi, Wimbledon QF and won YEC

Davenport - (important ones)Australian Open title + Finals in Wimbledon and US Open, + Indian Wells

Venus Williams -(important ones) Wimbledon + US Open title + Olympic Gold Medal

Decide!

justineheninfan
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:15 PM
Venus by far. No contest.

Lucemferre
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:17 PM
This is actually a great example of what people value more. 9 titles including many tier ones,YEC and full season consistency vs two majors and part time play.

I thought this was player of the year.True no1 was Venus.She was the player to beat.

Sammo
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:17 PM
Lol Venus

~Cherry*Blossom~
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:18 PM
35 match win streak!

'nuff said!

jefrilibra
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:22 PM
Venus hands down.

omoruyi
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:25 PM
where r the rest of Venus & Lindsay stats?...

Direwolf
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:25 PM
Venus by far. No contest.

:eek::eek::eek:

U came to ur senses!!

The Daviator
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:25 PM
Venus was amazing from June onwards, what about Jan-May? That's 5 whole months, she was POY but not the true #1. I'd have to go with Davenport :angel:

justineheninfan
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:25 PM
If Hingis had just put that overhead away in the U.S Open semis with Venus I think it would be her but as it is Venus.

silyaunWILLIAMS
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:31 PM
Venus, definitly.

jefrilibra
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:36 PM
Venus had tendinitis in both wrists in the 1st 4 months of 2000. That made her achievement in 2000 even more remarkable. She still managed to win 6 singles titles. Martina played a full yr but only managed 9 titles BUT no GS! And certainly no double gold medals.

Direwolf
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:36 PM
If Hingis had just put that overhead away in the U.S Open semis with Venus I think it would be her but as it is Venus.

If Hingis had put that away, it would be 2 mps. Not the match.

hingis-seles
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:38 PM
True #1 - Hingis.
PoY - Venus.

Being #1 includes results from 52 weeks. It's not a part-time job or a hot summer streak. To put into perspective, practically all of Venus' 2000 is based on that 35-match winning streak. In 1990 Monica Seles had a 35(or 36?) match winning streak from March - June. It didn't come to a screeching halt right then and there, though.

Lucemferre
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:40 PM
Venus had tendinitis in both wrists in the 1st 4 months of 2000. That made her achievement in 2000 even more remarkable. She still managed to win 6 singles titles. Martina played a full yr but only managed 9 titles BUT no GS! And certainly no double gold medals.

:help:

hingis-seles
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:42 PM
Martina - won 9 titles, including Miami, reached a slam final, RG and US Open semi, Wimbledon QF and won YEC

Davenport - Australian Open title + Finals in Wimbledon and US Open, + Indian Wells

Venus Williams - Wimbledon + US Open title + Olympic Gold Medal

Decide!

Since this is a discussion on the #1 ranking, the Olympic Gold Medal is irrelevant because the Olympics offered no ranking points in 2000.

KBdoubleu
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:45 PM
Venus was amazing from June onwards, what about Jan-May? That's 5 whole months, she was POY but not the true #1. I'd have to go with Davenport :angel:

Venus was injured from January to May...
She won 6 of the 10 events she entered - including Wimbledon, US Open and the Olympics. She was a combined 4-0 vs Davenport/Hingis in Grand Slams that year and winning percentage of 91%. Davenport won 5 events that year, one less than Venus, in 19 attempts. Her winning percentage was 83%, the lowest of the three.. Hingis won 9 of 20 tournaments (a winning percentage of 88% & no Grand Slams victories) and had a losing head to head record vs. both Venus and Davenport. Each of them had great years, but I think Venus was the best player that year.

jefrilibra
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:46 PM
:help:

Martina could have won > 9 titles in 2000 but she didnt. Venus prevented that by a summer sweep during the hard court season. :shrug:

L'Enfant Sauvage
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:56 PM
Ebony Starr was kicking ass and taking names during 2000(Well that summer anyway.)

Honorable mention to Lindsay, if she had won one more of those finals my vote would go to her, but Venus was on fire.

hingis-seles
Sep 30th, 2010, 08:58 PM
The only reason Davenport has F instead of SF or QF is because she was on the other side of the draw and had to play Dementieva and Dokic in her SF.

KBdoubleu
Sep 30th, 2010, 09:06 PM
The only reason Davenport has F instead of SF or QF is because she was on the other side of the draw and had to play Dementieva and Dokic in her SF.

I think that's a valid point. I tried to make this argument about Venus' lack of finals at the US Open since 2002 (she has almost always lost to the eventual champion in stages before the final). Sometimes it comes down to luck of the draw.

LindsayRulz
Sep 30th, 2010, 09:20 PM
What are you guys talking about? Lindsay's road to the 00' USO final wasn't that easy. She beat GOAT Leon-Garcia in R1, Saint Kimberly Clijsters R2, Tanasugarn R3, Henin R4, a random girl called Serena Williams in QFs who also was the defending champion and Dementieva in the semis. Had she beaten Venus in the final she would have defeated both the Belgians and the Williams sisters in the same event! :p

And yes she played Dokic at Wimbledon instead of Hingis but she had just beaten Capriati and Seles in the two previous rounds, nothing easy there.

AcesHigh
Sep 30th, 2010, 09:43 PM
Hingis

jimmy_the_greek
Sep 30th, 2010, 11:09 PM
Vee, davenport would be second.

Matt01
Sep 30th, 2010, 11:16 PM
2nd half of the year belonged to Venus but Hingis was the best overall.

But my personal highlight that year was Lindsay steamrolling the competition at the Australian Open :hearts:

justineheninfan
Sep 30th, 2010, 11:59 PM
I dont understand the people who under any circumstances think a slamless player can be the #1 or top player of a given year. I can see a 1 slammer over a 2 slammer depending on other results, but a slamless player tops for the year, no way. That is just me though.

justineheninfan
Oct 1st, 2010, 12:00 AM
Since this is a discussion on the #1 ranking, the Olympic Gold Medal is irrelevant because the Olympics offered no ranking points in 2000.

Just another example of the often flawed WTA ranking system.

spencercarlos
Oct 1st, 2010, 12:27 AM
Vote Hingis for the fun!!!!

Venus..

AcesHigh
Oct 1st, 2010, 01:16 AM
I dont understand the people who under any circumstances think a slamless player can be the #1 or top player of a given year. I can see a 1 slammer over a 2 slammer depending on other results, but a slamless player tops for the year, no way. That is just me though.

