PDA

View Full Version : Best players of the 90s


Matchpoint down
Jan 11th, 2012, 07:34 AM
Based on their performances at 1)The Grand Slam tournaments 2)other major tournaments (Virginia Slims Championships, Olympic Games, Lipton Championships) 3)Tournament wins 4)Rankings (highest ranking, sum of years in the top 10) and 5)mixed and doubles at the Grand Slams plus Federation Cup and Hopman Cup, I made a ranking of the most succesful players, including all results until April 30, 1993.

1. Seles
2. Graf
3. Sanchez
4. Sabatini
5. Navratilova
6. Capriati
7. Fernandez
8. Novotna
9. Martinez
10. K.Maleeva

JohnBoy
Jan 11th, 2012, 11:15 AM
I would put Manuela Maleeva infront of Katerina..

Sonf@
Jan 11th, 2012, 02:00 PM
Those are the "best players of the first four years of the 90s", aren't they? :p

Sticking with the topic, I'd say

Graf
Seles
Hingis
Sánchez
Davenport
Novotna
Sabatini
Martinez
Pierce
MJ Fernandez/Majoli

I'd leave both the Williams out because their real success came with the 00s. Serena won the last Grand Slam of the decade but she was just into her second full season ;)

alfajeffster
Jan 11th, 2012, 04:37 PM
Those are the "best players of the first four years of the 90s", aren't they? :p

Sticking with the topic, I'd say

Graf
Seles
Hingis
Sánchez
Davenport
Novotna
Sabatini
Martinez
Pierce
MJ Fernandez/Majoli

I'd leave both the Williams out because their real success came with the 00s. Serena won the last Grand Slam of the decade but she was just into her second full season ;)

I personally think Martina Navratilova deserves at least mention. From 1990-95 she was still pretty close to the top, and beating Graf, Seles and Sanchez Vicario on occasion, and winning Wimbledon in 90 and a runner-up finish in 94 count.

Sonf@
Jan 11th, 2012, 05:48 PM
Actually, I totally forgot about her :lol: My mistake :angel:

I'd take the MJ/Majoli position off and I'd rank Martina before or after Martínez ;)

Calvin M.
Jan 12th, 2012, 12:07 AM
An interesting decade because of the departure and welcome return of both Seles and Capriati. Seles would be 1 or 2 but I'm not certain if I'd include Capriati if we could only choose 10 players (she didn't win a Slam).

samn
Jan 13th, 2012, 09:40 AM
1. Graf
2. Seles
3. Hingis
4. Sanchez Vicario
5. Davenport
6. Novotna
7. Sabatini
8. Navratilova
9. Martinez
10. Pierce

Hovering just outside the top 10: S Williams, MJF, V Williams, Majoli, Date

Sam L
Jan 13th, 2012, 02:03 PM
1. Seles
2. Graf
3. Hingis
4. Sanchez
5. Sabatini
6. Navratilova
7. Martinez
8. Fernandez
9. Pierce
10. Novotna

Calvin M.
Jan 13th, 2012, 10:58 PM
1. Seles
2. Graf
3. Sanchez Vicario
4. Sabatini
5. Martinez
6. Novotna
7. Hingis
8. Davenport
9. Pierce
10. Majoli

mistymore
Jan 17th, 2012, 08:18 AM
All results until April 30, 1993. What kind of crap is that. So someone like Hingis doesnt even exist now and is omited from a 90s top 10 in favor of likes of Mary Joe Fernandez, LOL! Anyway here is my list and it is a pretty simple one:

1. Graf- dominated mid 90s and won atleast 1 slam every full year she played
2. Seles- dominated early 90s but won only 1 slam from 96-99
3. Hingis- dominant overall player of late 90s, but only 1 dominant year- 1997 which puts her below Seles
4. Sanchez- 3 slams
5. Davenport
6. Novotna
7. Martinez
8. Sabatini
9. Pierce
10. Navratilova

mistymore
Jan 17th, 2012, 08:20 AM
1. Seles
2. Graf
3. Sanchez Vicario
4. Sabatini
5. Martinez
6. Novotna
7. Hingis
8. Davenport
9. Pierce
10. Majoli

Hingis who won 5 slams and spent oodles of time at #1 in the 90s below Sabatini, Martinez, Novotna, and her bitch Sanchez!?!? God there seem to be alot of stupid people on this forum.

gabybackhand
Jan 17th, 2012, 06:58 PM
Well, I didn't post on this thread but I read the differente lists, I agree with some and not with others, but I don't think it's necessary to call anybody stupid out of his/her tennis preferences, don't you think Misty?

Calvin M.
Jan 22nd, 2012, 01:21 PM
Hingis who won 5 slams and spent oodles of time at #1 in the 90s below Sabatini, Martinez, Novotna, and her bitch Sanchez!?!? God there seem to be alot of stupid people on this forum.

The reason I placed those players higher than Hingis is that Sabatini, Martinez, Novtona and ASV regularly played against Graf and Seles. Hingis did not. I'm not discounting Hingis' talent and consistency but she really didn't have much competition. Hingis' contemporaries and more seasoned rivals didn't flourish as fast as she did. If they had, who knows if she would've won 5 Slams?

Well, I didn't post on this thread but I read the differente lists, I agree with some and not with others, but I don't think it's necessary to call anybody stupid out of his/her tennis preferences, don't you think Misty?

I wouldn't call anyone that but at least the poster was honest with his/her feelings. People are quite passionate on this board (about a multitude of things) so reading comments like this is no big surprise.

mistymore
Jan 24th, 2012, 04:14 PM
Who cares about so called level of competition when you win 5 slams and dominate vs people who win 1. Do you really think the mid 90s where Martinez and Sanchez had their most success was a great field either. Martinez especialy was completely useless agaisnt any competition, and won Wimbledon by beating a nearly 40 year old women in the final and a nobody in the semis. Novotna also had her most success in the late 90s, just far less than Hingis. Hingis at her best would crush all of Sanchez, Martinez, and Novotna at their best, that is all that matters. Only Sabatini at her best might give her some competition, but with only 1 slam she has to rate even below Sanchez so it doesnt matter.

mistymore
Jan 24th, 2012, 04:17 PM
Anyway a good list that makes sense:

1. Graf



2. Seles
3. Hingis



4. Sanchez
5. Sabatini
6. Davenport


7. Novotna
8. Martinez
9. Pierce
10. Navratilova

I upped Sabatini from my previous list since if you factor level of play and level of competition she moves well up.

