PDA

View Full Version : Could Kournikova or Golovin have won a Grand Slam?


Ciarán
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:34 PM
Having a bit of an argument with a fellow TF poster on MSN, who shall remain unnamed for the mean time as these claims are absolutely hysterical in my mind. He argues that had Kournikova and Golovin remained uninjured; they would have won 'at least a couple' of Grand Slams.

Your thoughts? I'm a resounding 'No. Never.'. While both were good players; there were at least 10 others capable of beating them easily at all times. They were miles behind the best of both of their respective generations. This is purely speculation, but in my mind, neither achieved anything close to even suggesting a Grand Slam title.

Dav.
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:37 PM
Well, considering the career Golovin had by her last healthy match (at age 19, ranked 12th with no points to defend) and the way in which the tour has evolved to one where teenagers achieve very little and those in their late 20s are peaking, she probably would have had a very established career. At most, one or two slams could have been possible. She never really was able to show her true potential since injuries kept her out of the tour most of the year (except 2004). No way to tell. :shrug:

Kournikova's game wasn't improving since her teenage years so there is no way she would have won a large event.

Olórin
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:37 PM
Kournikova: obviously not. She couldn't win a tier two title. And she played some of her best tennis in 1998 when the field was probably at one of its all-time weakest points. I suppose she could have if she'd been given Myskina's draw at the FO 2004, but so could have most top 10 players.

Impossible to tell with Golovin because her career ended so early, like Vaidisova. Might have won a slam (Schiavone did), might never have made another semi-final.

Tennis Fool
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:38 PM
Kournikova, yes, if she weren't challenged by Hingis, and before she became a total headcase.
Golovin-she probably would sneak one in, or become a bridesmaid.

Volcana
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:38 PM
Golovin? No chance.

Kournikova, if she had gotten past the mental block she had about winning tournaments? (A HUGE 'if') Still no. The players around same age as her were too good. But she'd have seen s few slam semis. Put it this way. She had as much talent as Myskina, so things could have fallen her way.

Dav.
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:40 PM
Kournikova: obviously not. She couldn't win a tier two title. And she played some of her best tennis in 1998 when the field was probably at one of its all-time weakest points.

Impossible to tell with Golovin because her career ended so early, like Vaidisova. Might have won multiple slams, might never have made another semi-final.

Exactly.

It's kind of hard to answer the poll since it doesn't differentiate between the two and I only think one would...and is it saying "could?" Because the "Yes, for sure" makes it sound like it means they definitely would.

BartoliBabes
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:41 PM
Having a bit of an argument with a fellow TF poster on MSN, who shall remain unnamed for the mean time as these claims are absolutely hysterical in my mind. He argues that had Kournikova and Golovin remained uninjured; they would have won 'at least a couple' of Grand Slams.

Your thoughts? I'm a resounding 'No. Never.'. While both were good players; there were at least 10 others capable of beating them easily at all times. They were miles behind the best of both of their respective generations. This is purely speculation, but in my mind, neither achieved anything close to even suggesting a Grand Slam title.

Kournikova couldn't win a singles title nevermind a grand slam:confused:

and Golovin never really showed much of a challenge either, she didn't make the top10 or advance further than a quarter-final of a grandslam:help:

how someone can say something like that and be so assured about it is beyond me:lol:

Tennis Fool
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:42 PM
Kournikova: obviously not. She couldn't win a tier two title. And she played some of her best tennis in 1998 when the field was probably at one of its all-time weakest points.

Impossible to tell with Golovin because her career ended so early, like Vaidisova. Might have won a slam (Schiavone did), might never have made another semi-final.

Exactly.
Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

Ciarán
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:43 PM
Well, considering the career Golovin had by her last healthy match (at age 19) and the way in which the tour has evolved to one where teenagers achieve very little and those in their late 20s are peaking, she probably would have had a very established career. At most, one or two slams could have been possible. She never really was able to show her true potential since injuries kept her out of the tour most of the year (except 2004). :shrug:

Kournikova's game wasn't improving since her teenage years so there is no way she would have won a large event.

Actually; she was of generation Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Ivanovic and a respective mention to non-slam winners Chakvetadze and Vaidisova who achieved a top 5 and top 10 rankings. All of these players achieved big at a young age (younger than when Tati retired).