B/c the question was who was #1.. not who was the best player.. they're not the same thing. Hingis had the best 52-week performance.

justineheninfan
Oct 1st, 2010, 01:56 AM
B/c the question was who was #1.. not who was the best player.. they're not the same thing. Hingis had the best 52-week performance.

Well for me being #1 or being the best player are almost always the same unless the #1 was impacted by a major injury (eg- Henin and Serena in 2003, Federer and Nadal last year) or some other unforseen circumstance.

This is how I look at it when talking about Hingis vs Venus in 2000. Right now virtually everyone sees Venus's career over Hingis's. The biggest reason for the consensus on this is 7 singles slams to 5. Even those that value doubles would not matter much as both were dominant in doubles and had great success. Now lets say you switched their 2000s with each other. Venus now would have 5 slams, 48 WTA titles vs her current 43, 10 tier 1 titles vs her current 5, and an extra WTA Championship. Hingis would now have 7 slams, 38 WTA titles vs her current 43, 12 tier 1 titles vs her current 17, and an Olympic Singles Gold. Whose career would now rate higher? Whereas nearly everyone rates Venus's career over Hingis's at this moment, if you switched their 2000 nearly everyone would rate Hingis's career over Venus's. That alone makes it extremely clear to me who was the #1 player that year.

If anyone else I would rather argue Davenport as the #1 before Hingis. Atleast Davenport won a slam (murdering Hingis in her only slam final of the year), and made 3 slam finals which she was the only one to do. And despite some obvious rough spots in her year unlike Venus, Linday fortunate to be healthy enough to play all year and had some good tournaments both Spring and Fall, while Venus mostly due to health issues was limited to mostly only a great summer and little else.

Stern
Oct 1st, 2010, 03:55 AM
Venus, 35 match win streak and most GS titles winning, it was shame that she couldn't be world No. 1 at that time

hingis-seles
Oct 1st, 2010, 08:33 AM
What are you guys talking about? Lindsay's road to the 00' USO final wasn't that easy. She beat GOAT Leon-Garcia in R1, Saint Kimberly Clijsters R2, Tanasugarn R3, Henin R4, a random girl called Serena Williams in QFs who also was the defending champion and Dementieva in the semis. Had she beaten Venus in the final she would have defeated both the Belgians and the Williams sisters in the same event! :p

And yes she played Dokic at Wimbledon instead of Hingis but she had just beaten Capriati and Seles in the two previous rounds, nothing easy there.

Seles was useless and a marginal top 10 player at best (the equivalent of an Azarenka/Penetta type today) and Capriati was still losing regularly to Hingis/Seles/Davenport at that point.

But the win over GOAT Leon-Garcia swung the argument in your favour! ;) :p

Timariot
Oct 1st, 2010, 09:09 AM
Since Hingis was ranked #1 at the end of the year, she was the true #1 in 2000. Just like Davenport was #1 in 2001 etc. These threads are pointless. The system is same for everyone.

LCS
Oct 1st, 2010, 09:57 AM
Venus had tendinitis in both wrists in the 1st 4 months of 2000. That made her achievement in 2000 even more remarkable. She still managed to win 6 singles titles. Martina played a full yr but only managed 9 titles BUT no GS! And certainly no double gold medals.

Because every other player out there wins 9 titles a year...:rolleyes:

iRed_uBlue
Oct 1st, 2010, 09:58 AM
Venus was amazing from June onwards, what about Jan-May? That's 5 whole months, she was POY but not the true #1. I'd have to go with Davenport :angel:

Who was #1 at the end? Not Davenport.

iRed_uBlue
Oct 1st, 2010, 09:59 AM
Seles was useless and a marginal top 10 player at best (the equivalent of an Azarenka/Penetta type today) and Capriati was still losing regularly to Hingis/Seles/Davenport at that point.

But the win over GOAT Leon-Garcia swung the argument in your favour! ;) :p

While Azarenka and Pennetta are useless and irrelevant, don't compare them to Seles even Fat Seles.

Matt01
Oct 1st, 2010, 11:16 AM
Seles was useless and a marginal top 10 player at best (the equivalent of an Azarenka/Penetta type today) and Capriati was still losing regularly to Hingis/Seles/Davenport at that point.


Seles in 2000? In one of her most consistant seasons after her comeback? You're joking :spit:

Kworb
Oct 1st, 2010, 12:36 PM
Sydney Tier II Hard Jan 16 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Olga Barabanschikova-Q 6-0 6-2
QF Hingis(1) - Dominique van Roost 6-1
SF Amelie Mauresmo(6) - Hingis(1) 7-5 6-3

Australian Open Hard Jan 30 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Mirjana Lucic 6-1 6-2
2 Hingis(1) - Justine Henin 6-3 6-3
3 Hingis(1) - Alicia Molik 6-2 6-3
4 Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(12) 6-1 7-63
QF Hingis(1) - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario(13) 6-1 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Conchita Martinez(10) 6-3 6-2
F Lindsay Davenport(2) - Hingis(1) 6-1 7-5

Pan Pacific Open Tier I Carpet Feb 6 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Lisa Raymond 6-3 7-5
QF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(5) 6-0 6-2
SF Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin(7) 7-61 6-4
F Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(6) 6-3 7-5

Scottsdale Tier II Hard Mar 5 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin 6-3 6-3
QF Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(7) 6-4 6-2
SF Hingis(1) - Mary Pierce(3) 6-4 6-3

Indian Wells Tier I Hard Mar 19 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Amy Frazier 6-3 6-3
3 Hingis(1) - Ai Sugiyama 6-2 6-1
4 Hingis(1) - Barbara Schett(10) 6-1 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(7) 6-3 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Mary Pierce(5) 6-4 6-2
F Lindsay Davenport(2) - Hingis(1) 4-6 6-4 6-0

Key Biscayne Tier I Hard Apr 2 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Maureen Drake 6-1 6-4
3 Hingis(1) - Anne-Gaelle Sidot(29) 6-0 6-3
4 Hingis(1) - Kim Clijsters(28) 6-0 6-4
QF Hingis(1) - Amanda Coetzer(18) 6-3 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(7) 6-0 6-0
F Hingis(1) - Lindsay Davenport(2) 6-3 6-2

Hamburg Tier II Clay May 7 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Sylvia Plischke 6-4 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(6) 3-6 6-2 6-4
SF Hingis(1) - Anke Huber(7) 6-3 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario(4) 6-3 6-3