Calvin M.
Jan 26th, 2012, 01:32 AM
Who cares about so called level of competition when you win 5 slams and dominate vs people who win 1. Do you really think the mid 90s where Martinez and Sanchez had their most success was a great field either. Martinez especialy was completely useless agaisnt any competition, and won Wimbledon by beating a nearly 40 year old women in the final and a nobody in the semis. Novotna also had her most success in the late 90s, just far less than Hingis. Hingis at her best would crush all of Sanchez, Martinez, and Novotna at their best, that is all that matters. Only Sabatini at her best might give her some competition, but with only 1 slam she has to rate even below Sanchez so it doesnt matter.

Perhaps Martinez, Sabatini and Novotna would've won more Slams if they didn't have to compete against Graf and Seles.

Perhaps Hingis would've been Slam-less if she had to regularly play Graf and Seles, circa '89-'93.

Again, it's nothing against Hingis but I took her lack of competition into consideration.

mistymore
Jan 26th, 2012, 05:24 AM
Perhaps Martinez, Sabatini and Novotna would've won more Slams if they didn't have to compete against Graf and Seles.

Perhaps Hingis would've been Slam-less if she had to regularly play Graf and Seles, circa '89-'93.

Again, it's nothing against Hingis but I took her lack of competition into consideration.

How many times do you need simple things spelt out. Novotna was a super late bloomer and peaked in the HINGIS era. That is when her best tennis came in 1997-1999, not the early to mid 90s, everyone knows this, and she managed a measley 1 slam and no time at #1 vs Hingis's 5 slams and 100+ weeks at #1 while peaking at the exact same time despite the decade age gap (Hingis is the oppositie, a super early bloomer).

Martinez would have probably won no slams in the Hingis era considering she is Hingis's bitch. Martinez is a lightweight who gets bullied around by any top player. The only reason she ever held a high ranking for awhile was her consistency, like Wozniacki today. To create an era she would win 5 slams would be a field like todays minus Serena, Clijsters, Na, Stosur, Sharapova, Kvitova, and about 5 others, then maybe. Her one Wimbledon win was a joke beating McNeil and 38 year old Martina.

Sabatini got unlucky I agree, but she wouldnt have been a dominant player in any era. Even if she peaked in the late 90s not a prayer she wins 5 slams like Hingis did.

Sanchez is the only one close to Hingis in achievements but Hingis is something like 18-2 against her.

Sanchez and Martinez by the way were in the mid 20s when Hingis dominated and won all those slams. If they were past their primes that was their problem. They were fully able bodied women who certainly werent old and had the same chance as Hingis to capatilize on the weak field and win alot of big titles but just wernet good enough. Sanchez and Martinez didnt face Graf and Seles anyway. They had the bulk of their biggest success in the mid 90s after Seles was stabbed.


To rank those players over Hingis is a joke.

Calvin M.
Feb 3rd, 2012, 10:58 PM
How many times do you need simple things spelt out. Novotna was a super late bloomer and peaked in the HINGIS era. That is when her best tennis came in 1997-1999, not the early to mid 90s, everyone knows this, and she managed a measley 1 slam and no time at #1 vs Hingis's 5 slams and 100+ weeks at #1 while peaking at the exact same time despite the decade age gap (Hingis is the oppositie, a super early bloomer).

Martinez would have probably won no slams in the Hingis era considering she is Hingis's bitch. Martinez is a lightweight who gets bullied around by any top player. The only reason she ever held a high ranking for awhile was her consistency, like Wozniacki today. To create an era she would win 5 slams would be a field like todays minus Serena, Clijsters, Na, Stosur, Sharapova, Kvitova, and about 5 others, then maybe. Her one Wimbledon win was a joke beating McNeil and 38 year old Martina.

Sabatini got unlucky I agree, but she wouldnt have been a dominant player in any era. Even if she peaked in the late 90s not a prayer she wins 5 slams like Hingis did.

Sanchez is the only one close to Hingis in achievements but Hingis is something like 18-2 against her.

Sanchez and Martinez by the way were in the mid 20s when Hingis dominated and won all those slams. If they were past their primes that was their problem. They were fully able bodied women who certainly werent old and had the same chance as Hingis to capatilize on the weak field and win alot of big titles but just wernet good enough. Sanchez and Martinez didnt face Graf and Seles anyway. They had the bulk of their biggest success in the mid 90s after Seles was stabbed.


To rank those players over Hingis is a joke.

We agree to disagree. What you have never addressed was Hingis playing Seles and Graf in their peak form. If Hingis had debuted on the tour in 1990, instead of 1994, would she still have made the same progress? If she had to regularly face Seles and Graf pre-stabbing, I find it highly unlikely that she would have progressed as fast as she did.

Joseosu19
Feb 4th, 2012, 03:34 AM
Sanchez is the only one close to Hingis in achievements but Hingis is something like 18-2 against her.

Sanchez and Martinez by the way were in the mid 20s when Hingis dominated and won all those slams. If they were past their primes that was their problem. They were fully able bodied women who certainly werent old and had the same chance as Hingis to capatilize on the weak field and win alot of big titles but just wernet good enough. Sanchez and Martinez didnt face Graf and Seles anyway. They had the bulk of their biggest success in the mid 90s after Seles was stabbed.


Err, how didn't Arantxa face Graf? I think you lose your argument there.

And as an Arantxa fan, I would rank Martina Hingis above Arantxa. She had the game to beat Arantxa and it frustrated the hell out of ASV (and myself).

mistymore
Feb 5th, 2012, 06:33 AM
Of course Aranxta faced Graf. She didnt face much of Seles, her ultimate nightmare matchup more than Graf, who was stabbed and away most of Sanchez's glory years. So saying she faced "Graf and Seles" to win all her slams is not at all accurate. Same goes for Conchita and her success.