Dav.
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:44 PM
Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

Yes, but, contrary to Golovin, Anna's game was declining so even if her back injury had not been chronic, she likely would not have had a career development.

Tennis Fool
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:46 PM
Yes, but, contrary to Golovin, Anna's game was declining so even if her back injury had not been chronic, she likely would not have had a career development.
Yeah, her chances were in 1997 and 1998, but it was still her window of opportunity if not for Hingis.

Olórin
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:46 PM
Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

What is your point? You want us to go back in time and stop Hingis from being born. Thank god for Hingis otherwise the standard of play for the Grand Slams in 1997 would have been abominably low and players who couldn't even win ordinary titles with YEARS on the tour would have been getting their maiden titles at slams.

BlueTrees
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:47 PM
I think Golovin would at least reach a few finals/semifinals for sure. She was really starting to break through in the 2007 indoor season. A real shame what happened to her :tears:

Tennis Fool
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:48 PM
What is your point?
I think I've made my point, several times. I disagree with your point about the lack of depth on the tour in the late 1990s.

Dav.
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:50 PM
I think Golovin would at least reach a few finals/semifinals for sure. She was really starting to break through in the 2007 indoor season. A real shame what happened to her :tears:

And the reason her retirement age is important because you see players like Schiavone, Stosur and Li Na (who had nothing like the teenage career Tati did) winning slams and staying in the top-10 now. That's why you cannot say for certain she never would have won anything. :shrug:

ToopsTame
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:51 PM
Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

Kournikova lost to lots of people besides Hingis in those years. Venus, Davenport, Seles, Huber, Novotna, Martinez, Coetzer etc. It's not comparable to Roddick's best years at all. In Roddick's case he was a solid top 3 player and was losing mainly to Federer. Kournikova had many other players who could beat her. By 1999 Serena arrived, by 2001 Kim, Justine and Capriati 2.0, by 2004 the other Russians were peaking. Kournikova would've had lots of problems with all those players.

BartoliBabes
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

ok just shut up now:help:

Vincey!
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Golovin is hard to tell cuz she had to "retired" when she was at her peak so who knows where she would have gone. Kournikova I don't think so, she never won a title and rarely beat big top 5 of that time.

Sean.
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:55 PM
Kournikova, yes.
Golovin, hell no!

ToopsTame
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:55 PM
And the reason her retirement age is important because you see players like Schiavone, Stosur and Li Na (who had nothing like the teenage career Tati did) winning slams and staying in the top-10 now. That's why you cannot say for certain she never would have won anything. :shrug:

But then you can't say that about anybody then. It's always possible that someone will have a surprise late in their career. We can say it wasn't likely though. If anything, players who had success very early in their careers, tend to drop off and never attain the same heights again (Cornet, Sprem, Dokic, Peer, Szavay, Chakvetadze, Bovina etc.)

Tennis Fool
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:56 PM
ok just shut up now:help:
Hater :ras:

Dav.
Sep 5th, 2012, 10:59 PM
But then you can't say that about anybody then. It's always possible that someone will have a surprise late in their career. We can say it wasn't likely though. If anything, players who had success very early in their careers, tend to drop off and never attain the same heights again (Cornet, Sprem, Dokic, Peer, Szavay, Chakvetadze, Bovina etc.)

Yeah, but we're talking about what would have happened without injuries. Almost every single girl on that last missed their peak years because of injuries (save for Peer and Cornet).

BartoliBabes
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:01 PM
Hater :ras:

i don't think i am
Roddick is a grand slam winner and a former world no.1
there's no comparison:help:

Kournikova was a pretty good player and did have a few good results,
but c'mon don't get ahead of yourself:lol:

young_gunner913
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:09 PM
Kournikova win a slam?! :spit: She couldn't even win a singles title period.

Golovin, possibly. She'll always be a question mark. But I will say she is vastly overrated on this forum regardless.

*JR*
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:13 PM
Schnyder Dislikes Kournikova :devil:

STEPHANIE VAN DEN BERG , Associated Press
AP News Archive May. 29, 1999 12:41 PM ET

PARIS (AP) _ Anna Kournikova may be adored by the French fans, but she's not so well-liked by No. 11-seeded Patty Schnyder.

