PDA

View Full Version : WTA now VS 10 years ago...


DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:30 AM
My my my....are the best years of WTA tennis really gone?! You be the judge..........

2001 end of the year ranking
1. Lindsay Davenport
2. Jennifer Capriati
3. Venus Williams
4. Martina Hingis
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Serena Williams
7. Justine Henin
8. Jelena Dokic
9. Amelie Mauresmo
10.Monica Seles

VS current 2011 ranking

1. Caroline Wozniacki
2. Kim Clijsters
3. Vera Zvonereva
4. Fransesca Schiovone
5. Victoria Azerenka
6. Samantha Stosur
7. Li Na
8. Jelena Jankovic
9. Maria Sharapova
10.Serena Williams

A Magicman
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:40 AM
I dunno if it was better in terms of better.

But I know that I really enjoyed watching more back then as the girls still liked to give the balls a serious spanking (apart from Hingis, one could argue about Henin, Clijsters and Mauresmo). And that's just the kind of tennis I prefer to watch, mind the UE and stuff that comes along with that.

Whom I liked to wtach back then? Davenport, Capriati, Williamses, Seles

Now? Stosur (when she's not a headcase, which seldomly occurs), Pova (when she's on, which seldomly occurs), Serena (when she plays, which hardly ever occurs)

More interesting: Yes.
Better? Dunno.

So Disrespectful
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:49 AM
All of those players were multiple slam winners, aside from Dokic who had exceptional personal problems and was unable to reach her peak. 9 of 10 won at least 2 grand slam titles. I think that's the main difference.

We have only 3 multiple slam winners in the current top 10. It's not just a matter of them being younger/active players either. I do not see many more of them winning slams, they'd all find a way to lose at some stage. So yes, the current top 10 is far worse.

poulao
Apr 13th, 2011, 07:59 AM
All of this "WTA now VS 10 years ago..." is okay as such, then let it go, or it's only damaging. I remember back before Steffi, Martina N. was comming up and then Steffi came along. This "WTA now VS 10 years ago..." guys/girls ... I just don't get it :shrug: but I know one thing, champions come and go :)

Njalle
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:27 AM
You can't judge that at present time. The players in WTA top anno 2001 are all at the end of the career, or they're already retired, while the WTA top anno 2011 still have loads of accomplishments left in them.

Svetlana)))
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:35 AM
:tape:

C. W. Fields
Apr 13th, 2011, 10:07 AM
Jelena Something-ic from the former Yugoslavia still #8!

thegreendestiny
Apr 13th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Ten years ago, WTA was more popular and more exciting... even against ATP. Now... :tape:

Betten
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:01 AM
All of those players were multiple slam winners, aside from Dokic who had exceptional personal problems and was unable to reach her peak. 9 of 10 won at least 2 grand slam titles. I think that's the main difference.

We have only 3 multiple slam winners in the current top 10. It's not just a matter of them being younger/active players either. I do not see many more of them winning slams, they'd all find a way to lose at some stage. So yes, the current top 10 is far worse.

In 2001 only the top 4 and Seles had multiple slam titles. Considering Seles already had her best years behind her and Capriati had zero slams until 2001 I believe it's not that bad. You should at least wait until the end of 2011 (and see how the remaining three slams turn out) before you compare these lists when it comes to slam titles.

Protoss
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:03 AM
All of those players were multiple slam winners, aside from Dokic who had exceptional personal problems and was unable to reach her peak. 9 of 10 won at least 2 grand slam titles. I think that's the main difference.

We have only 3 multiple slam winners in the current top 10. It's not just a matter of them being younger/active players either. I do not see many more of them winning slams, they'd all find a way to lose at some stage. So yes, the current top 10 is far worse.
Kim, Justine, and Momo had yet to win a slam back then. Serena had only 1 slam at that point as well.

Olórin
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:09 AM
Why are you only discussing slam titles? The players on the former list are simply better players at nearly any point in the careers.

Uranus
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:19 AM
You can't judge that at present time. The players in WTA top anno 2001 are all at the end of the career, or they're already retired, while the WTA top anno 2011 still have loads of accomplishments left in them.
2001 end of the year ranking
1. Lindsay Davenport -> past her peak
2. Jennifer Capriati -> best year of her career
3. Venus Williams -> past her peak but still there 10 years later
4. Martina Hingis -> past her peak
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Serena Williams
7. Justine Henin
8. Jelena Dokic
9. Amelie Mauresmo
10.Monica Seles -> retired not too long afterwards

VS current 2011 ranking

1. Caroline Wozniacki
2. Kim Clijsters -> to retire soon
3. Vera Zvonereva
4. Fransesca Schiovone -> over 30 = old for a tennis player
5. Victoria Azerenka
6. Samantha Stosur -> > 25
7. Li Na -> > 25
8. Jelena Jankovic
9. Maria Sharapova
10.Serena Williams -> 30 this year
Not to mention... who says girls like Zvonareva, Stosur, Li, Jankovic or Sharapova aren't past their peak as well?