We agree to disagree. What you have never addressed was Hingis playing Seles and Graf in their peak form. If Hingis had debuted on the tour in 1990, instead of 1994, would she still have made the same progress? If she had to regularly face Seles and Graf pre-stabbing, I find it highly unlikely that she would have progressed as fast as she did.

Sanchez, Martinez, and Novotnva have never won a major title with Seles at peak form so your point already loses all value. However to answer your question, if Hingis peaked at the same time Sanchez and Martinez did she would have done way better than both, I can guarantee you that much. Sanchez won 2 slams in 1994 with Graf fighting injuries and loss of form and Seles gone altogether, if prime Hingis were around that would have never happened, heck it is doubtful Sanchez could even win one slam if she had to play Hingis who is probably an even worse matchup for her than Seles. With Sanchez and Martinez winning 3 of the 4 slams that year, it probably would have been a 97 esque year for Hingis, and with her bitch (in Hingis's prime years) Mary Pierce winning the Australian to start 95 maybe the Hingis slam. Hingis would have shone brightly in the mid 90s which were really weak, Graf would have been her only real competition in fact. Hingis did peak at the same time as Novotna, both peaked in the late 90s, and did far better than her as well.

Sabatini is the only one who was unlucky to have tougher competition in the early 90s but 18 slam semis and only 1 slam title is still the ultimate fail. It is too bad too, she certainly had a better game than Sanchez atleast, but not the same mentality.

It is annoying to have to defend Hingis so heavily when I dont even like her, but Hingis was in a whole other league then all the players you named. Hingis is closer to being #2 in the 90s then she is to being any lower than #3.


Sanchez Vicario was the biggest beneficiary of the Seles stabbing, contrary to Selestials belief even more than Graf as Graf was fully capable of beating Seles most anywhere, and a lock to beat her at Wimbledon. To hear someone knocking Hingis's superior achievements, dominance, and career due to weak competition in favor of the Seles stabbing vultures Sanchez and Martinez, and an even bigger opportunist of the late 90s transition period than Hingis who unlike Hingis immediately plunged downwards and retired once the brief transition period was ending- Jana Novotna, is rich with both irony and silliness. Sanchez is really one of the luckiest players ever, peaking while Seles was out, before Hingis emerged, with the whole womens field that had peaked in the late 80s and early 90s falling apart, and being a naturally bad matchup for Graf which allowed her to shine and look more competitive in that matchup then she would typically look vs even a much less great player, and that Graf was also injury prone around the field was so thin that there was literally nobody else in her way for awhile if something happened to Graf or she somehow could get past her.

Lastly why couldnt any of Sanchez, Martinez, or Jana capatilize on this period you think Hingis was so lucky in. All were in their mid 20s, except Jana who was still hitting her career peak at that point. I will give Sabatini a pass as she had mentally lost the plot and been in steep decline years before that point. Since you asked me a question you have to now answer this one. Also while you are at it explain Sanchez's head to head with Hingis, and why even in 1996 15 year old Hingis had a winning record over prime Sanchez.


I just noticed you ranked Seles over Graf. That is another terrible judgement, and almost as bad as ranking Hingis below Sanchez (but still not nearly as bad as ranking her below the 1 slammers core to boot).

Joseosu19
Feb 5th, 2012, 07:22 PM
Of course Aranxta faced Graf. She didnt face much of Seles, her ultimate nightmare matchup more than Graf, who was stabbed and away most of Sanchez's glory years. So saying she faced "Graf and Seles" to win all her slams is not at all accurate. Same goes for Conchita and her success.



Sanchez, Martinez, and Novotnva have never won a major title with Seles at peak form so your point already loses all value. However to answer your question, if Hingis peaked at the same time Sanchez and Martinez did she would have done way better than both, I can guarantee you that much. Sanchez won 2 slams in 1994 with Graf fighting injuries and loss of form and Seles gone altogether, if prime Hingis were around that would have never happened, heck it is doubtful Sanchez could even win one slam if she had to play Hingis who is probably an even worse matchup for her than Seles. With Sanchez and Martinez winning 3 of the 4 slams that year, it probably would have been a 97 esque year for Hingis, and with her bitch (in Hingis's prime years) Mary Pierce winning the Australian to start 95 maybe the Hingis slam. Hingis would have shone brightly in the mid 90s which were really weak, Graf would have been her only real competition in fact. Hingis did peak at the same time as Novotna, both peaked in the late 90s, and did far better than her as well.

Sabatini is the only one who was unlucky to have tougher competition in the early 90s but 18 slam semis and only 1 slam title is still the ultimate fail. It is too bad too, she certainly had a better game than Sanchez atleast, but not the same mentality.

It is annoying to have to defend Hingis so heavily when I dont even like her, but Hingis was in a whole other league then all the players you named. Hingis is closer to being #2 in the 90s then she is to being any lower than #3.


Sanchez Vicario was the biggest beneficiary of the Seles stabbing, contrary to Selestials belief even more than Graf as Graf was fully capable of beating Seles most anywhere, and a lock to beat her at Wimbledon. To hear someone knocking Hingis's superior achievements, dominance, and career due to weak competition in favor of the Seles stabbing vultures Sanchez and Martinez, and an even bigger opportunist of the late 90s transition period than Hingis who unlike Hingis immediately plunged downwards and retired once the brief transition period was ending- Jana Novotna, is rich with both irony and silliness. Sanchez is really one of the luckiest players ever, peaking while Seles was out, before Hingis emerged, with the whole womens field that had peaked in the late 80s and early 90s falling apart, and being a naturally bad matchup for Graf which allowed her to shine and look more competitive in that matchup then she would typically look vs even a much less great player, and that Graf was also injury prone around the field was so thin that there was literally nobody else in her way for awhile if something happened to Graf or she somehow could get past her.

Lastly why couldnt any of Sanchez, Martinez, or Jana capatilize on this period you think Hingis was so lucky in. All were in their mid 20s, except Jana who was still hitting her career peak at that point. I will give Sabatini a pass as she had mentally lost the plot and been in steep decline years before that point. Since you asked me a question you have to now answer this one. Also while you are at it explain Sanchez's head to head with Hingis, and why even in 1996 15 year old Hingis had a winning record over prime Sanchez.


