PDA

View Full Version : Kimiko Date vs. Amanda Coetzer vs. Anke Huber vs. Iva Majoli


CamilleVidann
Nov 5th, 2003, 02:55 AM
Which one of them has/had the best career? I think they have quite similiar careers to one another's. Iva obviously has won the FO and Anke made the AO final. Kimiko reached the semifinals at all but the U.S. Open where she reached the quarters twice. Mandy has a similar GS record to Kimiko's but a bit less all-round one.

CamilleVidann
Nov 5th, 2003, 02:56 AM
Another similiarity: their highest ranking. Amanda reached the no.3 and the others equally reached the no.4.

~CANUCK~
Nov 5th, 2003, 02:58 AM
do u honestly have nothing better to do with your life then create threads like this :rolleyes:

CamilleVidann
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:00 AM
do u honestly have nothing better to do with your life then create threads like this :rolleyes:

Shut the fuck up! I may admit some of the thread I have created were a bit stupid but this one is not asshole!

LiliaLee-Frazier
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:02 AM
Shut the fuck up! I may admit some of the thread I have created were a bit stupid but this one is not asshole!

lol..You tell her Gyyyrrrrlllll!!!! :kiss: :kiss:

Ps... Many is my girl..so u know what i think :worship:

LiliaLee-Frazier
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:02 AM
lol..You tell her Gyyyrrrrlllll!!!! :kiss: :kiss:

Ps... Many is my girl..so u know what i think :worship:

Well..my 2ND girl :lol: :kiss:

~CANUCK~
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:04 AM
lol..You tell her Gyyyrrrrlllll!!!! :kiss: :kiss:

Ps... Many is my girl..so u know what i think :worship:

im a guy :rolleyes:

LiliaLee-Frazier
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:04 AM
do u honestly have nothing better to do with your life then create threads like this :rolleyes:

Do you have honestly anything better to do than to ruin peoples good times beeeoootch? I mean your reading the threads and making an assinine reply..just CHILL and enjoy the site :lol: :lol:

LiliaLee-Frazier
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:06 AM
im a guy :rolleyes:

I figured..do u get it now ?? ;) ;) :lol:

CamilleVidann
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:08 AM
I figured..do u get it now ?? ;) ;) :lol:

FrazierFan, we seem to get along just fine. Amy is one of my absolute favorites. I fell in luv with her cuz she always did fantastic in my country.

~CANUCK~
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:09 AM
FrazierFan, we seem to get along just fine. Amy is one of my absolute favorites. I fell in luv with her cuz she always did fantastic in my country.

u get along fine becoz she is the only person the this board who likes you :lol:

CamilleVidann
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:09 AM
We could argue during hours of who is the best between the 4, but let's keep it simple: they all suck.

Well they may do. but apparently you suck more, far far more. :devil:

CamilleVidann
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:10 AM
u get along fine becoz she is the only person the this board who likes you :lol:

Chill out dude! :wavey:

Rothes
Nov 5th, 2003, 03:22 AM
Its not like this thread is bad or anything, but Camille has made repetitive threads such as these concerning Players careers, and to which some have been rather childish, you can't blame people jumping to conclusions, specially when this thread goes on the same lines.

and your not even chinese Camille.

fammmmedspin
Nov 5th, 2003, 04:09 AM
They are surprisingly similar. Anke has more titles (12?) the others have similar totals 7-9. Iva had her day in the sun the other three didn't. Anke got near several times but couldn't deal with Steffi or Monica. Amanda and Kimiko both had possible GS wins lined up but they couldn't get to the final. Amanda beat Steffi 4 times as many times as the other three managed between them. Three of them have had strange truncated careers and Amanda is still out there running.

