PDA

View Full Version : Who will become the 14th #1 player in history?


Oizo
Nov 3rd, 2003, 12:02 AM
I predicted, that Kim will become the 12th player, who reaches the #1 in the ranking history. Justine was the 13th, and the question is: who will become the 14th woman? :)

This is a taugh one, but I think Anastasia Myskina. :)

disposablehero
Nov 3rd, 2003, 12:06 AM
I love this topic! We haven't had this topic for nearly two weeks, it's about time someone brought it back.

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 12:23 AM
That's a hard one. Last time when this topic came up, people believed (understandably) that it would be a long time before anyone replaced Serena, so you never know what will happen.

But just to go out on a limb -- my prediction is no one born before 1986

bello
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:09 AM
Somebody Russian will probably be the next newie with a stint at no. 1.

lizchris
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:19 AM
None of the Russians currently in the top 20 are strong enough to make a run for number one IMO.

Amelie and Chanda are too injury plagued to get to number one.

Look for someone outside of the current top 20 to reach number one.

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:24 AM
When you factor out the sisters, the current top 10 or so are very evenly matched. In theory any one could of them could sneak past the Belgians next year (if the sisters continue to have personal/injury problems). For example, an ascendant Nastya or an Amelie having a healthy year could do it.

BUT: My feeling is that none of the current crop who have not already made it will do so. It'll be someone younger and it won't be for a few years.

ys
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:30 AM
In one year time we will be talking about 15th one.

mattydonaldson
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:39 AM
it certainly wont come next yr, but in about 18 months times, Maria will be close. depends how her clay court game comes on. Its not too shit hot at the mo, but if over the next yr she develops that, then it wont be long

korben
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:51 AM
Very tough. It will take new no 1 to get ahead of all Clijsters,Henin-Hardenne,Williams and Williams. If at least one of them is fit... then not in near future.

My pick Petrova - has a game to do it. But more importantly attitude of non-russian player (you know...). I think she is capable to do it :worship:

korben
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:55 AM
it certainly wont come next yr, but in about 18 months times, Maria will be close. depends how her clay court game comes on. Its not too shit hot at the mo, but if over the next yr she develops that, then it wont be long

She is under age restrictions for that 18 months. Canīt expect her to grab it at age of 18. Add 12 more months and she might be there. After first full tour year :eek: I wonīt bet on that, 2007 or 2008 and then... !

disposablehero
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:56 AM
In one year time we will be talking about 15th one.

In that case, we'll be guessing two players ahead.

ys
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:59 AM
In that case, we'll be guessing two players ahead.

No, we will be praising one behind.

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:08 AM
I think Mauresmo has the game, but I question whether she'd have the mental fortitude to stay consistent all year.

Petrova might have the game, but she is 21 years old and hasn't even won a title, so it's hard to see her becoming #1.

And Myskina clearly has some mental toughs, and is likely to have continued success, but she is 22 and has never passed the qfs of a major event. It would be very surprising if she became #1.

ys
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:12 AM
And Myskina clearly has some mental toughs, and is likely to have continued success, but she is 22 and has never passed the qfs of a major event.

That is right, but before this year she never made it to quarterfinals even. And this year she made it to two of them. Meaning that she moves into the right direction. And next year she will probably be seeded for quarterfianls in Slams all year long.
Everyone was thinking that she hit her final plateau, and will only get down from there. The announcers at US Open openly questioned her Top 10 pedigree. Yet, she certainly improved quite a bit since.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:12 AM
People, people....Maria wins two tournaments while facing some Venezuelan challenger and Anniko Kapros and we want to annoint her the next no.1?! Maria was SUPPOSED to win those titles, because she was the highest ranked player both times. Me thinks some Nadya, Elena B,....will reach no.1 before Maria( if she does.)

korben
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:14 AM
I think Mauresmo has the game, but I question whether she'd have the mental fortitude to stay consistent all year.

Petrova might have the game, but she is 21 years old and hasn't even won a title, so it's hard to see her becoming #1.

Mauresmo doesnīt have it mentally (neither did Clijsters she did it anyway) Petrova has been injured too many times, can concider her as 19 year old based only on experience.

disposablehero
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:18 AM
As I said before, it WILL be 2 years, and could easily be 6.

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:23 AM
All of the 13 players who've become #1 have done remarkable things as teenagers (either reached the finals of a slam, or the WTA champs, or at least reached the top 10). There might be an exception to the rule, but I still think that if you have the stuff to be #1, that's gonna be clear early on.

Bandabou -- Maria may or may not be great, but it's pretty remarkable to win two titles when you're 16, even if the fields were weak. Many well-known players don't win two titles in their whole career, no matter what size the tournament.

ys
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:32 AM
All of the 13 players who've become #1 have done remarkable things as teenagers (either reached the finals of a slam, or the WTA champs, or at least reached the top 10). There might be an exception to the rule, but I still think that if you have the stuff to be #1, that's gonna be clear early on. Check Davenport for that rule. And all Russian players who were trained in Russia are going to be more of late bloomers, that's how the system works. Zvonareva, for instance, was playing Juniors as long as she was eligible for that. And she was steadily improving since. And she'll continue to improve.

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:33 AM
Davenport won her first title in 1993, when she was 16.

That year (when she was 17) she made the Masters.