I just noticed you ranked Seles over Graf. That is another terrible judgement, and almost as bad as ranking Hingis below Sanchez (but still not nearly as bad as ranking her below the 1 slammers core to boot).

You're right, 12 slam finals:rolleyes: what a lucky talentless hack Arantxa was. It's not like she had to contend with one of the best players ever, and that 1989 Roland Garros title? What a joke that was!


I would take your argument and listen to it if you weren't so obnoxious about it. Not all your points are terrible, but calling Arantxa and Conchita "stabbing vultures" as if the stabbing was their fault, or blaming them for winning titles while Monica was absent...Gee, maybe they should have stopped playing and said, "Monica would have won all these titles, let's jsut give her credit for them".

mistymore
Feb 6th, 2012, 01:45 AM
I am responding to someone who is dissing Hingis, a far superior player to Sanchez and Martinez, because she didnt play Graf and Seles at their best, why dont you take exception to their points. I am just using this individuals way of reasoning. If Hingis was lucky Sanchez was even moreso. If the OP didnt feel the need to make such stupid and baseless points, ripe with inconsistency, I wouldnt have had to point out the harsh truths I did. If Sanchez had won her 4 slams from 1990-1993 or 2000-2003 and didnt trail Hingis 2-18 H2H the OP might have a valid argument on Sanchez vs Hingis, but that is far from the case. There would be no valid arguments for 1 slam wonders vs Hingis regardless.

thrust
Feb 6th, 2012, 09:33 PM
Perhaps Martinez, Sabatini and Novotna would've won more Slams if they didn't have to compete against Graf and Seles.

Perhaps Hingis would've been Slam-less if she had to regularly play Graf and Seles, circa '89-'93.

Again, it's nothing against Hingis but I took her lack of competition into consideration.

Which IS correct. Hingis was a transition champion. Once the Williams, the Belgians, Capriati and Davenport reached their near peak, Hingis stopped winning Slams

thrust
Feb 6th, 2012, 09:39 PM
You're right, 12 slam finals:rolleyes: what a lucky talentless hack Arantxa was. It's not like she had to contend with one of the best players ever, and that 1989 Roland Garros title? What a joke that was!


I would take your argument and listen to it if you weren't so obnoxious about it. Not all your points are terrible, but calling Arantxa and Conchita "stabbing vultures" as if the stabbing was their fault, or blaming them for winning titles while Monica was absent...Gee, maybe they should have stopped playing and said, "Monica would have won all these titles, let's jsut give her credit for them".
The person who gained the most fron the Seles stabbing was Graf. Before the stabbing Monica led Steffi 3-1 in Slam finals.

samn
Feb 7th, 2012, 08:49 AM
The person who gained the most fron the Seles stabbing was Graf. Before the stabbing Monica led Steffi 3-1 in Slam finals.

Actually the people who gained the most from the Seles stabbing were the makers of ice cream, cookies, potato crisps, pizzas, cakes, doughnuts, and butter. :tape: :devil:

Sam L
Feb 7th, 2012, 12:46 PM
Actually the people who gained the most from the Seles stabbing were the makers of ice cream, cookies, potato crisps, pizzas, cakes, doughnuts, and butter. :tape: :devil:
You ... :fiery:

Rollo
Feb 7th, 2012, 01:46 PM
Be nice everyone:)

And please read:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=411575

Clijsters28
Feb 8th, 2012, 02:24 AM
1. Graf
2. Hingis
3. Seles
4. Sabatini
5. Sanchez

Those are my top 5. Yeah Seles won more slams then Hingis and Sanchez more than Sabatini but it is about more then that. Hingis had 3 great years on top the womens game, Seles only 2. Hingis also owned Seles which gives her the nod. Sabatini was held back by Graf and Seles at their peak. Sanchez got lucky a number of times.

Joseosu19
Feb 8th, 2012, 03:00 AM
1. Graf
2. Hingis
3. Seles
4. Sabatini
5. Sanchez

Those are my top 5. Yeah Seles won more slams then Hingis and Sanchez more than Sabatini but it is about more then that. Hingis had 3 great years on top the womens game, Seles only 2. Hingis also owned Seles which gives her the nod. Sabatini was held back by Graf and Seles at their peak. Sanchez got lucky a number of times.
Disagree completely...Hingis won one slam in 98 and one in 99...certainly can make the argument that she was the best player in those years (although Davenport won player of the year award in both 98 and 99, I believe), but she was in no ways the clear dominant player of those years. That gives her 97 only. Total she took in 5 slams.
Seles was clearly the best in both 91 and 92, winning 3 slams in each year. She won 8 slams, was probably the 2nd best player of 90. She was competitive in numerous years throughout the decade. Her main competition was arguably the greatest to ever play the game. Hard to see how Hingis beats her out.

Sanchez and Sabatini...We can say Sabatini has a 12-11 H2H total against Arantxa...in the 1990s that H2H is 10-4 Arantxa, though. We can say that Gabby was more dominant from 90-92 than Arantxa was during her peak. Gabriela, however, won 1 slam and was runner up in 1 more in the 90s. Arantxa was winner of 3 slams and runner up of 8 in the 90s. That's 11 GS finals vs 2 GS finals. Luck can account for some of that (if you want to believe that)...but it cannot make up a NINE grandslam final difference...

Clijsters28
Feb 8th, 2012, 03:19 AM
Comaparing Hingis to Seles going from their best year to 3rd best:

Hingis 1997 > Seles 1992. She was much more dominant overall even though both won 3 slams. Hingis after the U.S Open had lost only 2 matches all year, and won all her slams in dominant fashion, only 1 close match in the Wimbledon final.
I am pretty sure she won more tournaments as well.

Seles 1991 > Hingis 1999.

Hingis 1998 > Seles 1990. No contest, Seles had poor results at all slams except her French Open win, while Hingis made atleast semis of all 4 slams. Hingis results much better all around.

So Hingis's best and 3rd best year were both better than Seles's best and 3rd best, with only Seles's 2nd best being better than Hingis's 2nd best.



Sabatini of 90-92 is much better than Sanchez ever was, regardless the stats. She just was unlucky to face both Graf and Seles so often, superior players. Sanchez snuck in at the right times, especialy taking advantage of the post Seles stabbing period.