Doraemon
Nov 20th, 2003, 10:19 AM
I think this is an interesting comparison.
They have/had very similar careers indeed.
Iva may have won a GS but apart from that she didn't anything big. Her GS records ain't that impressive nor consistent. Amanda's highest ranking has a bit to do with the time which was a transition period from Graf's reign to Hingis' and the Willy sisters were still under the feather. So, it doesn't give her an edge in my opinion. It's really hard to call who had the best career out of the four... guess had Kimiko played longer, she would have had the best one possibly...

matthias
Nov 20th, 2003, 10:37 AM
Majoli
Huber
Coetzer
Date

azza
Nov 20th, 2003, 10:38 AM
Trolls back :rolleyes:

mboyle
Nov 20th, 2003, 03:02 PM
Coetzer
Majoli
Date
Huber

spencercarlos
Nov 20th, 2003, 04:30 PM
1)Majoli 1 GS Champ
2)Anke Huber. 1 GS RU
3)Coetzer 3 GS Semifinals (more years in the top ten)
4)Date 3 GS Semifinals

Edited...!

gmak
Nov 20th, 2003, 05:10 PM
they all had similar careers but i think kimiko was the most talented...

baleineau
Nov 20th, 2003, 05:23 PM
Which one of them has/had the best career? I think they have quite similiar careers to one another's. Iva obviously has won the FO and Anke made the AO final. Kimiko reached the semifinals at all but the U.S. Open where she reached the quarters twice. Mandy has a similar GS record to Kimiko's but a bit less all-round one.

1. Anke Huber
I think Anke has the strongest credentials of these players. She was a top-10, top-15 player for a long time, almost a decade as I recall. She posted good results at the Australian Open and Roland Garros, put in decent performances against the top players, even if she lost most of the time, and won numerous titles. Good on clay, hard and carpet, and not too bad on grass.

2. Amanda Coetzer
I think Amanda has the second strongest credentials. Longevity is a factor. She's been a top-20 player for about a decade or more, but was only briefly a top-5 player or top-10 player. Gamewise she is weaker than Huber, but she was able to get more high-class wins (against Graf for example). Lack of big titles lets her down somewhat, as does her relatively weak GS record despite the numerous attempts.

3. Iva Majoli
Her best period 1994-1997 was better than Huber's best or Amanda's best without question. She looked the part of the genuine top-5 player for most of this period, and ended up winning a Slam. A great clay court player, she also won several big events, and posted good results on indoor surfaces. BUT - her peak is not compensated for by a decent off-peak. In fact, she's sucked for the most since 1997, and was only "promising" before 1994/95. If she'd kept it together for longer, we may have been able to put Majoli in the Pierce-Novotna_sabatini_martinez category.

4. Kimiko Date
A good player, of course, but her belonging in the top-5 was always shaky. Some good wins and a couple of good finishes in the Slams around 1994-1996, but apart from that, there's nothing to add really. A brief top-10 player, but not making a really lasting impression.

Joseosu19
Nov 20th, 2003, 07:59 PM
1. Iva...can't argue with a grandslam
2. Huber...always looked for her to win a grandslam, but she was never able to come through
3. Date...She had so much talent and had she kept playing I think she could've won at least one slam.
4. Amanda...This is tough to put her way down here, I think she has had an amazing career, but really she wasn't ever much of a threat to win a grandslam.
I think all four players are very close and could arguably go in any order, though.

Doraemon
Nov 20th, 2003, 08:48 PM
4. Kimiko Date
A good player, of course, but her belonging in the top-5 was always shaky. Some good wins and a couple of good finishes in the Slams around 1994-1996, but apart from that, there's nothing to add really. A brief top-10 player, but not making a really lasting impression.

Actually her stay at the top 10 wasn't that brief. She stayed there for pre much three full seasons and she never dropped out of there until her career came to an end. She's one of the very few players who ended their carrers being ranked in the top 10. She really started figuring out how to beat Steffi and Arantxa who had always been in her way on big occasions. She snapped her losing streak to Arantxa the last time they had faced (in San Diego bagelling her in the third). I really hated the reason she had to call it a quit cuz she was still improving and had yet to reached the peak of her potential. Guess WTA did make the stupid change in the ranking system which she described as some kind of Asian bashing in some TV interview. I dunno if there was any sentiment against Asian players on the tour then but regardless of the reason, it was a pity she had to end her career the way she did.