Berlin Tier I Clay May 14 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Emmanuelle Gagliardi 6-2 6-2
3 Hingis(1) - Silvija Talaja(12) 7-63 6-3
QF Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(5) 7-5 5-7 6-2
SF Conchita Martinez(3) - Hingis(1) 7-5 6-4

Roland Garros Clay Jun 11 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Sabine Appelmans 6-0 6-4
2 Hingis(1) - Julia Abe-Q 6-4 7-5
3 Hingis(1) - Tathiana Garbin 6-1 6-0
4 Hingis(1) - Ruxandra Dragomir Ilie 6-3 0-6 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin 6-1 6-3
SF Mary Pierce(6) - Hingis(1) 6-4 5-7 6-2

s'Hertogenbosch Tier III Grass Jun 25 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Jana Nejedly 6-0 6-2
QF Hingis(1) - Cara Black walkover
SF Hingis(1) - Jennifer Capriati(4) 7-5 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Ruxandra Dragomir Ilie(8) 6-2 3-0

Wimbledon Grass Jul 9 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Angeles Montolio 6-1 6-2
2 Hingis(1) - Jing-Qian Yi 6-4 6-1
3 Hingis(1) - Silvija Talaja 6-2 6-2
4 Hingis(1) - Anke Huber(11) 6-1 6-2
QF Venus Williams(5) - Hingis(1) 6-3 4-6 6-4

San Diego Tier II Hard Aug 6 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Dominique van Roost 6-2 7-62
QF Amy Frazier - Hingis(1) 6-3 6-3

Manhattan Beach Tier II Hard Aug 13 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin 5-7 7-5 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Amy Frazier 6-2 6-1
SF Serena Williams(5) - Hingis(1) 4-6 6-2 6-3

Montreal Tier I Hard Aug 20 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Nadia Petrova-Q 6-1 6-3
3 Hingis(1) - Kveta Peschke 6-1 6-4
QF Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(8) 6-4 4-6 6-3
SF Hingis(1) - Conchita Martinez(3) 6-3 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Serena Williams(4) 0-6 6-3 3-0

US Open Hard Sep 10 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Alina Jidkova 6-3 6-1
2 Hingis(1) - Kristina Brandi 6-1 6-1
3 Hingis(1) - Tathiana Garbin 6-1 6-0
4 Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(11) 6-2 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(6) 6-0 7-5
SF Venus Williams(3) - Hingis(1) 4-6 6-3 7-5

Filderstadt Tier II Carpet Oct 8 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Justine Henin-Q 6-3 3-0
QF Hingis(1) - Dominique van Roost(8) 6-2 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario(4) 6-1 6-0
F Hingis(1) - Kim Clijsters-WC 6-0 6-3

Zurich Tier I Hard Oct 15 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Jelena Dokic 6-3 6-2
QF Hingis(1) - Anastasia Myskina-Q 6-0 6-4
SF Hingis(1) - Jennifer Capriati(6) 6-3 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Lindsay Davenport(2) 6-4 4-6 7-5

Moscow Tier I Carpet Oct 29 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Kveta Peschke 6-0 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Elena Dementieva(7) 6-0 6-75 7-5
SF Hingis(1) - Amelie Mauresmo(5) 7-5 6-3
F Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(4) 6-3 6-1

Philadelphia Tier II Carpet Nov 12 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Elena Bovina-WC 6-4 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(6) 6-4 6-0
SF Hingis(1) - Nathalie Tauziat(4) 6-1 6-2
F Lindsay Davenport(2) - Hingis(1) 7-67 6-4

Chase Championships Carpet Nov 19 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Julie Halard-Decugis 6-2 6-3
QF Hingis(1) - Nathalie Tauziat(6) 6-1 6-72 6-2
SF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(7) 7-62 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(3) 6-75 6-4 6-4

:worship:

hingis-seles
Oct 1st, 2010, 12:43 PM
Seles in 2000? In one of her most consistant seasons after her comeback? You're joking :spit:

lost to Hingis by 6-3, 6-1; 6-0, 6-0; 6-0, 7-5 scorelines as well as getting hammered by Pierce 6-1, 6-1. The titles she won (OKC, AI & Rome), she didn't have to defeat any of the big names. Like I said earlier, marginal top 10 player.

Maria rocks
Oct 1st, 2010, 01:08 PM
Gotta be Venus

Matt01
Oct 1st, 2010, 02:13 PM
lost to Hingis by 6-3, 6-1; 6-0, 6-0; 6-0, 7-5 scorelines as well as getting hammered by Pierce 6-1, 6-1. The titles she won (OKC, AI & Rome), she didn't have to defeat any of the big names. Like I said earlier, marginal top 10 player.


It's true she didn't really challenge the very big names in 2000 (but that changed in 2001). When she lost to Hingis 6:0, 6:0 she was injured and losing to Peak Pierce 1&1 is nothing to be ashamed about :wavey:

Marginal Top 10 Player who finished the Season in Top 4? :spit:

justineheninfan
Oct 1st, 2010, 04:49 PM
hingis-seles is right that Seles was not up with Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, and Pierce that year. She didnt beat any of those and those all beat some of each other so I dont know how she can be rated over any of them. In fact most times she got spanked. At best she was the #6 player that year, regardless her rank. Serena, Venus, and Pierce all missed part of that year with injuries which explains how she was able to end the year #4.

PLP
Oct 1st, 2010, 05:20 PM
Sydney Tier II Hard Jan 16 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Olga Barabanschikova-Q 6-0 6-2
QF Hingis(1) - Dominique van Roost 6-1
SF Amelie Mauresmo(6) - Hingis(1) 7-5 6-3

Australian Open Hard Jan 30 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Mirjana Lucic 6-1 6-2
2 Hingis(1) - Justine Henin 6-3 6-3
3 Hingis(1) - Alicia Molik 6-2 6-3
4 Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(12) 6-1 7-63
QF Hingis(1) - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario(13) 6-1 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Conchita Martinez(10) 6-3 6-2
F Lindsay Davenport(2) - Hingis(1) 6-1 7-5

Pan Pacific Open Tier I Carpet Feb 6 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Lisa Raymond 6-3 7-5
QF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(5) 6-0 6-2
SF Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin(7) 7-61 6-4
F Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(6) 6-3 7-5

Scottsdale Tier II Hard Mar 5 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin 6-3 6-3
QF Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(7) 6-4 6-2
SF Hingis(1) - Mary Pierce(3) 6-4 6-3