That's putting it mildly. The 20-year old Swiss player said after losing her match Saturday with the Russian star that she played badly because she so dislikes Kournikova.

``I have a problem playing her,'' Schnyder said. When asked if the problem was personal, she nodded in the affirmative.

This isn't the first time Schnyder's disike for Kournikova has affected her play. In April the two played each other in Florida at the Bausch & Lomb Championships and Schnyder seemed to tank the match.

``I hate playing (Kournikova) and I don't play if I'm on the court with her,'' said Schnyder afterward. ``It's her ... and everything around her.''

Vaidisova
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:14 PM
No

saint2
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:15 PM
Today ? Why not. I know Kournikova never won a single title, but neither did Schiavone till she was 27- Kournikova retired at 21. Its the Era when scrubs of yesterday became champions of today.

Miracle Worker
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:24 PM
Kournikova - yes.
Golovina - no.

Trey
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:25 PM
Kournikova win a slam?! :spit: She couldn't even win a singles title period.

Golovin, possibly. She'll always be a question mark. But I will say she is vastly overrated on this forum regardless.

This

Golovin might have gotten one, But I for sure Golovin would been an top 10 player, Kournikova Hell No, But if any names that should be brought up who could've who a slam is Vaidisova, Dementieva & Safina (if she would stayed injury free.

Viktymise
Sep 5th, 2012, 11:32 PM
Big no on both.

pov
Sep 6th, 2012, 12:20 AM
There's always a possibility. So "could"? Yes. That's so for any player. But very unlikely that they would have.

Smitten
Sep 6th, 2012, 12:24 AM
I thought we had 8 more months before the typical Golovin delusion.

I'm already readying "a FEW finals" and "yes." :rolls:

Vespertine69
Sep 6th, 2012, 12:42 AM
Pretty loose question - I mean they both *could* have won a slam, but I think Golovin is the more likely candidate although it is so hard to say when someone has such a short career and all you can do is speculate.

On another topic, why do people seem to think Myskina had some form of cake draw for her French Open title? Sure the final vs Dementieva was a wash out because Elena had a meltdown, but Kuznetsova/Venus/Capriati/Dementieva is hardly a weak final 4 opponents. That season Venus was having a great clay season; won Charleston and Warsaw and withdrew from the final of Berlin. Her QF loss to Myskina was her only loss on clay that year. Capriati was in decline as a force, sure, but she was still ranked #6, and a multiple slam winner who played well on clay and who had beaten Myskina comfortably just a few weeks earlier in Berlin (from memory it was 3 and 2, but it was routine for sure.) Kuznetsova was slamless at this point, admittedly, but she was already a notably good performer on clay and backed this up with strong results at the FO for the next few years.

Myskina winning the FO was a surprise, because usually she didn't play especially well on clay (I'd bet that clay is her worst win/loss ratio surface but would need to check) - but she had a great fortnight and beat legitimate players. I don't see what's cakewalkish about beating #11/#9/#6/#10 consecutively. It's not the hardest draw in the history of the sport, but it's really far from being the easiest. Do people really think Ivanovic beating Cetkovska/Schnyder/Jankovic/Safina is more impressive? Or Schiavone beating Kirilenko/Wozniacki/Dementieva(ret)/Stosur? I'm not trying to say anyone else doesn't deserve their slam or really to choose who had the "easiest" draw, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone could deduce that Myskina had a cakewalk draw.

Sammo
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:26 AM
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.

matty
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:31 AM
I think Golovin could have.

KournikovaFan91
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:59 AM
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.

This is why I think Anna could in theory have won a slam. Novotna was a headcase and eventually won a slam also at the end of her career.

Not to mention Kournikova would have picked up a WTA title had she had a longer career. She rarely played anything lower than a Tier 2 and lost in most tournaments to top players like Seles, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Hingis, Capriati etc.

Her loss to Smashnova was the title she should most certainly have won however the amount of pressure to win was too much, but had she played a few more years I reckon she'd have picked up a few titles, not tons but a handful.

Anna may not have been the best of her generation but in terms of ability would probably be Top 5 in this generation. :shrug:

justineheninfan
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:07 AM
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.