Calvin M.
Feb 10th, 2012, 02:49 PM
Which IS correct. Hingis was a transition champion. Once the Williams, the Belgians, Capriati and Davenport reached their near peak, Hingis stopped winning Slams

Exactly. Hingis, while enormously talented, dominated during a window where veterans were near retirement and her peers themselves hadn't hit their stride. Once her contemporaries caught up, they dismantled Hingis' crafty game and mental toughness.

irma
Feb 10th, 2012, 04:28 PM
Sabatini of 90-92 is much better than Sanchez ever was, regardless the stats. She just was unlucky to face both Graf and Seles so often, superior players. Sanchez snuck in at the right times, especialy taking advantage of the post Seles stabbing period.

How was Sabatini unlucky in facing Monica and Steffi while ASV was not? Sabatini just couldn't keep her lever after spring 1992 (well I guess her level was at it's peak in spring 1991 not 1992) while ASV was always consistent from 1990-1996 with her peak in 1994.

samn
Feb 10th, 2012, 05:46 PM
Exactly. Hingis, while enormously talented, dominated during a window where veterans were near retirement and her peers themselves hadn't hit their stride. Once her contemporaries caught up, they dismantled Hingis' crafty game and mental toughness.

I think you're all being rather unfair to Hingis. Someone suggested that she's a transitional champ because she didn't win Slams after the Williams sisters, the Belgians, Davenport, and Capriati hit their peak. Well, by that measure, I could just as easily point out that Davenport isn't that different as her last Slam (AO 2000) was only a year after Hingis's last triumph. Similarly we can argue that Capriati stopped winning Slams once Serena hit her peak.

We can play that game with every single one of them, as a matter of fact.

Henin: Only started winning when Serena and Venus got injured

Clijsters: See Henin above

Venus: Won 4 of her 7 Slams before Serena hit her peak

Did the rise of the Williams sisters render Hingis's game less effective? Sure. But when Serena hit her peak, other players like Davenport and Capriati also suffered the same fate. One would have to argue then that apart from Serena, everyone else in the post Graf/Seles era is a "transitional" champ.

Rollo
Feb 10th, 2012, 06:05 PM
I can buy into the transitional arguement to a point.

Hindsight is 20/20 tohugh.

Had Steffi Graf retired in the early 90s becasue of burning out/Monica Seles catching up in slams she might be considered a transitional champion.


Sure the Willies got better and Capriati had a resurgence in the next decade.The unanswered question with Hingis is how much her health and desire played into her results. What we don't know about Martina is how much desire she lost after 1999. Did she even recover from the trauma of Roland Garros that year and the split with her mother? Like most all of out modern champs she was a molded champ controlled by a parent.

And of course how much her foot injuries played into all of this. Or if (big if) she did dabble in drugs-that could explain a lot of the decline.

By 2002 it wasn't just that Serena was better-Hingis was worse, losing to women she would have never suffered defeats to in the late 90s. Even then she still had her days.

I'll never forget the day I saw Hingis in person whipping up on Novotna at the 1996 US Open. 2 beautiful ball strikers and all that variety. My uncle confidently predicted that Steffi would pick her apart in the semis. I told him Martina was the real deal.

What a ride she took us on.

mistymore
Feb 10th, 2012, 06:26 PM
I think you're all being rather unfair to Hingis. Someone suggested that she's a transitional champ because she didn't win Slams after the Williams sisters, the Belgians, Davenport, and Capriati hit their peak. Well, by that measure, I could just as easily point out that Davenport isn't that different as her last Slam (AO 2000) was only a year after Hingis's last triumph. Similarly we can argue that Capriati stopped winning Slams once Serena hit her peak.

We can play that game with every single one of them, as a matter of fact.

Henin: Only started winning when Serena and Venus got injured

Clijsters: See Henin above

Venus: Won 4 of her 7 Slams before Serena hit her peak

Did the rise of the Williams sisters render Hingis's game less effective? Sure. But when Serena hit her peak, other players like Davenport and Capriati also suffered the same fate. One would have to argue then that apart from Serena, everyone else in the post Graf/Seles era is a "transitional" champ.

Henin won her first slam by stopping peak Serena's slam streak so no she didnt "start winning" when Serena and Venus were injured. The remainder of most of her future slams were French Opens where peak Venus and peak Serena would get spanked by 2005-2007 Henin on clay if they ever made it to her which usually they wouldnt as they were never great clay courters, their fluke final in 2002 aside, and Henins final one was the U.S Open where she became the first women to ever beat both Williams (in straight sets no less) en route to a slam title. She never became a dominant player on all surfaces, just the dominant clay courter who won occasionally but failed to ever dominate on hard courts and indoors, which is EXACTLY what she would have been had peak Williams continued, so they are irrelevant to her success.

As for Hingis she was WAY past her best by 2002 when Serena began dominating. She was in fact already a huge headcase and struggling by 2001 when she lost all those matches in a row to Capriati. the Hingis of 1997-early 1999 would own the likes of Capriati. Hingis did not stop winning altogether when the womens game got stronger per say. She won the 98 WTA Championships, 99 Australian Open, then was set to win the 99 French, and the implosion there made her continously choke in big matches she was favored or had chances to win (eg- 2000 French vs Pierce, 2000 U.S Open vs Venus, 2001 Australian vs Capriati). It wasnt like the field blew past her in ability other than Venus on fast courts, and Davenport on hard courts who she had trouble with ever since 98 anyway.

Venus is Kim's lapdog on hard courts since 2005 now by the way. While peak Serena was already struggling with a maturing Kim on hard courts in late 2002-early 2003 and would have continued to always do so even if she remained at her best. Kim the one surface pony is only relevant on hard courts to begin with, so talking about other surfaces is moot.

Calvin M.
Feb 10th, 2012, 07:32 PM
I think you're all being rather unfair to Hingis. Someone suggested that she's a transitional champ because she didn't win Slams after the Williams sisters, the Belgians, Davenport, and Capriati hit their peak. Well, by that measure, I could just as easily point out that Davenport isn't that different as her last Slam (AO 2000) was only a year after Hingis's last triumph.