Indian Wells Tier I Hard Mar 19 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Amy Frazier 6-3 6-3
3 Hingis(1) - Ai Sugiyama 6-2 6-1
4 Hingis(1) - Barbara Schett(10) 6-1 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(7) 6-3 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Mary Pierce(5) 6-4 6-2
F Lindsay Davenport(2) - Hingis(1) 4-6 6-4 6-0

Key Biscayne Tier I Hard Apr 2 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Maureen Drake 6-1 6-4
3 Hingis(1) - Anne-Gaelle Sidot(29) 6-0 6-3
4 Hingis(1) - Kim Clijsters(28) 6-0 6-4
QF Hingis(1) - Amanda Coetzer(18) 6-3 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(7) 6-0 6-0
F Hingis(1) - Lindsay Davenport(2) 6-3 6-2

Hamburg Tier II Clay May 7 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Sylvia Plischke 6-4 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(6) 3-6 6-2 6-4
SF Hingis(1) - Anke Huber(7) 6-3 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario(4) 6-3 6-3

Berlin Tier I Clay May 14 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Emmanuelle Gagliardi 6-2 6-2
3 Hingis(1) - Silvija Talaja(12) 7-63 6-3
QF Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(5) 7-5 5-7 6-2
SF Conchita Martinez(3) - Hingis(1) 7-5 6-4

Roland Garros Clay Jun 11 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Sabine Appelmans 6-0 6-4
2 Hingis(1) - Julia Abe-Q 6-4 7-5
3 Hingis(1) - Tathiana Garbin 6-1 6-0
4 Hingis(1) - Ruxandra Dragomir Ilie 6-3 0-6 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin 6-1 6-3
SF Mary Pierce(6) - Hingis(1) 6-4 5-7 6-2

s'Hertogenbosch Tier III Grass Jun 25 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Jana Nejedly 6-0 6-2
QF Hingis(1) - Cara Black walkover
SF Hingis(1) - Jennifer Capriati(4) 7-5 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Ruxandra Dragomir Ilie(8) 6-2 3-0

Wimbledon Grass Jul 9 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Angeles Montolio 6-1 6-2
2 Hingis(1) - Jing-Qian Yi 6-4 6-1
3 Hingis(1) - Silvija Talaja 6-2 6-2
4 Hingis(1) - Anke Huber(11) 6-1 6-2
QF Venus Williams(5) - Hingis(1) 6-3 4-6 6-4

San Diego Tier II Hard Aug 6 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Dominique van Roost 6-2 7-62
QF Amy Frazier - Hingis(1) 6-3 6-3

Manhattan Beach Tier II Hard Aug 13 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Chanda Rubin 5-7 7-5 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Amy Frazier 6-2 6-1
SF Serena Williams(5) - Hingis(1) 4-6 6-2 6-3

Montreal Tier I Hard Aug 20 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Nadia Petrova-Q 6-1 6-3
3 Hingis(1) - Kveta Peschke 6-1 6-4
QF Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(8) 6-4 4-6 6-3
SF Hingis(1) - Conchita Martinez(3) 6-3 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Serena Williams(4) 0-6 6-3 3-0

US Open Hard Sep 10 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Alina Jidkova 6-3 6-1
2 Hingis(1) - Kristina Brandi 6-1 6-1
3 Hingis(1) - Tathiana Garbin 6-1 6-0
4 Hingis(1) - Sandrine Testud(11) 6-2 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(6) 6-0 7-5
SF Venus Williams(3) - Hingis(1) 4-6 6-3 7-5

Filderstadt Tier II Carpet Oct 8 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Justine Henin-Q 6-3 3-0
QF Hingis(1) - Dominique van Roost(8) 6-2 6-1
SF Hingis(1) - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario(4) 6-1 6-0
F Hingis(1) - Kim Clijsters-WC 6-0 6-3

Zurich Tier I Hard Oct 15 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Jelena Dokic 6-3 6-2
QF Hingis(1) - Anastasia Myskina-Q 6-0 6-4
SF Hingis(1) - Jennifer Capriati(6) 6-3 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Lindsay Davenport(2) 6-4 4-6 7-5

Moscow Tier I Carpet Oct 29 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Kveta Peschke 6-0 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Elena Dementieva(7) 6-0 6-75 7-5
SF Hingis(1) - Amelie Mauresmo(5) 7-5 6-3
F Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(4) 6-3 6-1

Philadelphia Tier II Carpet Nov 12 2000
1 Hingis(1) bye
2 Hingis(1) - Elena Bovina-WC 6-4 6-1
QF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(6) 6-4 6-0
SF Hingis(1) - Nathalie Tauziat(4) 6-1 6-2
F Lindsay Davenport(2) - Hingis(1) 7-67 6-4

Chase Championships Carpet Nov 19 2000
1 Hingis(1) - Julie Halard-Decugis 6-2 6-3
QF Hingis(1) - Nathalie Tauziat(6) 6-1 6-72 6-2
SF Hingis(1) - Anna Kournikova(7) 7-62 6-2
F Hingis(1) - Monica Seles(3) 6-75 6-4 6-4

:worship:

That's a really amazing record, thx for posting it!
Who wins 9 titles a year these days??
Despite not winning a slam, I always thought 2000 was an amazing year for Hingis, loved watching her that year.
:worship:

Though I understand why people vote for Venus here, she was awesome in 2000!!

hingis-seles
Oct 1st, 2010, 06:26 PM
It's true she didn't really challenge the very big names in 2000 (but that changed in 2001). When she lost to Hingis 6:0, 6:0 she was injured and losing to Peak Pierce 1&1 is nothing to be ashamed about :wavey:

Marginal Top 10 Player who finished the Season in Top 4? :spit:

I'm not saying any of those losses are to be ashamed of, and I'm aware that Monica was injured and played with severly limited movement in the 6-0, 6-0 loss to Hingis. However, none of that changes the fact that she wasn't a contender for any of the major titles, failing to reach a GS SF throughout the year for the first time in her career.

She was one of the players who filled out the Top 10 - good enough to beat the rest but clearly a level below the elite players. Referring to my original comment where I referred to Monica as a marginal top 10 player, Davenport beating her at Wimbledon was really not a big deal. The only shock was that it went three sets instead of ending in straight sets.

hingis-seles is right that Seles was not up with Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena, and Pierce that year. She didnt beat any of those and those all beat some of each other so I dont know how she can be rated over any of them. In fact most times she got spanked. At best she was the #6 player that year, regardless her rank. Serena, Venus, and Pierce all missed part of that year with injuries which explains how she was able to end the year #4.