Schiavone atleast kept the ball in play, and atleast played with a brain, both things completely foreign to Anna Kournikova (and to a lesser degree Golovin). Even Schiavone is also a hard thing to sell for someone who in her career regularly got drubbed by Anna Smashanova who is basically just an even shorter version of Schiavone with less craft.

KournikovaFan91
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:12 AM
:rolleyes:

Kournikova leads the Smashnova H2H and of the 2 losses Anna was ranked World No. 77 in Auckland and of course the second was the Shanghai final.

Admittedly the Auckland loss to Smashnova also in a way denied Anna a title, very likely she could have beaten Panova although with the amount of pressure on her I'm not sure. Even more embarassing is she managed to take Serena to 3 sets a week later in Sydney but couldn't beat Smashnova in Auckland :sad:

Volcana
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:14 AM
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.Playing literally the match of her life, then backed it up by making the finals the next year. She showed you absolutely the talent was there.

Schiavone is the prefect example of maximizing potential. Kournikova, probably the perfect example of minimizing it. Golovin? Such a short career, she never had a chance to show what she could be. She won two titles, and once made a slam QF. You can't make a theoretical slam winner out of that.

Patrick345
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:32 AM
Kournikova: obviously not. She couldn't win a tier two title. And she played some of her best tennis in 1998 when the field was probably at one of its all-time weakest points. I suppose she could have if she'd been given Myskina's draw at the FO 2004, but so could have most top 10 players.

Really? Kournikova could beat Sveta, Venus, Capriati and Dementieva in a row? Or was there another 2004 FO that I missed. :confused:

KournikovaFan91
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:33 AM
Really? Kournikova could beat Sveta, Venus, Capriati and Dementieva in a row? Or was there another 2004 FO that I missed. :confused:

She leads both the Capriati and Dementieva H2H so only Sveta and Venus would have been a problem :angel:

Brad[le]y.
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:37 AM
Really? Kournikova could beat Sveta, Venus, Capriati and Dementieva in a row? Or was there another 2004 FO that I missed. :confused:

Do you have any idea how badly the last three of those names played? :lol: All of them made 30+ UEs in quick two set matches.

Patrick345
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:38 AM
She leads both the Capriati and Dementieva H2H so only Sveta and Venus would have been a problem :angel:

Yeah an 0-9 problem. :p

dragonflies
Sep 6th, 2012, 02:56 AM
Schnyder Dislikes Kournikova :devil:

STEPHANIE VAN DEN BERG , Associated Press
AP News Archive May. 29, 1999 12:41 PM ET

PARIS (AP) _ Anna Kournikova may be adored by the French fans, but she's not so well-liked by No. 11-seeded Patty Schnyder.

That's putting it mildly. The 20-year old Swiss player said after losing her match Saturday with the Russian star that she played badly because she so dislikes Kournikova.

``I have a problem playing her,'' Schnyder said. When asked if the problem was personal, she nodded in the affirmative.

This isn't the first time Schnyder's disike for Kournikova has affected her play. In April the two played each other in Florida at the Bausch & Lomb Championships and Schnyder seemed to tank the match.

``I hate playing (Kournikova) and I don't play if I'm on the court with her,'' said Schnyder afterward. ``It's her ... and everything around her.''




Poor crazy hair, so not confident about her own beauty. She couldn't stand Kournikova b/c Anna got all the attention and cameras always on her. Ana got hot bfs too while Patty stuck with crazy old men. Patty can do much better if she had a little patient looking around and not lower her standards too much.



Golovin and Kournikova if they didn't retire early, they could come close, but would never won a Slams. Both have talents, but even with luck, their best would not be better than the best of those players from the same generations.



An important aspect that Anna and Tati both like to be " cover girls", so their chance to work hard and sacrify their body images for better tennis results are very slim. Note that players that blooming late in their careers like Sylvia Elia, Schiavone, Dementieva, Li, Stosur, Kerber all worked very hard on their fitness and didn't mind to be " looking rough" in order to achieve better results which you won't see that in Tati or Anna.