To be fair to Davenport, she wasn't the phenom, the prodigy that Hingis was. If anything, Davenport probably surpassed people's expectations while Hingis didn't completely live up to hers.

Rollo
Feb 10th, 2012, 08:03 PM
To be fair to Davenport, she wasn't the phenom, the prodigy that Hingis was. If anything, Davenport probably surpassed people's expectations while Hingis didn't completely live up to hers.

Agreed.

Davenport's story book win at the 1998 US Open was so inspirational. Linds could have been a permanent fixture in the top 20 on the edge of the top ten. Instead the "dumptruck", as some in the locker room called her, got into tip-top shape.

It must have been some sweet revenge to hold up that trophy and see those she breezed by eat crow.

A few points here and there and she could easily have bagged 5 plus slams.

Two things related to Lindsay I'd like to get more background on are these:

How she told her Dad (he was a star volleyball player-right/) to shove it when he tried to be a typical tennis parent. Did he start out controlling everything like most tennis parents and she cut the strings loose earlier than most? Or did this come due to the divorce of her parents?

Why didn't she get along with Graf? For whatever reason I recall some bad blood here-nothing major-but the two most definitely were not warm and fuzzy.

Clijsters28
Feb 10th, 2012, 08:34 PM
How was Sabatini unlucky in facing Monica and Steffi while ASV was not? Sabatini just couldn't keep her lever after spring 1992 (well I guess her level was at it's peak in spring 1991 not 1992) while ASV was always consistent from 1990-1996 with her peak in 1994.

As others have already pointed out ASV did not face Seles when winning her slams. Her golden years from 93-95 came when Seles wasnt even playing tennis. The Seles she beat in the 98 FO final was nothing like the pre stabbing version.

Sanchez was luckier than Sabatini as far as when she peaked. This cant be denied by anyone rational or remotedly smart, especialy when many in this thread are trying to paint Hingis with that brush, but it applies to Sanchez Vicario even more. Sabatini happened to play her best tennis only in years that the competition was super strong each year. Sanchez played her best tennis in years the competition was not so much. Not her fault, you can only play who is front of you, but I still think Gaby at her best is the better tennis player which is why I ranked her ahead.

Rollo
Feb 10th, 2012, 09:00 PM
As others have already pointed out ASV did not face Seles when winning her slams. Her golden years from 93-95 came when Seles wasnt even playing tennis. The Seles she beat in the 98 FO final was nothing like the pre stabbing version.

Sanchez was luckier than Sabatini as far as when she peaked. This cant be denied by anyone rational or remotedly smart, especialy when many in this thread are trying to paint Hingis with that brush, but it applies to Sanchez Vicario even more. Sabatini happened to play her best tennis only in years that the competition was super strong each year. Sanchez played her best tennis in years the competition was not so much. Not her fault, you can only play who is front of you, but I still think Gaby at her best is the better tennis player which is why I ranked her ahead.

For the most part I agree Clijsters. Still-they are equal in Grand Slams wins during the "tough" years. Sanchez's 1989 upset at the French denied Steffi a Grand Slam, surely just as valid as Gaby's 1990 win.

Sabatini was more dangerous indoors (2 WTA championships bear that out),which helps your case, but any way one cuts it 4 slams trumps 2 in my book.

Always on the cusp-Gaby was poorly managed IMO. Had she played less when she was younger (as Steffi did) perhaps she would have squeezed out more slams and still been hungry in 1994 when Sanchez grabbed her chances. By 1993 Sabatini just didn't want to be there. Bet there's an interesting back stroy to that.

Of course now we are finding out ASV had her own dramas playing out.

Clijsters28
Feb 11th, 2012, 02:46 AM
For the most part I agree Clijsters. Still-they are equal in Grand Slams wins during the "tough" years. Sanchez's 1989 upset at the French denied Steffi a Grand Slam, surely just as valid as Gaby's 1990 win.

Sabatini was more dangerous indoors (2 WTA championships bear that out),which helps your case, but any way one cuts it 4 slams trumps 2 in my book.

Always on the cusp-Gaby was poorly managed IMO. Had she played less when she was younger (as Steffi did) perhaps she would have squeezed out more slams and still been hungry in 1994 when Sanchez grabbed her chances. By 1993 Sabatini just didn't want to be there. Bet there's an interesting back stroy to that.

Of course now we are finding out ASV had her own dramas playing out.

I see what you are saying. ASV undoubtably had the better career. However I interpreted this thread as who was the best player in ones opinion, not neccessarily the most achieved. I just feel Gaby at her best is a better player than ASV at her best. During the strong period both won 1 slam, but Gaby was regularly ranked higher and had more success.

I agree Gaby was poorly managed in many ways. She definitely did not put the pieces together right to fulfill her potential, and she played far too much too young which in some ways led to combat fatigue far too young, and stalled her progress.

Grafiati
Feb 11th, 2012, 03:14 PM
Agreed.

Davenport

Why didn't she get along with Graf? For whatever reason I recall some bad blood here-nothing major-but the two most definitely were not warm and fuzzy.

This is from memory: Davenport does have a quote in the press and/or a video somewhere in 1999 where she speaks well of Graf's record. However, I think that she also had a quote that was along the lines of "It seemed that every time I won against Steffi, she had an injury." I can't remember if the quote was longer or if the press framed it in a snotty way, but it came across at the time as being unwilling to come up with a real positive take on Graf's career.

Sadly, Steffi did have issues during many of the Davenport matches. At Indian Wells in 1998, she couldn't finish the match. At Stanford that summer, she cramped badly in the third set and may have had the trainer out before losing by a break. At the year-end event in '98, I think there was a leg injury that may have also required work from the trainer. Even getting into 1999, an inside source claimed that Graf was in the hospital almost all night before her Sydney loss to Davenport... I think it was for an illness and/or IV treatment... and then, at Wimbledon, Graf's injury forced her out of the mixed doubles, though she did play the singles final. It would have been nice to have seen those two play matches when both were healthier.

I don't know much about Graf's feelings towards Lindsay, but I did read that she was subdued and deferential after the Wimbledon match in respect to Davenport's accomplishment even though Graf knew it was the end of her time there.

Hope this helps.