To be fair, I don't recall Monica and Serena playing each other in 2000 and Serena was little more than a marginal Top 10 player, infact even worse than Seles in 2000. Seles had QF at 3 Slams and skipped the Aussie Open. Serena had a 4R, SF, QF and skipped Roland Garros, so their Slam win-loss records are exactly the same. Seles reached the final of the YEC, Serena didn't play. Serena was dispatched with relative ease by Pierce in Indian Wells, so both suffered some lopsided losses. Seles did better at the Tier I events than Serena, winning Rome and reaching the quarterfinals in Indian Wells and semifinals in Miami, whereas Serena won Manhattan Beach, reached the Canadian final and lost early in Miami and the QF in Indian Wells.

Seles had a slightly better year than Serena in 2000, but both were middling Top 10 players and little else.

justineheninfan
Oct 1st, 2010, 06:43 PM
To be fair, I don't recall Monica and Serena playing each other in 2000 and Serena was little more than a marginal Top 10 player, infact even worse than Seles in 2000. Seles had QF at 3 Slams and skipped the Aussie Open. Serena had a 4R, SF, QF and skipped Roland Garros, so their Slam win-loss records are exactly the same. Seles reached the final of the YEC, Serena didn't play. Serena was dispatched with relative ease by Pierce in Indian Wells, so both suffered some lopsided losses. Seles did better at the Tier I events than Serena, winning Rome and reaching the quarterfinals in Indian Wells and semifinals in Miami, whereas Serena won Manhattan Beach, reached the Canadian final and lost early in Miami and the QF in Indian Wells.

Seles had a slightly better year than Serena in 2000, but both were middling Top 10 players and little else.

Aww but you must remember there is a tournament that summer which Serena won by beating Hingis and Davenport back to back. Yes a tier 2 level tournament but still. And the Canadian Open final with Hingis where Serena bagelled Hingis in the 1st set before getting injured and not finishing the match. And at Wimbledon most observers agreed Serena was playing the best tennis of anyone but her mental block with her sister at that time held her back from winning in the end.

I know some of that ventures into subjective territory but I do think Serena was a huge threat to Hingis and Davenport in a way that Seles as not this year so on that alone I would put Serena over Seles.

n1_and_uh_noone
Oct 1st, 2010, 06:46 PM
What are you guys talking about? Lindsay's road to the 00' USO final wasn't that easy. She beat GOAT Leon-Garcia in R1, Saint Kimberly Clijsters R2, Tanasugarn R3, Henin R4, a random girl called Serena Williams in QFs who also was the defending champion and Dementieva in the semis. Had she beaten Venus in the final she would have defeated both the Belgians and the Williams sisters in the same event! :p

And yes she played Dokic at Wimbledon instead of Hingis but she had just beaten Capriati and Seles in the two previous rounds, nothing easy there.

Now that would have been something!!! That is probably the closest anyone will ever come to doing it, and it was before all 4 of them were even top-tier contenders!

Matt01
Oct 1st, 2010, 08:49 PM
Aww but you must remember there is a tournament that summer which Serena won by beating Hingis and Davenport back to back. Yes a tier 2 level tournament but still. And the Canadian Open final with Hingis where Serena bagelled Hingis in the 1st set before getting injured and not finishing the match. And at Wimbledon most observers agreed Serena was playing the best tennis of anyone but her mental block with her sister at that time held her back from winning in the end.

I know some of that ventures into subjective territory but I do think Serena was a huge threat to Hingis and Davenport in a way that Seles as not this year so on that alone I would put Serena over Seles.


Well, the results and stats say otherwise so your theories don't really matter.

justineheninfan
Oct 1st, 2010, 10:08 PM
Well, the results and stats say otherwise so your theories don't really matter.

There are various stats one could look at. Their results arent even that different either way, Serena reached a slam semifinal which Seles wasnt able to, Seles won a tier 1 event on clay which Serena due to her injury in the Canada final was not able to do.

What the stats do show though is that Seles did not beat Venus, Davenport, Hingis, Pierce, or Serena all year (yes she never played Serena). They also show Serena DID beat both Davenport and Hingis. That already suggests that Serena was probably better as she was actually a threat to the leaders, whereas Seles was not.

And to anyone who followed the sport closely then Serena was more highly regarded as a major threat by virtually everyone than Seles was at the time. The talk was always the big 4 being Hingis, Davenport, Venus, and Serena. Seles was never a part of the conversation, except on clay.

hingis-seles
Oct 2nd, 2010, 11:53 AM
Aww but you must remember there is a tournament that summer which Serena won by beating Hingis and Davenport back to back. Yes a tier 2 level tournament but still. And the Canadian Open final with Hingis where Serena bagelled Hingis in the 1st set before getting injured and not finishing the match. And at Wimbledon most observers agreed Serena was playing the best tennis of anyone but her mental block with her sister at that time held her back from winning in the end.

I know some of that ventures into subjective territory but I do think Serena was a huge threat to Hingis and Davenport in a way that Seles as not this year so on that alone I would put Serena over Seles.

Ofcourse Serena was a bigger threat to Hingis & Davenport (and I already mentioned Serena's Manhattan Beach title in my previous post - as for the Canadian Open final, Hingis had already levelled the match at a set apiece after Serena failed to maintain her excellent play), but as far as results go neither one of them was particularly great and would rate outside the Top 4 regardless of media and fan perception. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...you're beginning to sound like selesisqueen. ;) :p

Whatever the situation, the facts are that Seles won more titles than Serena did, she won a Tier I event which Serena did not, she reached the YEC final which Serena did not play, they had the same win-loss record in the GS events. So how on earth would you rank Serena higher than Seles in a rankings list? We can only look at results and numbers, which indicate both were middling Top 10 players with Seles having the slight edge.

justineheninfan
Oct 2nd, 2010, 05:13 PM
I wasnt talking about rankings or who deserved to be ranked higher which I presumed you also werent as if you were you wouldnt have called year end #4 Seles a marginal top 10 player which by ranking she certainly was not, or pointed out her actual scorelines vs top players which have no bearing on ranking points or ranking. I was talking about the general feeling on which players were better and a bigger threat that year, which I presumed you were too as your own comments sidestepped the official ranking. :p

Leo_DFP
Oct 2nd, 2010, 05:22 PM
If Hingis had just put that overhead away in the U.S Open semis with Venus I think it would be her but as it is Venus.

No, Davenport would have beaten her in the final and claimed POY bragging rights.