Ivanovic has been going the same way of those two. Despite still being ambitious about competing at the top, Ana has lost a significant of weight in order to look like Victoria Secrete 's models------> losing all the power in her shots. It's understandable though, since she already making several millions a year then " looking pretty " and have better chance for some hot, handsome boyfriends would be a better choice than having some more money, but looking like Justine with Kerber's legs and having Piere Hardene (sp) as husband/ bf .:tape: ( I might just do the same thing if I were her, it's not easy to lose way and have a " top model" look), The same applied for Hingis.

KournikovaFan91
Sep 6th, 2012, 03:02 AM
I feel Kournikova had she stayed on tour would have had a Hantuchova type career possibly, a few titles staying around the Top 20 and maybe a couple of better slam showings than Dani like the odd quarter final more but thats about it.

As was point out Schiavone hadn't won a title till the age of 27. Losing her first 8 finals. :eek:

But really with Sharapova coming would it all have been worth the press conferences like if they had both played the tour at the same time the press would have been unbearable :facepalm:

dany.p
Sep 6th, 2012, 03:05 AM
Many players could win grandslams. Kournikova and Golovin both could've won grandslams. The chances of a player winning grandslams is the question. Kournikova was not impressive in the years leading up to her retirement. Maybe it was just injuries getting the better of her. The vibe i got was that she was struggling to keep up with the way the game was being played, somewhat like Hingis. I don't think she would've been a consistent threat for grandslams, there always would've been someone better in the draw.

With Golovin it's even more difficult to say. Would've been interesting to see how her career panned out.

Thanos
Sep 6th, 2012, 03:10 AM
yes.... only in porn.

ezone
Sep 6th, 2012, 04:54 AM
Golovin lost to Sharapova in 7-6, 7-6 in the quarterfinals of US Open in 1976. Sharapova won that year. Hard to say she couldn't have won a Grand Slam if she were healthy.

justineheninfan
Sep 6th, 2012, 05:03 AM
Kournikova was going downhill in a big way when she last played. Two of the last matches I saw her play was losing 6-0, 6-1 to a pre prime Henin at the Australian Open (granted she was always Henin's bitch, even ultra baby unseeded Henin crushed peak seeded Anna at the 2000 U.S Open), and losing to grass court mug Tatiana Panova at Wimbledon a week after Panova had lost to 45 year old Navratilova at Eastborne. The direction her career was going had it continued was either the challenger circuit or the I am so pretty give me a wild card to every tournament route, definitely not anywhere near the Grand Slam winning route, no matter how weak the WTA eventually got (by the time Anna would have been almost 30 and no she wouldnt have been a Schaivone or Na like late bloomer near 30 after peaking as a teenager).

As for Golovin she is harder to guage, she potentially had alot more to give, and she seemed to be still improving when she was forced to call it quits, so it is purely a guess on her to whether she was future slam material or not. However losing a match 7-6, 7-6 to eventual winner Sharapova does not indicate her having the potential to win a slam at that point. It was purely a pedestrian match that day, and Maria would have never won the title, even facing an out of form Maursmo and subpar Henin, had she played that way the next 2 rounds.

Maria4Ever
Sep 6th, 2012, 05:10 AM
Tough to say, if Anna didn't have Capriati, Hingis and Davenport she may have won 4-5 slams, she was just a little behind those and that is no shame they are all greats of the game.

mistymore
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:40 AM
Tough to say, if Anna didn't have Capriati, Hingis and Davenport she may have won 4-5 slams

The Anna myth is really hilarious. Need you people be reminded this a girl who couldnt win a single freaking TOURNAMENT, not slam, but any tournament, even a dinky tier 3 or tier 4 which bums like Testud, Panova and Medina Garrigues were winning, sometimes with Anna in the draw and of course not winning. As for those you listed being the ones to stop her, she actually has a winning record vs Capriati so Capriati was never her problem. She was already regularly getting crushed by baby Henin and baby Clijsters several years from the start of their primes though, as well as regularly losing to granny Seles, granny Conchita Martinez, and Jelena Dokic. Even these bottom end top 10/top 15 players regularly dominated her when she was at her brief own top 10/top 15 best.