Stef-fan
Feb 11th, 2012, 03:45 PM
This is from memory: Davenport does have a quote in the press and/or a video somewhere in 1999 where she speaks well of Graf's record. However, I think that she also had a quote that was along the lines of "It seemed that every time I won against Steffi, she had an injury." I can't remember if the quote was longer or if the press framed it in a snotty way, but it came across at the time as being unwilling to come up with a real positive take on Graf's career.

Sadly, Steffi did have issues during many of the Davenport matches. At Indian Wells in 1998, she couldn't finish the match. At Stanford that summer, she cramped badly in the third set and may have had the trainer out before losing by a break. At the year-end event in '98, I think there was a leg injury that may have also required work from the trainer. Even getting into 1999, an inside source claimed that Graf was in the hospital almost all night before her Sydney loss to Davenport... I think it was for an illness and/or IV treatment... and then, at Wimbledon, Graf's injury forced her out of the mixed doubles, though she did play the singles final. It would have been nice to have seen those two play matches when both were healthier.

I don't know much about Graf's feelings towards Lindsay, but I did read that she was subdued and deferential after the Wimbledon match in respect to Davenport's accomplishment even though Graf knew it was the end of her time there.

Hope this helps.

Not sure how much of the bad blood between Graf and Davenport is true. Back in the day, Wertheim mentioned in his mailbag that Davenport did not make it to Steffi's retirement ceremony because Graf was the only one who did not wish Davenport when she became world No:1. Doesn't make much sense for that argument as when Davenport won wimbledon in 99, Steffi for sure knew it was her last match there but did not mention it to anyone except a select few like Bud Collins. When asked later why she did not announce after the match, Steffi famously said "It was her day". That response sums up it all.

SamGoodburn
Feb 11th, 2012, 04:22 PM
I never believed that there ever that much bad blood between Graf and Davenport. Pff the media.

Stef-fan
Feb 11th, 2012, 04:42 PM
Had Steffi Graf retired in the early 90s becasue of burning out/Monica Seles catching up in slams she might be considered a transitional champion.

Rollo, have to disagree with that statement. For someone who made it to 13 GS finals straight and won a golden slam, two feats which have yet to be replicated, it would be ridiculous to call her a transitional champion even if Steffi retired in the early 90s.

That said, it is as unfair to call Hingis a transitional champion. It is not her fault if her GS wins for sandwiched between the two last two GS of Steffi's.

Rollo
Feb 11th, 2012, 05:17 PM
Thanks for all the replies folks. Maybe it was blown out of proportion. And even if it wasn't it doesn't make one or the other "bad". In a cmpetitiive environement these rivalries are natural IMO.

Posted by Stef-Fan Rollo, have to disagree with that statement. For someone who made it to 13 GS finals straight and won a golden slam, two feats which have yet to be replicated, it would be ridiculous to call her a transitional champion even if Steffi retired in the early 90s.

That said, it is as unfair to call Hingis a transitional champion. It is not her fault if her GS wins for sandwiched between the two last two GS of Steffi's.

Well put Stef-Fan. On reflection I'll agree with you on that.

Posted by Clijsters 28 I see what you are saying. ASV undoubtably had the better career. However I interpreted this thread as who was the best player in ones opinion, not neccessarily the most achieved. I just feel Gaby at her best is a better player than ASV at her best. During the strong period both won 1 slam, but Gaby was regularly ranked higher and had more success

100% agree that at her best Gaby has the edge. I always thought she would bag at least 1 Frenchie!

Clijsters28
Feb 11th, 2012, 11:17 PM
I dont like this transitional champion term. It should only be used in the most extreme cases, like someone like Wozniacki if she can even be said to have had an era as while she was #1 it was Clijsters and Kvitova who bagged the most success and real achievements.

Almost anyone can be called a transitional champion. For Seles or Navratilovatards Graf between the Navratilova and Seles era's, and then the Seles post stabbing disaester period until Hingis took over. Hingis between the Graf and Williams eras. For Graftards, Seles between the two Graf eras while Graf was struggling. Serena first after Hingis and Davenport dropped off and before the Henin era, then for awhile after Henin retired. Henin while Serena slumped. Evert after Court's reign was over and before Navratilova got in shape. Navratilova after Evert's dominance was over and before Graf took over.

Calvin M.
Feb 27th, 2012, 06:18 AM
Agreed.

Davenport's story book win at the 1998 US Open was so inspirational. Linds could have been a permanent fixture in the top 20 on the edge of the top ten. Instead the "dumptruck", as some in the locker room called her, got into tip-top shape.

It must have been some sweet revenge to hold up that trophy and see those she breezed by eat crow.

A few points here and there and she could easily have bagged 5 plus slams.

Two things related to Lindsay I'd like to get more background on are these:

How she told her Dad (he was a star volleyball player-right/) to shove it when he tried to be a typical tennis parent. Did he start out controlling everything like most tennis parents and she cut the strings loose earlier than most? Or did this come due to the divorce of her parents?

Why didn't she get along with Graf? For whatever reason I recall some bad blood here-nothing major-but the two most definitely were not warm and fuzzy.

Sorry for the late reply but I remember that '99 Wimbledon final was very frosty. Afterwards, read a few stories of there being no love lost between Davenport and Graf.

DennisFitz
Feb 27th, 2012, 06:51 AM
Sorry for the late reply but I remember that '99 Wimbledon final was very frosty. Afterwards, read a few stories of there being no love lost between Davenport and Graf.

Sorry, an overblown story. And fueled mostly by the revelation Graf did not send a congratulatory telegram to Lindsay when Lindsay first ascended to no. 1 on the computer. Huh?!?! Sorry, but typical of women to get riled up over some supposed "slight."

samn
Feb 28th, 2012, 01:49 PM
Sorry for the late reply but I remember that '99 Wimbledon final was very frosty. Afterwards, read a few stories of there being no love lost between Davenport and Graf.

Well, I thought the so-called rift between Davenport and Graf was mostly an invention of the press. Any alleged frostiness between them was usually attributed to three things:

1. Graf apparently was one of the (or the only) former #1 players not to send Davenport a congratulatory telegram when the latter became #1 for the first time in 1998. This reportedly irked Davenport. I don't recall Davenport saying anything of the sort in public, however, so her alleged annoyance might have been fabricated by an imaginative reporter.