Venus was the best player in the world and the woman to beat by the end of 2000, but she didn't have the most complete year. For that, you have to look to Davenport. Hingis was more consistent than Davenport overall, but Lindsay had a Slam win and two finals compared to just one Slam final from Hingis.

All those voting for Hingis are ... :help:

tennisfan146
Oct 2nd, 2010, 05:26 PM
Venus, 2 GS and Olympic gold. It's no contest.

justineheninfan
Oct 2nd, 2010, 05:34 PM
No, Davenport would have beaten her in the final and claimed POY bragging rights.

Venus was the best player in the world and the woman to beat by the end of 2000, but she didn't have the most complete year. For that, you have to look to Davenport. Hingis was more consistent than Davenport overall, but Lindsay had a Slam win and two finals compared to just one Slam final from Hingis.

All those voting for Hingis are ... :help:

Davenport was not the same player by the end of 2000. That is why I think Hingis would have beaten her in that 2000 U.S Open final. And she melted down a bit in the final vs Venus after being up 4-1 in the 1st set. Really who knows though, it would have been pretty much a toss up still and whoever won would have been the Player of the Year in that case.

hingis-seles
Oct 2nd, 2010, 05:58 PM
I wasnt talking about rankings or who deserved to be ranked higher which I presumed you also werent as if you were you wouldnt have called year end #4 Seles a marginal top 10 player which by ranking she certainly was not, or pointed out her actual scorelines vs top players which have no bearing on ranking points or ranking. I was talking about the general feeling on which players were better and a bigger threat that year, which I presumed you were too as your own comments sidestepped the official ranking. :p

How obese Seles originally came up as a middling Top 10 player and little else was when a Davenport fan claimed Lindsay had to beat top players en route to her 2 GS finals at Wimbledon and US Open, where I pointed out she didn't (Capriati, Seles & Dokic at Wimbledon; Serena & Dementieva at US Open). And let's not forget Lindsay had a R1 exit at Roland Garros in 2000.

Serena struck fear in the hearts of Hingis & Davenport which Seles did not. I never denied that. But both players had average records in 2000 with nothing to brag about - it's just that Seles was marginally better than Serena when it came to the actual tennis results. The only reason Seles finished at #4 was because Pierce essentially was out with injuries as soon as she won Roland Garros and Serena was doing even worse than Seles.

@danieln1
Nov 19th, 2010, 03:02 PM
Off-season please...

Maybe we can get back with the true number one threads!!

Serenita
Nov 19th, 2010, 03:12 PM
Venus

Olórin
Nov 19th, 2010, 05:43 PM
Venus.

disposablehero
Nov 19th, 2010, 07:06 PM
2000 is over. Seriously is current tennis so bad that we resort to this? Year by year "who is the real #1".

PLP
Nov 19th, 2010, 07:26 PM
Off-season please...

Maybe we can get back with the true number one threads!!

:lol:

Hard Forehand
Nov 19th, 2010, 09:31 PM
i think it was venus from wimbledon to linz (i think she lost to davenport there) But Venus was the true number one in 2000 and 2001 as a whole.

Uranium
Nov 19th, 2010, 09:34 PM
i think it was venus from wimbledon to zurich (i think she lost to davenport there) and Martina deserved to be number one at the end of the year as she beat Venus at that Year Ending Championships. But Venus was the true number one in 2000 and 2001 as a whole.

To Linz, not Zurich, and yes she lost the final to Lindsay. And Venus didn't play the YEC, you're thinking of 1999 where she lost to Hingis.

Hard Forehand
Nov 19th, 2010, 09:36 PM
yeah i just edited that, :) i remembered :D

heninhingis
Nov 20th, 2010, 02:04 AM
I have to say Venus. Martina's out, because 2 slams> 0 slams, no matter what else happens. I think that Martina was second best over Lindsay though. Lindsay won a slam, but won no where near the amount of titles that Martina did.

@danieln1
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:12 PM
2000 was another year we had a slamless number 1, actually I think it was the first time it happened if I´m not mistaken, and then the ranking system was diferent, with the quality points and other stuff...

This slamless problem still hauting WTA :hysteric:

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:15 PM
2000 was another year we had a slamless number 1, actually I think it was the first time it happened if I´m not mistaken, and then the ranking system was diferent, with the quality points and other stuff...

This slamless problem still hauting WTA :hysteric:

This brainless problem is still haunting TF. :hysteric:

Hingis was definitely the true #1.

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:40 PM
Looking at Wozniacki the last two years I cant believe anyone was ever that miffed about Hingis being computer #1 in 2000 and some of 2001 (which at the time I thought was crazy too, a lesson sometimes you dont know how good a thing you have). Her year in 2000 especialy is something Wozniacki will never come close to likely. The only things against her being #1 are Venus winning Wimbledon, the U.S Open, and having that long win streak (including the Oly singles gold and some other tournies) but Venus had an incomplete year due to injury and working her way back from it for awhile. Davenport also had the edge in slams with a title and 2 finals, but while Davenport had a more balanced year than Venus, Hingis won WTA Championships, Miami, and was more consistent and regular than Davenport too. Overall I would have been fine with any of the three. Venus the most prolific year, Hingis the most consistent, Davenport the best mix of both, but I vote Hingis only since the tragic Wozniacki makes me appreciate what a terrific even slamless #1 Hingis was.

Wozniacki can only dream of Hingis's consistency, consistently strong performances and major contention in slams, and her success in the bigger non slam events (aka not the majority being Copenhagen, Dubai, New Haven).

Sammo
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:42 PM
Venus didn't win a single regular title? What kind of number 1 is that?

L'Enfant Sauvage
Oct 31st, 2011, 02:57 PM
Venus didn't win a single regular title? What kind of number 1 is that?

In addition to her Wimbledon, Olympics and US Open Singles titles she also won Stanford, San Diego and New Haven :bowdown:

Sammo
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:07 PM
Oh OK

Novichok
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:09 PM
Venus didn't win a single regular title? What kind of number 1 is that?

In addition to her Wimbledon, Olympics and US Open Singles titles she also won Stanford, San Diego and New Haven :bowdown:

Oh OK

Oops. :tape::lol:

Sammo
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:10 PM
Check the first message of the thread :rolleyes:

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:37 PM
In addition to her Wimbledon, Olympics and US Open Singles titles she also won Stanford, San Diego and New Haven :bowdown:


I thought New Haven doesn't count? :shrug: :p

Valanga
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:41 PM
Vinas :)

moby
Oct 31st, 2011, 03:55 PM
Venus had like, 3 or 4 amazing months out of the 10 month season.