Someone should be slapped silly for even contemplating Anna Pornikova as a 4 or 5 slam winner in any era. Heck they should be slapped silly for contemplating her being a 4 or 5 tournament winner in any era probably, maybe had she played in this era she could have won the 2 or 3 mickey mouses she never managed then, this only had she been born 10 years later and had her peak years today, not had she continued playing and happened to be playing today 10 years past her peak. Her peak was already long over by late 2003/early 2004, she knew it, so stopped playing. The funniest thing about this thread is it not only has delusional fanboys vastly exagerrating her prime playing abilities, but it seems to even be asking what had she kept playing for another 8 years, could she have won a slam or done this or that, when she was already washed up a good 8 years ago and struggling to any longer remain playing WTA tour level tennis at that point. Insanity.

NashaMasha
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:02 AM
For those who are sure that Anna could have never won anything significant , just check the following

Miami 1998

beat Monica Seles(4) 7-5 6-4
beat Conchita Martines (9) 6-3 6-0
beat Lindsay Davenport (2) 6-4 2-6 6-2
beat ASV (8) 3-6 6-1 6-3
lost in 3 sets to Venus Williams (11) 2-6 6-4 6-1

(now just compare this road to the Final with the one Aggie Radwanska had this year )

duhcity
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:08 AM
For those who are sure that Anna could have never won anything significant , just check the following

Miami 1998

beat Monica Seles(4) 7-5 6-4
beat Conchita Martines (9) 6-3 6-0
beat Lindsay Davenport (2) 6-4 2-6 6-2
beat ASV (8) 3-6 6-1 6-3
lost in 3 sets to Venus Williams (11) 2-6 6-4 6-1

(now just compare this road to the Final with the one Aggie Radwanska had this year )

You don't choose your draws, you can only play who is in front of you. Aga was the best player in the Miami draw this year - Anna never was.

NashaMasha
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:17 AM
You don't choose your draws, you can only play who is in front of you. Aga was the best player in the Miami draw this year - Anna never was.

i don't mean about the draw, more about the quantity of really great players . Kournikova had to face the best players of different generations ... it was a tough time ...

Now ? for top players road to QF is a Bye , for some to SF or even Final

Serena, Sharapova, Azarenka vs pushers, mental midgets , crazy ballbashers-error machines

We even have Slam winners with 3-5 WTA titles in their 10-12 year tennis careers..... unbelievable

Navratil
Sep 6th, 2012, 07:47 AM
Kournikova for sure!

Remember her run at Key Biscayne when she only lost to Venus in the final? She beat 4 Top Ten players in a row!

She was so damn talented. She could have done way better if only she could handle her nerves...

Beat
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:25 AM
it's hilarious how overrated golovin is on this board :rolls: pure nostalgia. as for kournikova: she might have been talented, but she famously never even won a title, so duh.

NashaMasha
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:39 AM
but she famously never even won a title, so duh.

Sam Stosur won only 2 small titles at the age of 25 to win at 27 US Open

bobito
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:54 AM
I think Golovin would at least reach a few finals/semifinals for sure. She was really starting to break through in the 2007 indoor season. A real shame what happened to her :tears:

Agreed. Golovin's last two results before injury at the end of 2007 were:
STUTTGART - Beat Chakvetadze, Bonderenko & Kuznetsova before losing 2-6 6-2 6-1 to Henin in the final.
ZURICH - Beat Kirilenko, Ivanovic, Bartoli & Schiavone before losing 6-4 6-4 to Henin in the final.
When injury hit Golovin had just played the best tennis of her career to date and was putting up a decent fight against Henin, which was more than anyone else was doing at the time. Would she have won slams had injury not intervened? Impossible to say but the potential to do so was undoubtedly there and she looked to be fulfilling it.

Kournikova was an entirely different case. By the time she had injury problems she already had a much bigger issue that would have ruled out any possibility of winning a slam - she had the yips on her serve. If you are serving 30 double faults in a match, bouncing serves twice into the net, hitting the backboard on the full or just missing the umpire then you are not going to win a grand slam.

chuvack
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:03 AM
This poll is a fail. They are different style players from different eras and have no business being lumped in the same poll.

I would answer yes for Golovin and no for Kournikova.

Talula
Sep 6th, 2012, 09:12 AM
:sobbing:

I would be ecstatic just to have them both playing. Miss them terribly:sad:

Zin
Sep 6th, 2012, 10:23 AM
While both were good players; there were at least 10 others capable of beating them easily at all times. They were miles behind the best of both of their respective generations.