Princess Fiona
Nov 20th, 2003, 09:07 PM
We could argue during hours of who is the best between the 4, but let's keep it simple: they all suck.

:sad: *wounded*

I'm a big Anke Huber fan so maybe I'm a leeeeetle biased here... :o ;) I think they all had/have excellent careers... *wishing I could make more of a contribution to this thread* :sad: ;)

tjord00
Nov 20th, 2003, 11:14 PM
I think with all players at their best that Date would be the best. She hit SOO flat and hard and when she was on she kicked ass. Unfortunalty she wasn't on very often. I think Iva is number two though. Followed by Huber and Coetzer.

baleineau
Nov 20th, 2003, 11:18 PM
Actually her stay at the top 10 wasn't that brief. She stayed there for pre much three full seasons and she never dropped out of there until her career came to an end. She's one of the very few players who ended their carrers being ranked in the top 10.

It was brief nonetheless. And she cannot claim to have had good years surrounding her 'peak' period, unlike Huber or Coetzer.

You also raise an interesting point about 'going out at the top'. It's easy to look at players like Coetzer (and Martinez) and 'average' their achievements across the years. Coetzer's peak period 96-98 on it's own is pretty impressive, easily on a par with Huber or Date. Yet she's also had bad patches that are far worse than those endured by Huber or Coetzer. Martinez's peak period 93-96 is as outstanding as Gaby's 88-92 period, yet Gaby didn't ride out 4-5 average years from 96-00. Instead she retired and 'preserved' a high average standard. Martinez played on and reduced her overall 'average'.

Look at Seles. Some people are keen to downplay her career achievements, simply because the excellent period of 90-93 is diluted by the less successful 95-02 period. Others will say that her peak is comparable to the peak achieved by Steffi, and if she had quit altogether in 1993, they would argue that Monica's quality of career, albeit crief, was on a par with Steffi's.

Personally I favour taking the long-term look i.e. the weaker years don't detract or reduce the 'peak' years. They are bonus, "additional" years to take into account.

fammmmedspin
Nov 21st, 2003, 01:52 AM
A word for Amanda - she was the one that could beat Steffi when it mattered (albeit for only a few years) and if that long long match had had a few points with different outcomes she might have been the one lining up against Martina H in that FO final.

hey_britney
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:30 AM
It was brief nonetheless. And she cannot claim to have had good years surrounding her 'peak' period, unlike Huber or Coetzer.

You also raise an interesting point about 'going out at the top'. It's easy to look at players like Coetzer (and Martinez) and 'average' their achievements across the years. Coetzer's peak period 96-98 on it's own is pretty impressive, easily on a par with Huber or Date. Yet she's also had bad patches that are far worse than those endured by Huber or Coetzer. Martinez's peak period 93-96 is as outstanding as Gaby's 88-92 period, yet Gaby didn't ride out 4-5 average years from 96-00. Instead she retired and 'preserved' a high average standard. Martinez played on and reduced her overall 'average'.

Look at Seles. Some people are keen to downplay her career achievements, simply because the excellent period of 90-93 is diluted by the less successful 95-02 period. Others will say that her peak is comparable to the peak achieved by Steffi, and if she had quit altogether in 1993, they would argue that Monica's quality of career, albeit crief, was on a par with Steffi's.

Personally I favour taking the long-term look i.e. the weaker years don't detract or reduce the 'peak' years. They are bonus, "additional" years to take into account.

i'm not sure exactly what you mean. how do you take them into account if they don't reduce the peak years? do they add to them, despite the fact that they were poorer and the other player (as in the case of date) went out during their peak leaving no comparison of weaker years?