Also, SMH at people bringing up Lindsay's 2 extra finals over Martina as though it wasn't sheer luck that Venus was placed in the opposite side of the draw from her at Wimbledon and USO. Martina did lose only to the eventual winner at every slam that year and gave Venus her toughest matches at both Wimbledon (on her weakest surface) and the US Open.

Kworb
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:03 PM
Martina did lose only to the eventual winner at every slam that year and gave Venus her toughest matches at both Wimbledon (on her weakest surface) and the US Open.

And she should have won both too, especially at the US Open. :mad:

The Dawntreader
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:07 PM
And she should have won both too, especially at the US Open. :mad:

:tape:

égalité
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:12 PM
Venus, but I think all three of those players deserved it based on their performances. There's not a "bad #1" among them. :shrug:

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:21 PM
Looking at Wozniacki the last two years I cant believe anyone was ever that miffed about Hingis being computer #1 in 2000 and some of 2001 (which at the time I thought was crazy too, a lesson sometimes you dont know how good a thing you have). Her year in 2000 especialy is something Wozniacki will never come close to likely. The only things against her being #1 are Venus winning Wimbledon, the U.S Open, and having that long win streak (including the Oly singles gold and some other tournies) but Venus had an incomplete year due to injury and working her way back from it for awhile. Davenport also had the edge in slams with a title and 2 finals, but while Davenport had a more balanced year than Venus, Hingis won WTA Championships, Miami, and was more consistent and regular than Davenport too. Overall I would have been fine with any of the three. Venus the most prolific year, Hingis the most consistent, Davenport the best mix of both, but I vote Hingis only since the tragic Wozniacki makes me appreciate what a terrific even slamless #1 Hingis was.

Wozniacki can only dream of Hingis's consistency, consistently strong performances and major contention in slams, and her success in the bigger non slam events (aka not the majority being Copenhagen, Dubai, New Haven).
Not only that, but Hingis besides her 6-1 7-5 loss to Davenport at the Australian Open, she challenged the GS winners of 2000 as hell.
Pierce suffered Hingis for more than 2 hours, a three tough setter, same as Venus at Wimbledon and the Usopen..

The same can´t be said about Wozniacki, who lost 6-2 6-4 to a subpar 40+ unforced errors machine Serena. :rolleyes:

rechi
Oct 31st, 2011, 04:36 PM
Of course it was my queen VENUS!!! I mean she won Wimbly, US Open and the Olympic tournament. She had a win streak of 50+ matches, as far as i remember until she lost the final in Linz against Lindsay Davenport. So she was the real number one in 2000!


PS: And always be my #1 ;-)

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:02 PM
Venus had like, 3 or 4 amazing months out of the 10 month season.

Also, SMH at people bringing up Lindsay's 2 extra finals over Martina as though it wasn't sheer luck that Venus was placed in the opposite side of the draw from her at Wimbledon and USO. Martina did lose only to the eventual winner at every slam that year and gave Venus her toughest matches at both Wimbledon (on her weakest surface) and the US Open.

While your points are all valid, the general feeling at the time (with good reason and validated by the majority of head to head meetings) is that if Davenport and Hingis played in a slam, especialy on a faster surface, Lindsay would win. So given that I doubt most will think Lindsay only got to the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals and not Martina just due to imbalanced draws. The Venus-Martina and Lindsay-Venus matchups are totally different to the Lindsay-Martina one. Lindsay had major problems with the Williams sisters (Venus only after 1999), but had Martina's number most of the time once she reached serious slam title contender status.

justineheninfan
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:05 PM
Not only that, but Hingis besides her 6-1 7-5 loss to Davenport at the Australian Open, she challenged the GS winners of 2000 as hell.
Pierce suffered Hingis for more than 2 hours, a three tough setter, same as Venus at Wimbledon and the Usopen..

The same can´t be said about Wozniacki, who lost 6-2 6-4 to a subpar 40+ unforced errors machine Serena. :rolleyes:

Yeah Hingis was very much in contention to win any slam she played around then. She lost to the eventual winner in all 4. Wozniacki was only in possible serious contention to win 1 of this years slams- the Australian Open (and even there I would give her only 20% chance at best of beating Clijsters in the final).

shap_half
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:24 PM
In 2000, this conservation revolved around three women who all had great seasons. 11 years later a similar conversation is taking place over three women with questionable blemishes in their records. Kvitova now has the most legit claim, but she is still a poor number one.

Apoleb
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:31 PM
Also, SMH at people bringing up Lindsay's 2 extra finals over Martina as though it wasn't sheer luck that Venus was placed in the opposite side of the draw from her at Wimbledon and USO.

Lindsay would have snatched her wig at the USO and Wimbledon even harder than she did at the AO that year. So I'm not sure why she deserves the "benefit of bad luck".

PLP
Oct 31st, 2011, 05:44 PM
In 2000, this conservation revolved around three women who all had great seasons. 11 years later a similar conversation is taking place over three women with questionable blemishes in their records. Kvitova now has the most legit claim, but she is still a poor number one.

:hysteric:

This thread is truly depressing.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:29 PM
The same can´t be said about Wozniacki, who lost 6-2 6-4 to a subpar 40+ unforced errors machine Serena. :rolleyes:


Serena made 34 UEs and hit 34 winners. At least try to be accurate. And I'm not sure what Woz has to do with this thread anyway. :rolleyes:

TheDream
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:38 PM
Venus had like, 3 or 4 amazing months out of the 10 month season.

Also, SMH at people bringing up Lindsay's 2 extra finals over Martina as though it wasn't sheer luck that Venus was placed in the opposite side of the draw from her at Wimbledon and USO. Martina did lose only to the eventual winner at every slam that year and gave Venus her toughest matches at both Wimbledon (on her weakest surface) and the US Open.

OMG, so you conveniently leave out the fact that she had only 3-4 months of greatness because she hadn't played a match from October 1999-May 2000. That's 7 months so please don't be disingenuous. :rolleyes: The way you said it made it seem like she is Kvitova, who truly had only 3 months of success and played the entire year unlike Venus.

I dunno, it just annoys me when people manipulate things like you did here.

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 07:45 PM
OMG, so you conveniently leave out the fact that she had only 3-4 months of greatness because she hadn't played a match from October 1999-May 2000. That's 7 months so please don't be disingenuous. :rolleyes: The way you said it made it seem like she is Kvitova, who truly had only 3 months of success and played the entire year unlike Venus.