What??
Golovin was with Vaidisova the best from her generation. She had just turned 20 years old and was ranked #13 when she retired (and she hadn't even played a full season, missing Roland Garros). Azarenka and Radwanska weren't even in the top 30 when both Golovin and Vaidisova were top 15. Of course nobody can say how far Golovin could have gone and if she would have won a Grand Slam or not but you really can't say she was miles behind the best of her generation.

Ciarán
Sep 6th, 2012, 11:42 AM
This poll is a fail. They are different style players from different eras and have no business being lumped in the same poll.

I would answer yes for Golovin and no for Kournikova.

Mother f****r; I KNOW you did not. When did I compare playing styles? I also acknowledged the generational differences in my opening post. I also mentioned (which you seemed to have missed) that a fellow poster stated them both as potential slam winners (obviously from being a fan of both), not that he predicted them being slam winners because they played similar games and most certainly not because they were of the same generation. Open your eyes before you run that sewer again chile.

What??
Golovin was with Vaidisova the best from her generation. She had just turned 20 years old and was ranked #13 when she retired (and she hadn't even played a full season, missing Roland Garros). Azarenka and Radwanska weren't even in the top 30 when both Golovin and Vaidisova were top 15. Of course nobody can say how far Golovin could have gone and if she would have won a Grand Slam or not but you really can't say she was miles behind the best of her generation.

Are you serious? A generation is not someone with the same year of birth. A generation is usually the period of 5 years to a decade (though probably closer to 5 in tennis terms). This includes: Sharapova, Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, Safina, Jankovic and Chakvetadze to name but a few. All of whom achieved more. Golovin was up there for a while yes, but as I mentioned: Nicole was better at the time. So, surely she should be deemed more eligible to win a slam ahead of Tatiana (your comparison)? Which is ludicrous because Nicole lacked the consistency and hunger to go that far. Both were flash in the pans. Nicole's top 10 should still be more likely of a slam than Golovin's highest ranking of 12. So, she just turned 20, huh? Well, of her generation; Sharapova had won Wimbledon at 17 years old, YEC, been #1 in the world and was on the verge of the Australian Open. Ivanovic was about to win RG and had already contested 2 Grand Slam finals at 20 years old. Kuznetsova had won the USO at 19 years old. Chakvetadze was top 5 at 20 years old.

I wish posters would stop comparing generations to generations. They're completely different games and you cannot say that someone 'would win a slam during X era'. It's ridiculous. What's more ridiculous is the constant write off of this generation, when it is in fact one of the deepest. Just remember; in approximately ten years time you will be longing for this generation again. I for one think it's heating up to be quite special with Sharapova and Serena achieving so much. Not to mention stars of the future like Azarenka, Kvitova and Wozniacki. Y'all are speculating too much. Look at the cold hard facts and grow the fuck up. Tatiana never was, was never going to be and never will be anything significant. Will she even be remembered? For her red knickers at Wimbledon, yes. For her tennis? Never.

Andy.
Sep 6th, 2012, 11:57 AM
What??
Golovin was with Vaidisova the best from her generation. She had just turned 20 years old and was ranked #13 when she retired (and she hadn't even played a full season, missing Roland Garros). Azarenka and Radwanska weren't even in the top 30 when both Golovin and Vaidisova were top 15. Of course nobody can say how far Golovin could have gone and if she would have won a Grand Slam or not but you really can't say she was miles behind the best of her generation.

Sharapova???

charmedRic
Sep 6th, 2012, 12:34 PM
Anna K could have pulled a Chris O'Neil and just won one title, Wimbledon. BAM!

Zin
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:01 PM
Tatiana never was, was never going to be and never will be anything significant.

How can you be sure that she was never going to be anything significant?
I know that a generation does not mean "born the same year" but as you say I can't compare Golovin to Ivanovic or Sharapova who, although being only one year older than her, achieved much more before turning 20 but I can compare her to today's top players Azarenka or Radwanska (only one year younger) who achieved more or less the same as her at the same age. It's obviously impossible to say where she would have been now if she hadn't retired but there is also no reason to say "she would never have won a grand slam, no way".

chuvack
Sep 6th, 2012, 01:14 PM
I think I've made my point, several times. I disagree with your point about the lack of depth on the tour in the late 1990s.