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 05:45 AM
It was brief nonetheless. And she cannot claim to have had good years surrounding her 'peak' period, unlike Huber or Coetzer.

You also raise an interesting point about 'going out at the top'. It's easy to look at players like Coetzer (and Martinez) and 'average' their achievements across the years. Coetzer's peak period 96-98 on it's own is pretty impressive, easily on a par with Huber or Date. Yet she's also had bad patches that are far worse than those endured by Huber or Coetzer. Martinez's peak period 93-96 is as outstanding as Gaby's 88-92 period, yet Gaby didn't ride out 4-5 average years from 96-00. Instead she retired and 'preserved' a high average standard. Martinez played on and reduced her overall 'average'.

Look at Seles. Some people are keen to downplay her career achievements, simply because the excellent period of 90-93 is diluted by the less successful 95-02 period. Others will say that her peak is comparable to the peak achieved by Steffi, and if she had quit altogether in 1993, they would argue that Monica's quality of career, albeit crief, was on a par with Steffi's.

Personally I favour taking the long-term look i.e. the weaker years don't detract or reduce the 'peak' years. They are bonus, "additional" years to take into account.
Few observations why you only count Sabatini`s peak from 88-92? in 87 for example she won 3 tournaments, reached semis of Roland Garros and the finals of the Masters, and 1994 She reached 2 finals (Amelia Island, Strasbourg) and won the Masters, obviously not in her peak, but great seasons there.. like you probably count for Martinez 93 and 96 year...
Sabatini honestly remained at the top 3, top 4 players in the world for a longer time than Martinez.

I dont understand Amanda`s peak periods and being impressive? yes she had good seasons, but honestly Amanda was never a contender for a Grand Slam title. And her best wins ever are against an injured Steffi Graf in 1997. Amanda is such a hardworker yes, normally gave pretty good matches to the top player but did not have enough talent (or strenght? power?) to beat them or to be a Grand Slam potential winner.

Martinez's peak period 93-96 is as outstanding as Gaby's 88-92 period, yet Gaby didn't ride out 4-5 average years from 96-00. Instead she retired and 'preserved' a high average standard.

On this matter you never know what could have happened.... the same goes for Date who retired at 26 as well.

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 06:09 AM
Martinez's peak period 93-96 is as outstanding as Gaby's 88-92 period
Sorry to disagree again

Sabatini from 88-92
Tournaments won 20 (Boca Raton, Rome,Montreal,Virginia Slims Championships,Miami, Amelia Island, Rome, Filderstadt,Boca Raton,U.S. Open,Tokyo PP,Boca Raton, Hilton Head,Amelia Island, Rome,Sydney,Tokyo PP,Hilton Head, Amelia Island,Rome) Tier I in Bold

won 1 GS, 2 GS runner up, 8 GS semifinals
won 1 Master (88), 1 final in masters(90), 3 Masters Semis (89,91,92).


Conchita Martinez from 93-96
Tournaments won 17 (Houston,Rome,Stratton Mountain, Philadelphia,Hilton Head, Rome,Wimbledon,Stratton Mountain, Hilton Head, Amelia Island, Hamburg,Rome,San Diego, Los Angeles,Rome,Moscow) Tier I in Bold

won 1 GS,0 GS runner up, 8 GS semifinals.
0 Masters, 0 Masters semifinals, 4 masters QF..

If you still think the records are similar then :rolleyes:... And please don`t put overall stats, im only talking about the comparisson you did and how you took their "peak" years.

jenn
Nov 21st, 2003, 06:44 AM
I dont understand Amanda`s peak periods and being impressive? yes she had good seasons, but honestly Amanda was never a contender for a Grand Slam title. And her best wins ever are against an injured Steffi Graf in 1997. Amanda is such a hardworker yes, normally gave pretty good matches to the top player but did not have enough talent (or strenght? power?) to beat them or to be a Grand Slam potential winner.