I dunno, it just annoys me when people manipulate things like you did here.


Injuries are, sadly, part of the game. Don't be so sensitive just because someone said the obvious about Venus. :rolleyes: Venus, in her long and successful career, was never able to dominate the tour for more than a few months, injuries or not.

Oh, and to anwer the question: Hingis was most consistant and hence the "real #1" but Lindsay and Venus won the bigger titles and hence were the "greater" players that year and also beat Hingis at the Slams.

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:34 PM
Serena made 34 UEs and hit 34 winners. At least try to be accurate. And I'm not sure what Woz has to do with this thread anyway. :rolleyes:
Wozniacki was very cheap in her grand slam losing efforts. Losing/choking getting beat after leading at the Australian Open and Wimbledon and getting trounced in the other two events.

Serena played subpar match against her, for instance in a much better contested and harder match against Azarenka in round 3 Serena made 39 winners to 22 unforced errors, and still Wozniacki lost rather easily.

Hingis gave challenge to all grand slam winners, Wozniacki did not lose to the eventual champions she was not good enough to get to them.

:wavey:

Matt01
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:38 PM
Wozniacki was very cheap in her grand slam losing efforts. Losing/choking getting beat after leading at the Australian Open and Wimbledon and getting trounced in the other two events.


Woz lost to Li in the closest match possible and against Serena she lost handily. But apparently both matches were "cheap" because for some people Woz can do no right no matter what she does :rolleyes:

Chip.
Oct 31st, 2011, 08:49 PM
Vee in 2000 :bowdown:

spencercarlos
Oct 31st, 2011, 09:05 PM
Woz lost to Li in the closest match possible and against Serena she lost handily. But apparently both matches were "cheap" because for some people Woz can do no right no matter what she does :rolleyes:
She was leading by a set and a break and served for it as well, lost a match point, that was how Caroline blew her first oportunity this year. She lost easily to Hantuchova and Serena at the French and Usopen respectively those are the two i was talking about.

She was leading her match against Cibulkova at Wimbledon won the first set 6-1, another missed oportunity.

Hingis lost her easier match in the slam final she reached in 2000, but was the biggest nut to crack for the eventual champions in the remainder of the slams.

Monica_Rules
Oct 31st, 2011, 10:20 PM
I loved 2000. At the start Lindsay and Martina were totally dominating but Martina just couldn't beat Lindsay. I remember the Indian Wells final when Martina lead a set an 4-2 then Lindsay won 10 games in a row. Martins got revenge in Miami but Lindsay was poor that day.

Serena was so up an down and kept loosing to jennifer all the time. Monica was building momentum during the clay season but was beaten by mary, then you had Venus amazing winning run.

if my memory serves me correct we had a cracking final in Zurich between martina and Lindsay and then one of the best matches ever in the WTA champs final in Monica vs Martina.

What a year

rimon
Oct 31st, 2011, 11:39 PM
Did Lindsay and Venus only win 1 and 2 titles that year? I though that they won other events as well? :eek:

Rollo
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:13 AM
My rankings were:

01 Venus Williams (the Olympics count in my rankings about the same as the YEC)

02 Davenport-would have been #1 had she won the YEC. She did beat Venus in Linz.

03 Hingis: Everything but the major. Had she won that point with the swinging volley vs Venus at the US Open.....

A very exciting year.

Laura_VeeFan
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:21 AM
Aaaah...2000 :)

Anyway I think Venus was because she won the USO, Wimbledon and the Olympics, although Hingis and Davenport wouldn't make bad #1's either :yeah:

J4m3ka
Nov 1st, 2011, 11:40 AM
Venus had the greatest year, although as we very well know the WTA ranking hardly reflects that. In the latter half of the year Venus was definitely the one to beat on the tour.

In all honesty I would be happy with Martina being #1 for this year. Not only was she super consistent, she won 2 big titles and was a contender at the Slams as well. She lost in what were well contested matches (except AO final) to the eventual champion at all the Slams, so it's not like she was playing at a level far below the other top players.

bandabou
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:26 PM
My rankings were:

01 Venus Williams (the Olympics count in my rankings about the same as the YEC)

02 Davenport-would have been #1 had she won the YEC. She did beat Venus in Linz.

03 Hingis: Everything but the major. Had she won that point with the swinging volley vs Venus at the US Open.....

A very exciting year.

Ah the swinging volley...:sobbing: Could've placed it ANYWHERE. Don't think she would've beaten Davenport anyway, but that missed swinging volley against Vee...she still must be having nightmares about it.

OZTENNIS
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:29 PM
Venus no doubt - and this coming from a Hingis stan

Hingis' slamless year at No.1 >>>>>>>>> all those that came after
9 titles (inc Tokyo, Miami, Montreal, Zurich, Moscow Tier 1s and WTA Y/E Champs as well as Indian Wells and Aus Open RU)

bandabou
Nov 1st, 2011, 12:37 PM
In 2000, this conservation revolved around three women who all had great seasons. 11 years later a similar conversation is taking place over three women with questionable blemishes in their records. Kvitova now has the most legit claim, but she is still a poor number one.

:sobbing: Ah the good old days. Hingis good as she was still felt kinda like a 3rd wheel..much like Roger is right now. She couldn't beat Vee nor Linds, but she could give them hell..specially Vee.

OZTENNIS
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:28 PM
^^
She beat Davenport twice - once in Miami and the other time in Zurich - in 2000.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2011, 07:12 AM
^^
She beat Davenport twice - once in Miami and the other time in Zurich - in 2000.

She did.:yeah:

ExtremespeedX
Nov 3rd, 2011, 07:43 AM
Venus easily.

Sombrerero loco
Nov 3rd, 2011, 08:52 AM
martina was true number 1.9 titles including many great titles and she was the player to beat.she underachieved vs venus in wimbledon and specially the us open where she choked away the match but she was the best player during the year

LCS
Nov 3rd, 2011, 11:33 AM
Venus had tendinitis in both wrists in the 1st 4 months of 2000. That made her achievement in 2000 even more remarkable. She still managed to win 6 singles titles. Martina played a full yr but only managed 9 titles BUT no GS! And certainly no double gold medals.

Because everybody is winning 9 titles every year :facepalm:


This is a very tough call between Venus and Martina. And while Venus may have beaten Hingis in Wimbledon and the USO she wasn't blown off court, they were very tough matches so Venus' wasn't beating all the players at will, she really had to fight for them.