2. When the press asked Davenport about Graf's health and her injuries during the 1997 Australian Open, Lindsay's response was a somewhat snippy, "She always says she's injured, but then she goes out and wins. I can't believe you media people still fall for it." Perhaps this comment got back to Graf and she was hurt/annoyed/irritated. Never mind that Graf was in pretty poor shape physically in 1997 and ended up missing half the year. (It's also interesting that Davenport, in the last few years of her career, was also permanently injured, and probably would have been furious if someone had questioned the seriousness of her injuries or even the legitimacy of her health concerns.)

3. None of the top 5 players attended Graf's retirement ceremony at Madison Square Garden. Serena and Seles didn't play the Chase that year and weren't in NYC. Venus had some sort of neck problem and chose not to attend, but Richard Williams did attend the ceremony on behalf of Venus and Serena. Hingis had a match immediately after the ceremony, so she decided to skip the celebration of her rival's career and also later complained about having had to wait for the ceremony to end before she could start her match. Davenport's explanation for missing the ceremony was that her leg had been hurting and she had therefore been getting it treated. However, she didn't leave it at that. Lindsay also felt the need to add in an unnecessarily catty aside about the absence of some of the top players: "It was weird. I guess players just didn't feel they needed to be there. None of us know Steffi that well, so it wasn't like we wanted to support a friend."

So there you have it!

gabybackhand
Mar 1st, 2012, 12:49 AM
Wow, as unneccesary as catty from Lindsay! And nothing coming from Martina at that time can surprise me, she was so obnoxious when her cockiness got in the way. Even if she had a match after the ceremony, the retirement of one of the greatest players of all time was not a meaningless thing,she could have dropped by, or if anything she could have just kept her mouth shut and make herself a service, the same for Lindsay. When you don't have anything interesting or useful to say, you better keep quiet!
But not too many players seem to be abundant in class, especially in the last decade or so.

mick1303
Mar 1st, 2012, 09:40 AM
What years are you considering? 1990-1999 or 1991-2000?


Weighted ranking for 1990-1999:
Graf,_Steffi________________19,31
Seles,_Monica_______________15,47
Sanchez_Vicario,_Arantxa____13,27
Hingis,_Martina_____________12,31
Martinez,_Conchita__________11,35
Novotna,_Jana_______________10,64
Davenport,_Lindsay__________10,31
Sabatini,_Gabriela___________9,73
Navratilova,_Martina_________9,63
Pierce,_Mary_________________8,31

Weighted ranking for 1991-2000:
Graf,_Steffi________________19,07
Seles,_Monica_______________15,70
Hingis,_Martina_____________14,61
Sanchez_Vicario,_Arantxa____14,17
Davenport,_Lindsay__________12,35
Martinez,_Conchita__________12,19
Novotna,_Jana_______________10,86
Williams,_Venus______________9,89
Pierce,_Mary_________________9,44
Sabatini,_Gabriela___________9,38

justineheninfan
Mar 1st, 2012, 11:53 PM
It is pretty simple:

1. Graf (if we go strictly by results)
1. Seles (if we take into account the stabbing)

3. Hingis
4. Sanchez Vicario (no argument for Sanchez being over Hingis, sorry, to argue so is purely delusional)
5. Davenport
6. Sabatini (more talented than Sanchez and Davenport but not the results)
7. Novotna
8. Martinez
9. Pierce (with 2000s results added career is superior to Novotna or Martinez but this is a 90s thread)
10. Any one of a bunch of players, Navratilova maybe

justineheninfan
Mar 1st, 2012, 11:54 PM
1. Seles
2. Graf
3. Sanchez Vicario
4. Sabatini
5. Martinez
6. Novotna
7. Hingis
8. Davenport
9. Pierce
10. Majoli

I truly hope you are trying to pull a joke or something. Surely this cant be a serious list. Or maybe you are just placing who you think are the top 10 in chronological order, rather than the order from best to worst, is that it?

MistyGrey
Mar 2nd, 2012, 07:10 PM
Well, I thought the so-called rift between Davenport and Graf was mostly an invention of the press. Any alleged frostiness between them was usually attributed to three things:

1. Graf apparently was one of the (or the only) former #1 players not to send Davenport a congratulatory telegram when the latter became #1 for the first time in 1998. This reportedly irked Davenport. I don't recall Davenport saying anything of the sort in public, however, so her alleged annoyance might have been fabricated by an imaginative reporter.

2. When the press asked Davenport about Graf's health and her injuries during the 1997 Australian Open, Lindsay's response was a somewhat snippy, "She always says she's injured, but then she goes out and wins. I can't believe you media people still fall for it." Perhaps this comment got back to Graf and she was hurt/annoyed/irritated. Never mind that Graf was in pretty poor shape physically in 1997 and ended up missing half the year. (It's also interesting that Davenport, in the last few years of her career, was also permanently injured, and probably would have been furious if someone had questioned the seriousness of her injuries or even the legitimacy of her health concerns.)

3. None of the top 5 players attended Graf's retirement ceremony at Madison Square Garden. Serena and Seles didn't play the Chase that year and weren't in NYC. Venus had some sort of neck problem and chose not to attend, but Richard Williams did attend the ceremony on behalf of Venus and Serena. Hingis had a match immediately after the ceremony, so she decided to skip the celebration of her rival's career and also later complained about having had to wait for the ceremony to end before she could start her match. Davenport's explanation for missing the ceremony was that her leg had been hurting and she had therefore been getting it treated. However, she didn't leave it at that. Lindsay also felt the need to add in an unnecessarily catty aside about the absence of some of the top players: "It was weird. I guess players just didn't feel they needed to be there. None of us know Steffi that well, so it wasn't like we wanted to support a friend."

So there you have it!

Sums it up perfectly, although as a Pierce fan, I feel its my duty to mention that Mary was ranked 5th during the YEC 99, and she did infact show up at Steffi's ceremony. So yea, one top five player did attend the ceremony! :lol: :lol:

But Lindsay and Steffi were so friendly during the Indian Wells exho in 2010. Its clear they have sorted out whatever little differences they had. Also, in 2007/2008, Lindsay called Steffi the GOAT, so...