I don't understand how you don't think Amanda's peak periods were impressive? Certainly in the context they were mentioned, which is in comparison with Date and Hubers, they stand up very well. How were they any more Grand Slam Material than she was?

Coetzer's Peak (1996-1998)
Played 12 Slams: 3 semifinals, 2 quarterfinals, 3 fourth rounds
Career High Ranking of #3
Tournaments Won: 3 (One Tier 1)
Major wins during this period; STEFFI GRAF three times (1997), MARTINA HINGIS (1997), Jana Novotna Twice (when she was #2), Sanchez Vicario, Martinez (at Roland Garros), Huber at US Open 1996

Outside of her peak she beat Davenport (1999) when she was #1, reached two other GS quarterfinals and spent a lot of time in the top ten in every year from 1997 to 2001. She finished a few points out of the top ten at #11 in both 1999 and 2000. She has spent 12 straight years ranked in the top 25, and 10 straight in the top 20 between 1992-2001.

Huber's Peak (1993-1996)
Played 16 slams; 1 slam final, 1 semi final, 8 fourth rounds
Tournaments Won: 8 (0 Tier One's but a couple of big tier 2's like filderstadt and philadeplphia)
Career High Ranking: 4
Major Wins: Navratilova and Pierce to win Fildst in 1994, Sabatini, Martinez, Majoli

Outside of her peak she reached another GS semifinal, and 4 other quarterfinals, but on all those occassions they were regarded as quite a as suprise run through the field. Anke, despite demonstarting much more talent than Amanda, never developed into a genuine GS contender. She never beat a player when she was ranked #1, Amanda did this to three different players. She never beat Graf or Seles. She was a very solid performer at the majors during her peak, but she lost in the fourth round far too often to be considered a genuine contender. The fact that she beat Amanda in three tough sets to reach one GS final where she was soundly beaten does not persuade me that she was anymore a GS contender than Amanda was.

Date's Peak (1994-1996)
12 GS played: 3 semifinals, 2 quarterfinals, 2 fourth rounds
Career High Ranking: 4 (three striaght years in top ten)
Tournaments Won: 5 (One Tier 1)
Biggest Wins: Martinez, Fernandez, Majoli, Davenport, Novotna, Danchez Vicario, Graf in Fed Cup

An Analysis of Date's record outside of her peak period quickly enlightens one to baleineau's point; there is not much there at all. While the others were very impressive (if not at their peak) for close to a decade, Kimiko has virtually no achievements outside of those three years. She reached one solitary GS quarterfinal, and advanced passed the second round in just two others. Even in her best period she was no more a GS contender than Anke or Amanda. While Kimiko's best period is comparable with Anke and Amanda's, they edge in front because of the great things they achieved in their "off period". Longevity does count for a bit.

As for Iva, well her GS record outside of her Roland Garros win is worse than all three of the above ladies. She never advanced passed the quarters in any other major. Iva was a very top player for three seasons 1995-1997 and posted decent results in both the 1994 and 1998 seasons. Outside of those five years she has nothing to right home about. Ironically, the toughest match Iva had to play to win her GS was against Amanda in the semfinals; a player who petosp says was never GS material. Iva played out of her mind for two weeks at Roland Garros and kudos to her, but I don't think that puts her on another level to the others when considering their whole careers. In most other catergories, Anke and Amanda have it all over her.

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 07:26 AM
I don't understand how you don't think Amanda's peak periods were impressive?
Couple of things

1) Philleadelphia was a tier I in 94... as it was in 93
2) Yes you are right and i was confused, i though Amanda`s slam semis were in 1997 and she had the AOpen in 1996 as well, so she definetly ranks ahead of Date, Date did it on 3 diferent surfaces, but as you said Coetzer has been more consistent over the years.


Outside of those five years she has nothing to right home about. Ironically, the toughest match Iva had to play to win her GS was against Amanda in the semfinals; a player who petosp says was never GS material. Iva played out of her mind for two weeks at Roland Garros and kudos to her, but I don't think that puts her on another level to the others when considering their whole careers. In most other catergories, Anke and Amanda have it all over her.