There's no proof players in 2011 have many more things to achieve. A lot of players in the current top 10 are 25 or older. Many players in 2001 were very young and dominated later.

Njalle
Apr 13th, 2011, 11:54 AM
2001 end of the year ranking
1. Lindsay Davenport -> past her peak
2. Jennifer Capriati -> best year of her career
3. Venus Williams -> past her peak but still there 10 years later
4. Martina Hingis -> past her peak
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Serena Williams
7. Justine Henin
8. Jelena Dokic
9. Amelie Mauresmo
10.Monica Seles -> retired not too long afterwards

VS current 2011 ranking

1. Caroline Wozniacki
2. Kim Clijsters -> to retire soon
3. Vera Zvonereva
4. Fransesca Schiovone -> over 30 = old for a tennis player
5. Victoria Azerenka
6. Samantha Stosur -> > 25
7. Li Na -> > 25
8. Jelena Jankovic
9. Maria Sharapova
10.Serena Williams -> 30 this year
Not to mention... who says girls like Zvonareva, Stosur, Li, Jankovic or Sharapova aren't past their peak as well?

There's no proof players in 2011 have many more things to achieve. A lot of players in the current top 10 are 25 or older. Many players in 2001 were very young and dominated later.

You are misunderstanding me. People will not look at either list as representing the game that year. They will look at the first list and see all the accomplishments they have anno 2011. So in that sense, Serena and Kim will even out on the two list. Other than that, it is different names in the two lists. So let's compare the two: The first list have two currently active players (bar aforementioned Kim and Ree), both of which are at the dawn of their carrer. On the second list, you have Sharapova as the only very accomplished new player. Then you have a lot of names who will most likely dominate the WTA after 2012. Vika, Zvonareva and Caro are not unlikely to win a lot of slams combined. Sure, you have some older players as well, but you never know how long they'll be playing.

DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:14 PM
You can't judge that at present time. The players in WTA top anno 2001 are all at the end of the career, or they're already retired, while the WTA top anno 2011 still have loads of accomplishments left in them.

But are they doing anything is the question? This top 5 can't do anything against Clijsters or Serena when they are playing well. Some crash out of slams early too....Right now I dont see them accomplishing anything.

goldenlox
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:17 PM
Somebody's going to win the next 40 majors, and it wont be players retiring soon.
So no point comparing a list of players who had 10+ years on tour with a list that has players who have 10+ years in front of them.

tonybotz
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:49 PM
let's beat the dead horse further, shall we? everybody knows that the late 90s and early 00's were the golden age of the WTA tour.

The new girls are stepping up. Give them time to grow

tonybotz
Apr 13th, 2011, 01:50 PM
it was an amazing time to be an american tennis fan. 5 women in the top 10.... now not even 5 in the top 100

Njalle
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:04 PM
But are they doing anything is the question? This top 5 can't do anything against Clijsters or Serena when they are playing well. Some crash out of slams early too....Right now I dont see them accomplishing anything.

"When they are playing well" are used in the most ridiculous ways these days. Take the Kvitova - Wozniacki match of Wimbledon 2010. People would say: "when Kvitova is playing well, Caro is no match for her". Who says it isn't the opposite thing; Maybe Caro was playing below her own standard at that match. :rolleyes:

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:05 PM
All of those players were multiple slam winners, aside from Dokic who had exceptional personal problems and was unable to reach her peak.

Dokic did peak. Don't go down that road. The ONLY argument is she was unable to sustain her peak, but gamewise there was not really any more building blocks for her to become better than what she was.

But really what could Dokic could have been? Maybe a few more SFs that's it.

2002 does anyone see her beating either Williams to win a slam?
2003 does she compete with the Williams still and then the Belgians to win a slam?
2004 is anyone's game on paper, but Dokic wouldn't have won a slam.


Many players in 2001 were very young and dominated later.

Because they had the talent, ability, and capacity to dominate.

Stosur, Jankovic, Li, Schiavone, current Sharapova, Zvonareva, Azarenka will dominate nothing.