In 1994, she won two more small titles, reached the QF at two slams and the finals of the Masters and ended the year as #6, 18 years old.

And she's considered a late bloomer! :eek:

ys
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:44 AM
Davenport won her first title in 1993, when she was 16.

That year (when she was 17) she made the Masters.

In 1994, she won two more small titles, reached the QF at two slams and the finals of the Masters and ended the year as #6, 18 years old.

And she's considered a late bloomer! :eek:

But you were talking about making Slam semis, weren't you? And as I said, in States players develop earlier and fade earlier. And Myskina lost almost two seasons because of wrist injury. Just like Petrova lost a season because of ankle injury. It happens. I don't think age is really a factor. Mind you, Jana Novotna almost made it to #1 ( I believe she was two matches away ) at age of what?

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:47 AM
Martina Navratilova is also considered a late bloomer, but in 1975, the year she turned 19, she had reached the finals of the French and Australian, the QF of Wimbledon and SF of the US, and ended the world as #4.

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 03:17 AM
Mind you, Jana Novotna almost made it to #1 ( I believe she was two matches away ) at age of what?

Ah, but the crucial word is almost! :angel:

disposablehero
Nov 3rd, 2003, 03:30 AM
And as I said, in States players develop earlier and fade earlier.

So first Lindsay is an example of players who don't do much early on, then she is an example of how Americans are always early bloomers. Which is it?

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:34 PM
So first Lindsay is an example of players who don't do much early on, then she is an example of how Americans are always early bloomers. Which is it?

:rolls: :haha: :rolls:

monicarules
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:44 PM
In my opinion Lindsay isn neither an early bloomer or a late one. an early bloomer has to bloom as early as Martina H or Jennifer did. Linsday was hyped enough when she first came on the tour in '93 and '94 at the age of 17 or 18, an age by which a lot of other players achieved more but then again she was said by many to have the potential to be a world no.1 which she did later but not as early as it was said to happen.
I guess to reach the top of the world rankings, you gotta start showing something special early in your career but doesn't have to realize it. Some players develop their games early and mature physically early and others more slowly. Players like Hingis tend to develop fast or early as her game isn't based on pure power and the likes of the Willy sisters need some time to bloom as they have to learn how to win with what they have got.
I think it's monica seles who had everything, power and finess. That's why she reached the top and still continued to improve which is a rarity for most of the other former world no.1s. If only that sta........

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 01:46 PM
yep, the sta....will remain a black hole in tennis history.

skanky~skanketta
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:16 PM
UGH, BACK THEN THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS PEOPLE!

i really have no clue. there has been an increase in depth...or maybe there just arent many good players out there othere than the top 6.

based on game alone, amelie should definitely be #1 cuz she plays great on all surfaces and has an all-around game. BUT she is too injury prone and is as mentally tough as jello. but hey, andr rod was mentally weak AND injury prone as well, but look at him now.

i doubt it'll be the russians. much as i love vera, her serve is a liability. we need to have someone powerful, like serena, someone unafraid like venus, someone with terrific defense like kim and someone who takes the sport very seriously like justine. these girls worked their butts off to get there. serena with her determination, venus and justine too. all serena did was put her mind to it. she REFUSED to lose. venus got her hitting partner to hit like the person who was her biggest threat (lindsay). justine pumped iron like there was no tomorrow and GOD knows how she developed her mental toughness!kim well, still negligible, but after the USO and that look in her face, well, i think she'll win a slam next year.she better.

so who has these qualities?we'll have to wait. maria is smart, talented and powerful enough. she may just make it.

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 02:20 PM
I don't think the age restrictions have much effect on the very best players in the game. Maybe it means less success at 15 or 16, but they can still shine when they're 18 or 19.

Venus and Martina were the last year to go unrestricted. Since then we've had these teenage successes: Serena, Anna, Kim, Justine, Jelena, Elena Dementieva, Daniela, now Vera Z. and Maria S and Sveta K, all teenagers.

Sammm
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:21 PM
Sharapova.

ys
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:49 PM
So first Lindsay is an example of players who don't do much early on, then she is an example of how Americans are always early bloomers. Which is it?

Example of both. She was late bloomer among Americans. Most of players who are trained in the States have to have an early start. And so had she. That's why she had those early results. Note that back then she was completely different player. Amazingly, a lot of her big early results came .. on clay. But her true development into what she became did happen later..

Compare how much earlier did Kournikova start to play serious game comapring to her compatriots ( Dementieva, Myskina ) of the same age who were trained in Russia. How much more is Sharapova in limelight and playing comparing to, say, Safina.

bandabou
Nov 3rd, 2003, 04:57 PM
Yep....īcause Dinara too has two titles already, but no one is really talking about her.

mishar
Nov 3rd, 2003, 05:03 PM
Lots of people talk about Dinara. She's one among the current crop of teenagers that I consider to have the most possibility of success (along with Sharapova). Any 16 year old who wins a title is worthy of much attention in my book. Dinara hasn't had her absolute breakout yet, but she's still very young.

Sharapova has gotten more publicity because of the IMG publicity machine, her looks, etc..
Also Sharapova is 1 year younger than Dinara, and ranked 20 places higher than her.

Dinara has played 26 tournaments in her career and Maria has played 16, so you can't really say Dinara plays much less. Their results are pretty comparable at this point. I have no idea who'll be better.