As a matter of fact and if you saw RG 97 at all Iva did not played her best tennis during the 2 week event, she played her best ever tennis against Hingis in the final.
She struggled against Davenport, Dragomir and Coetzer beating them in 3 sets, and playing, not even the half of what she showed against Martina in the final.

And going back to the topic yes im honest when i say Amanda never really had the chance of taking a slam win, i just don`t or never imagined Amanda beating a top player in a slam final. She could not beat Pierce, Huber and Iva in those 3 GS semifinals she played... harder to imagine she would upset Graf, Seles or Sanchez Vicario in a final of a Grand Slam.

cooldudeanzela
Nov 21st, 2003, 07:55 AM
hey everyone in my opinion i thjink iva majoli is the best player coz she won the french and got to number 4 coetzer has only got to sf and number 3 huner hasnt got top 5 and date has only got to sf us if anyone knows amanda and ivas next tournament please tell me

DutchieGirl
Nov 21st, 2003, 01:50 PM
1)Majoli 1 GS Champ
2)Anke Huber. 1 GS RU
3)Date 3 GS Semifinals
4)Coetzer 2 GS Semifinals
plain and simple*cough* Coetzer has 3 GS semi's, same as Kimiko. 2 at the AO and one at the FO, so she must at least be =3rd with Kimiko by your list. ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 21st, 2003, 01:57 PM
Few observations why you only count Sabatini`s peak from 88-92? in 87 for example she won 3 tournaments, reached semis of Roland Garros and the finals of the Masters, and 1994 She reached 2 finals (Amelia Island, Strasbourg) and won the Masters, obviously not in her peak, but great seasons there.. like you probably count for Martinez 93 and 96 year...
Sabatini honestly remained at the top 3, top 4 players in the world for a longer time than Martinez.

I dont understand Amanda`s peak periods and being impressive? yes she had good seasons, but honestly Amanda was never a contender for a Grand Slam title. And her best wins ever are against an injured Steffi Graf in 1997. Amanda is such a hardworker yes, normally gave pretty good matches to the top player but did not have enough talent (or strenght? power?) to beat them or to be a Grand Slam potential winner.


On this matter you never know what could have happened.... the same goes for Date who retired at 26 as well.Amanda was one of like 3 players who beat Hingis in 97, along with beating Graf three times (and if Graf was so injured that year, then how come she played so many tourneys?). Amanda also beat Graf in 1995 in Toronto, going all the way to the final, only losing to Seles in her comeback tourney after the stabbing.

Doraemon
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:15 PM
Guess Mandy's highest ranking needs some consideration. She earned it fair and squqre no doubt but then she was in a way or another lucky cuz the level or depth of the comeptition went down a bit with Steffi seriously injured, Gaby and Kimiko retired though Hingis really started dominating the field. Conchita and Aratxan weren't as consistent and invincible as they were pre '97. They started losing to players they had never lost to before. Amanda really took advantage of it. Or else how could she have made such a big jump in the rankings from the previous year?

Doraemon
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:22 PM
I don't know if Kimiko had the best career of the four but I believe she was the best player. She had a very bad record against Amanda (she confessed she hated playing Amada more than anyone else), but in their final meeting, Kimiko beat Mandy by almost double bagelling her..
In her final year on the tour, Kimiko really figured out the way to beat players like Amanda and Arantxa. I really thought she was gonna have even a better year which wasn't meant to be.. Given the level of the competition in '97 which was obviously worse than the year before, she really would have had the chance to win her first major.. She really shouldn't have made such a selfish decision which she shoulda known would disappoint us fans to death! Nontheless, she seems like having a great life after tennis..so I'm happy for her... still..why..Kimiko why?