The two people who have the ability to dominate are coincidentally 2 names that were in the '01 list.
Karolina is just a byproduct of the failures of everyone else.

Daruma.
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:09 PM
The first ones to post in this thread have Denmark flags and are all Wozniacki fans. Something must be urging them to, you know, defend their fave. No wonder what.

Njalle
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:20 PM
The first ones to post in this thread have Denmark flags and are all Wozniacki fans. Something must be urging them to, you know, defend their fave. No wonder what.
Coming from Denmark doesn't make me a Wozniacki-fan, thankyouverymuch. I am only here to learn about womens tennis for betting purposes (wrong forum, I know :lol:).

AndreConrad
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:28 PM
These discussions are tempting but cannot be objective and will generate endless discussions that cannot be completed with reasonable argument. The reason for that is simple; we all have perspective on players from 10 years ago which is not true about players of today. We do not know what kind of opinion people will have about them ten years from now. I can already see speculations coming up who is capable of what, but all they are speculations nothing more. I still do enjoy tennis today as I was 10 years ago. For me it is all that counts.

So Disrespectful
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:44 PM
Dokic did peak. Don't go down that road. The ONLY argument is she was unable to sustain her peak, but gamewise there was not really any more building blocks for her to become better than what she was.

But really what could Dokic could have been? Maybe a few more SFs that's it.

2002 does anyone see her beating either Williams to win a slam?
2003 does she compete with the Williams still and then the Belgians to win a slam?
2004 is anyone's game on paper, but Dokic wouldn't have won a slam.

No building blocks for her to become better? You mean, the same way the lower-ranked and older Dementieva had no building blocks for improvement during those years? We all know Dementieva could have easily won a slam or two with the addition of half a brain. And you say 2004 was anyone's on paper, yet not Dokic's? Why? Who's to say she wouldn't have found herself in the mix at the 2004 US Open with the likes of Dementieva and Kuznetsova had she continued another 3 years on the trajectory she was travelling in 2001?

Let's not forget, Dokic had a competitive history with Clijsters and Henin in both rankings and results (all three are very close in age). Had Clijsters and Henin won slams at that point? No. It's ludicrous to imply that Dokic would have stopped improving at 18-19 years of age were it not for her abusive father and resulting severe depression. Dokic had wins over Venus, Henin, Hingis, Clijsters, Seles, Pierce, Mauresmo and Capriati. Most of these before her 20th birthday, and you're telling me she was never in the running to win a slam? Hell, she's even beaten our current number 1. If you can remember, people once said that Henin lacked the power to be a slam champion. But you're right, players simply stop improving at 19. I guess that's good news, because Wozniacki won't be winning any slams in that case.

Anyway, you can choose to believe Dokic wouldn't have made other improvements in her late teens without those years spent away from the elite if you enjoy being that delusional.

Dave B
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:45 PM
These two lists were actually much more similar than I thought.

You have to remember, at the time both Kim and Justine were described as players that just "got a lot of balls back."

Smitten
Apr 13th, 2011, 02:54 PM
No building blocks for her to become better? You mean, the same way the lower-ranked and older Dementieva had no building blocks for improvement during those years? We all know Dementieva could have easily won a slam or two with the addition of half a brain.

Dokic was maxed out as far as potential wise. She was an aggressive baseliner with flat shots, thin margin, and an inconsistent second serve. This is how she was then. This is how she is now.

As a player, there was no room for her to ever incorporate any career changing attributes into her game. She could only become more experienced and therefore a "smarter" matchplayer.

Reaching for Dementieva as an example to defend Dokic isn't exactly logical. Dementieva had one of the most static games of almost any top 10 player, but she was reasonably good at it.

It's a myth Dementieva was even good enough to win a slam, but that isn't the main issue. If you WANT to go there the point is Dementieva is slamless and always will be. That's what counts.


And you say 2004 was anyone's on paper, yet not Dokic's? Why? Who's to say she wouldn't have found herself in the mix at the 2004 US Open with the likes of Dementieva and Kuznetsova had she continued another 3 years on the trajectory she was travelling in 2001?

Because you're assuming that Dokic would continue to play at her '01 form for 4 straight years(if she was still in the mix in '04). For a player like Jelena, I could never see her playing top 5/top 10 tennis for 4 straight seasons even without Damir in the mix.


Let's not forget, Dokic had a competitive history with Clijsters and Henin in both rankings and results (all three are very close in age). Had Clijsters and Henin won slams at that point?

It's not even debatable that Clijsters and Henin are more talented players than Dokic in multiple facets of tennis and had overall better games.