Correct, as the strength of the tour around that time was one of the reasons Kourni ran into trouble.

justineheninfan
Sep 6th, 2012, 04:43 PM
Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

Sorry but had to laugh at this one. What big titles would she have won without Hingis pray tell. Wimbledon 97? Novotna would have spanked her silly, she owned Anna, heck Anna couldnt even beat a choking Novotna on CLAY at next years French when she had improved more, and was far and away a better grass player (should have beaten Hingis in the final too but choked). Australian Open 98? She might have reached the quarters then got spanked by Pierce who made her eat a bagel at the same event the next year. No others she met Hingis at. Even with as weak as the field was in 97-early 98 there were still so many players better than Anna. Davenport, Novotna, Coetzer, Martinez, Sanchez Vicario (though she was a decent matchup for Anna I will admit), Venus, young Serena, Pierce, Seles, Majoli on slower courts, Spirlea. She lost the vast majority of matches to almost all those women, in addition to posting weaker results on tour. She was not going to take over the tour or win anything big even without Hingis. Had Hingis not existed this is who would have won her slams, and maybe some she didnt win but factored in:

1997 Australian- Pierce or Fernandez
1997 French- Seles (I think she beats Majoli probably)
1997 Wimbledon- Novotna, 110% for sure, she crushes Sanchez or Kournikova in a one sided final
1997 U.S Open- depends on the draw, could be any of Novotna, Davenport, Spirlea, or Seles, highly doubt it is Venus. If Jana somehow avoids Davenport or doesnt choke like the end of their quarterfinal probably her.
1998 Australian Open- depends on the draw. If Davenport avoids Martinez than her, if Venus avoids Davenport than her, if neither of those things happen then definitely Pierce.
1998 French- depends on draw, but quite likely Seles. I think her loss to Sanchez in the final here was a bit flukish with how it played out, and I doubt Sanchez even reaches the final with any other draw this year. Could also be Venus.
1999 Australian- Mauresmo or Pierce, although if Davenport doesnt run into buzzsaw version of Mauresmo in semis could be her.

Either way Kournikova does not enter the possible winners of any of those.

babsi
Sep 6th, 2012, 05:09 PM
There were two Anna's
Before and after Eastbourne 1998, that injury ended any hopes of what she could potentially do. She had a couple of good tournaments and wins after that but her level of play didn't reach what she had done before.

In the first half of 98 she defeated Seles, Martinez, Davenport, Sanchez Vicario, Hingis and Graf. Watch some of those wins and you will see that she could have done it.

Joe.
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:31 PM
Kournikova- no.

Tati- yes. :sobbing:

jameshazza
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Tati I view as a possibility, Kournika clearly not.

Sweety Darling
Sep 6th, 2012, 06:53 PM
Kournikova yes, Golovin no chance - that girl had zero talent.

donniedarkofan
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:29 PM
Kournikova lost to lots of people besides Hingis in those years. Venus, Davenport, Seles, Huber, Novotna, Martinez, Coetzer etc. It's not comparable to Roddick's best years at all. In Roddick's case he was a solid top 3 player and was losing mainly to Federer. Kournikova had many other players who could beat her. By 1999 Serena arrived, by 2001 Kim, Justine and Capriati 2.0, by 2004 the other Russians were peaking. Kournikova would've had lots of problems with all those players.

Guess what? Kournikova had wins over Davenport, Seles, Martinez, Coetzer, Hingis, Kim and Capriati 2.0. Her tennis skills were great and were enough to win a slam in 1997 or 1998, it's just her head that was getting her in trouble. Yeah, Kournikova would have lots of problems, but it's not like she didn't beat them.

donniedarkofan
Sep 6th, 2012, 08:53 PM
Tough to say, if Anna didn't have Capriati, Hingis and Davenport she may have won 4-5 slams, she was just a little behind those and that is no shame they are all greats of the game.

She didn't have any problems beating Capriati - she did it multiple times since Jennifer's return in 2000, she had a win over Hingis and wins over Davenport, Martinez, S Vicario, Graf, Seles and many others top 5 players. She was defintiely a better player than Golovin and most definitely she achieved more in Miami 1998 than Radwanska in Miami 2012.