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:29 PM
1)Majoli 1 GS Champ
2)Anke Huber. 1 GS RU
3)Coetzer 3 GS Semifinals (more years in the top ten)
4)Date 3 GS Semifinals

Edited...!
i edited... yes Amanda for obvious reasons then get`s past Date in this category :)

irma
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:33 PM
Amanda was one of like 3 players who beat Hingis in 97, along with beating Graf three times (and if Graf was so injured that year, then how come she played so many tourneys?). Amanda also beat Graf in 1995 in Toronto, going all the way to the final, only losing to Seles in her comeback tourney after the stabbing.

5 tournaments is much? :eek:

she came back in the clayseason because her doctor said it was alright but she demolished her knee even more by doing so

in australia she was sick (no they don't bring you to hospital for fun) that had nothing to do with the above.

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:44 PM
Amanda was one of like 3 players who beat Hingis in 97, along with beating Graf three times (and if Graf was so injured that year, then how come she played so many tourneys?). Amanda also beat Graf in 1995 in Toronto, going all the way to the final, only losing to Seles in her comeback tourney after the stabbing.
All of what you have said is true.... Except with the Graf 97 year... Graf only played 5 events, where the hell 5 events are SO MANY? events?... And if you think Amanda played so great to beat her in 97 you are kind of nuts, because the only thing she did was to be so consistent around the court and Steffi made error after error on each match (45+ errors in both RG and Berlin) (combination of being rusty and the knee injury).

But my point is about Amanda and being close to a Grand Slam Champion, 3 Grand Slam semis she reached, and she had greater chances facing Huber, Pierce and Iva, while in the other half was Seles (Ao 96), Hingis (Ao 97) and Hingis (Rg 97), Amanda`s game was based on pure consistency, she did not had the power to dominate or to even surprise oponnents to come up with those big wins when it mattered the most... the latter stages of slam events.

moby
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:50 PM
I don't know if Kimiko had the best career of the four but I believe she was the best player. She had a very bad record against Amanda (she confessed she hated playing Amada more than anyone else), but in their final meeting, Kimiko beat Mandy by almost double bagelling her..
In her final year on the tour, Kimiko really figured out the way to beat players like Amanda and Arantxa. I really thought she was gonna have even a better year which wasn't meant to be.. Given the level of the competition in '97 which was obviously worse than the year before, she really would have had the chance to win her first major.. She really shouldn't have made such a selfish decision which she shoulda known would disappoint us fans to death! Nontheless, she seems like having a great life after tennis..so I'm happy for her... still..why..Kimiko why?

and that is exactly what i think too
i havent had the fortune to watch kimiko play
but i saw a few points against graf at wimby 96 and she could play
too bad it got too dark, because that was possibly her best chance at a slam

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:57 PM
In her final year on the tour, Kimiko really figured out the way to beat players like Amanda and Arantxa. I really thought she was gonna have even a better year which wasn't meant to be.. Given the level of the competition in '97 which was obviously worse than the year before, she really would have had the chance to win her first major..
How you measure that 97 tennis level was lower than 96?
The fact that Hingis dominated those years did not mean that the level was lower, there you have Iva, Mary, Jana, Davenport, Spirlea, Amanda (too) who had great years in 97.

And Hingis was way a better player in 97 than she was in 96, same goes for Lindsay who started to get really fit in 97.
No one knows what could have happened if Date would have continue anyway.

Doraemon
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:59 PM
and that is exactly what i think too
i havent had the fortune to watch kimiko play
but i saw a few points against graf at wimby 96 and she could play
too bad it got too dark, because that was possibly her best chance at a slam

I don't wanna look back on that match too much cuz every time I do so I feel sick and sad. but it wasn't actually that dark.. Kimiko said it was definitely still playable out there. She was just way too shy to express her opinion there.. she sounded a bit regretful when she was talking about that being suspended. She said she was still seeing the ball clearly though being aware of the time of the day. Guess she had too much respect for Steffi.. She seems to put in her in a different league from anyone else, when it comes to talking about Steffi.