If you can remember, people once said that Henin lacked the power to be a slam champion. But you're right, players simply stop improving at 19.



Henin had an extremely varied and nuanced game with an arsenal of shots. Of course it takes more time to nurture that than Dokic hitting a crosscourt BH, a 160kph 2nd serve, and a screaming FHDTL every point.

With the way Dokic played, she was not going to get much better than what she was. If so, you tell me what she could have added to her game to compete for slam titles against peak Williams and peak Belgians. She was not even regularly getting to latter stages of slams, where she would have had to face these players, even in her brief peak.

Le Tenisse
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:13 PM
I am only here to learn about womens tennis for betting purposes.

With the current choke fest on lots of matches, GL in trying to guess something, hon :lol:

Olórin
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:30 PM
I am only here to learn about womens tennis for betting purposes (wrong forum, I know :lol:).

Some people really are beyond the pale :lol:

Is gambling really that rewarding a pursuit?

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:14 PM
The first ones to post in this thread have Denmark flags and are all Wozniacki fans. Something must be urging them to, you know, defend their fave. No wonder what.


Marlboro and Magicman don't have Denmark flags. Do you how how that flag does look like?

Daruma.
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:39 PM
Marlboro and Magicman don't have Denmark flags. Do you how how that flag does look like?

I do know how that flag looks like, I'm pretty sure I said "the first ones". But knowing how much of a troll you are, I'm not going to get into an argument at all. :wavey:

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:44 PM
I do know how that flag looks like, I'm pretty sure I said "the first ones".


Yeah, and the two posters I mentioned were the "first ones" who posted in this thread after the OP...

Annie.
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:47 PM
My my my....are the best years of WTA tennis really gone?! You be the judge..........

2001 end of the year ranking
1. Lindsay Davenport
2. Jennifer Capriati
3. Venus Williams
4. Martina Hingis
5. Kim Clijsters
6. Serena Williams
7. Justine Henin
8. Jelena Dokic
9. Amelie Mauresmo
10.Monica Seles



:lol: Looking at this ranking is like one of those puzzles that ask, "Which of these doesn't belong?" And it'll give you choices like: apple, banana, peach, orange, & chair. I shouldn't have to mention who's the chair in amongst them. :tape:

Daruma.
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:54 PM
Yeah, and the two posters I mentioned were the "first ones" who posted in this thread after the OP...

I think many people here in the forum - excluding you and some other trolls - have properly developed intelligence and can understand the point of my post within a second unlike people like you, who get stuck in small details.

...not to mention that "the first ones" does, indeed, include the users who have Danish flags, which makes your argument completely invalid. I hope for once you shut your mouth up, unless you have something more useful and sensible to talk about. :wavey:

Njalle
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:13 PM
Some people really are beyond the pale :lol:

Is gambling really that rewarding a pursuit?

You have no idea. :bounce:

With the current choke fest on lots of matches, GL in trying to guess something, hon :lol:

The winning strategy is to bet on Wozniacki every time ;)

hurricanejeanne
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:21 PM
:lol: Looking at this ranking is like one of those puzzles that ask, "Which of these doesn't belong?" And it'll give you choices like: apple, banana, peach, orange, & chair. I shouldn't have to mention who's the chair in amongst them. :tape:

:hysteric:

And yeah, 2001 >>>>>>>2011.

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:37 PM
These two lists were actually much more similar than I thought.

You have to remember, at the time both Kim and Justine were described as players that just "got a lot of balls back."

LOL You need to recheck your memory. Kim and Justine were never described like that. :lol: By the end of 2001, both had reached GS finals and had multiple wins over GS champions. Both had shown lots of different all court skills and were recognized for it. Kim lost that French Open final because of a lack of consistency, not because she was pushing. What a ridiculous delusion :help:

Even the 2001 version of these players shames the top 10 now. The 2001 Davenport was winning hardcourt titles everywhere and making lots of GS finals. Davenport had won a slam in 2000 and 3 overall. The 2001 Venus was at her peak and dominated after Wimbledon and had won 4 slams. The 2001 Serena was inconsistent but was already a slam champion and had great battles with Capriati. Capriati was at her peak and was 2 slam champion. Hingis was a 5 slam champion and not far away from her peak. She was still making slam finals and stayed at no.1 for a long time, still winning sometimes against the Williams. The next tier were Kim and Henin and both were slam finalists that year and both lost in 3 sets. Both had also won lots of big tournaments already. Seles was past her peak but even the 2001 version of Seles would be competitive with most of today's top 10. Mauresmo and Dokic were less impressive but both had big wins on clay and had won some big tournaments. The average age was much younger too. Everyone except Seles was below 25. You would also consistently see these players play each other in the later rounds of events week in and week out.

Today's top 10 has mostly older players. Many of them haven't even been in a slam semi, never mind winning a slam. Serena is top 10 but she has not played in almost a full year. Kim is selective with her schedule and still is competitive for the number 1 ranking. Jankovic loses to everyone but is still in the top 10. No one is afraid of the world number 1.

sammy01
Apr 13th, 2011, 06:39 PM
does anyone believe truely that 9 of these 10 players -

1. Caroline Wozniacki
2. Kim Clijsters
3. Vera Zvonereva
4. Fransesca Schiovone
5. Victoria Azerenka
6. Samantha Stosur
7. Li Na
8. Jelena Jankovic
9. Maria Sharapova
10.Serena Williams

will end up as multiple slam champions? thats what that top 10 of 2001 was, it was filled with either current slam champions or players with multiple slam champion pedigree.

right now 4 have slams of the current top 10, 3 of them multiple slams, 2 of them re from the 2001 list :help:

i don't see jj, stosur, li na or vera as slam champions in the future, let alone multiple slams, and it isn't like those 4 players are youngsters with lots of years on their side.

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:25 PM
Even the 2001 version of these players shames the top 10 now. The 2001 Davenport was winning hardcourt titles everywhere and making lots of GS finals.


Excuse me? Yes, Lindsay in 2001 was winning lots of titles but she did not make any Slam finals. Not that unsimilar to Woz in 2010. People here are praising 2001 but they do not see the obvious, significant paralels to 2010 :lol: :wavey:

DaMamaJama87
Apr 13th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Excuse me? Yes, Lindsay in 2001 was winning lots of titles but she did not make any Slam finals. Not that unsimilar to Woz in 2010. People here are praising 2001 but they do not see the obvious, significant paralels to 2010 :lol: :wavey:

LOL did you just compare Lindsay Davenport to Wozniacki? Are you serious? :help: You're right, 2001 was not a great year for Lindsay. It was still higher quality than anything Woz has ever done though. :tape:.

Missing large parts of the year with injury but still winning 7 titles and beating Clijsters, Hingis, Seles, Henin and Mauresmo and losing tight matches to peak Venus and a hot Serena>>>>>> anything Woz has shown.

Matt01
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:01 PM
LOL did you just compare Lindsay Davenport to Wozniacki? Are you serious? :help: You're right, 2001 was not a great year for Lindsay. It was still higher quality than anything Woz has ever done though. :tape:.

Missing large parts of the year with injury but still winning 7 titles and beating Clijsters, Hingis, Seles, Henin and Mauresmo and losing tight matches to peak Venus and a hot Serena>>>>>> anything Woz has shown.


Delusional.

Flabbergaster
Apr 13th, 2011, 09:09 PM
I like it as it is now!

PEPSI!
THE CHOICE OF A NEW GENERATION! :lol:

Jens K A
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:23 AM
Today's top 10 has mostly older players. Many of them haven't even been in a slam semi, never mind winning a slam.

9 of the 10 have been in a slam final. The exception is Azarenka with 3 QF at 21. I expect her to reach finals.

DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 14th, 2011, 12:34 AM
:lol: Looking at this ranking is like one of those puzzles that ask, "Which of these doesn't belong?" And it'll give you choices like: apple, banana, peach, orange, & chair. I shouldn't have to mention who's the chair in amongst them. :tape:

I'd replace #8 with Mary Pierce...she had her moments on the court..and was a damn good athlete. (AND she won a slam like everyone else listed in that top 10 as well)

new-york
Apr 14th, 2011, 04:03 AM
does anyone believe truely that 9 of these 10 players will end up as multiple slam champions? thats what that top 10 of 2001 was, it was filled with either current slam champions or players with multiple slam champion pedigree.

right now 4 have slams of the current top 10, 3 of them multiple slams, 2 of them re from the 2001 list :help:

i don't see jj, stosur, li na or vera as slam champions in the future, let alone multiple slams, and it isn't like those 4 players are youngsters with lots of years on their side.

That's the thing, they eventually will i guess, cause in a couple of years there will be no one stopping them.

The 2001 list had to face champions left and right, and today they are all gone and NO ONE emerged before they went away.

no one grabbed the torch while it was hot, they just took one a champion had left on the ground.

VeeJJ
Apr 14th, 2011, 04:31 AM
Hot Mess!!!!