Doraemon
Nov 21st, 2003, 04:03 PM
How you measure that 97 tennis level was lower than 96?
The fact that Hingis dominated those years did not mean that the level was lower, there you have Iva, Mary, Jana, Davenport, Spirlea, Amanda (too) who had great years in 97.

And Hingis was way a better player in 97 than she was in 96, same goes for Lindsay who started to get really fit in 97.
No one knows what could have happened if Date would have continue anyway.


But I dunno how many players benefitted from Steffi, Gaby and Kimiko's absence in that year. That year was quite similar to this year in a way.
I don't think if Steffi had been healthy, Amanda would have racked up so many bonus points and much less Iva would have won the FO. I don't think Jana had gotten that much better. She was alreayd nearing 30 then and if she could do so well then, I doubt the level of the competiton was that great then.

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 04:31 PM
But I dunno how many players benefitted from Steffi, Gaby and Kimiko's absence in that year. That year was quite similar to this year in a way.
I don't think if Steffi had been healthy, Amanda would have racked up so many bonus points and much less Iva would have won the FO. I don't think Jana had gotten that much better. She was alreayd nearing 30 then and if she could do so well then, I doubt the level of the competiton was that great then.
Jana getting older and better in her tennis, does not mean that the level was not great.. Look at Tauziat for example, she peaked in 98-2000 and i doubt the level was lowering.

But i agree yes 97 who knows what could have happened if a healty Steffi Graf, Date, and Sabatini (with desire to) would have played, its hard to tell.

But i don`t think the level in general was getting lower, Lucic played some of her best tennis in 97 as well, Venus was coming on, Serena came up strong in Chicago 97, Anna scored some upsets as well in that year, probably a change of generation instead of a lower tennis level. Still yes i agree a full shape Steffi Graf would have been extremly interesting in that year against Martina Hingis who played with so much confidence in most of events...

Doraemon
Nov 21st, 2003, 04:48 PM
Jana getting older and better in her tennis, does not mean that the level was not great.. Look at Tauziat for example, she peaked in 98-2000 and i doubt the level was lowering.

But i agree yes 97 who knows what could have happened if a healty Steffi Graf, Date, and Sabatini (with desire to) would have played, its hard to tell.

But i don`t think the level in general was getting lower, Lucic played some of her best tennis in 97 as well, Venus was coming on, Serena came up strong in Chicago 97, Anna scored some upsets as well in that year, probably a change of generation instead of a lower tennis level. Still yes i agree a full shape Steffi Graf would have been extremly interesting in that year against Martina Hingis who played with so much confidence in most of events...

You're right about a lot of young new comers were hopping up then.
But then again I would think it was a transition period from generation to another where the level or depth of competion usually drops a bit. Otherwise I don't think it would've been possible that Venus made the U.S. Open final from total obscurity. I don't doubt the game was still getting better in general but it wasn't the same without Queen.

baleineau
Nov 21st, 2003, 05:30 PM
Few observations why you only count Sabatini`s peak from 88-92? in 87 for example she won 3 tournaments, reached semis of Roland Garros and the finals of the Masters, and 1994 She reached 2 finals (Amelia Island, Strasbourg) and won the Masters, obviously not in her peak, but great seasons there.. like you probably count for Martinez 93 and 96 year...
Sabatini honestly remained at the top 3, top 4 players in the world for a longer time than Martinez.

With Sabatini, I think of her peak as 88-92, but agree that 87 and 93/94 were great seasons. So let's agree that Sabatini's peak is 87-94 :-) (8 seasons)

But by this logic, I class Martinez' peak as 93-96 and 2000 (5 seasons). There's a borderline case for including 1998 (Aus Open final and winning a Tier I in Berlin).

So in terms of peak, then you're right that Sabatini comes out on top. But Conchita's achievements in 1989-1992, 1997-1999 and 2001-2003 are more than Gabriela's achievements in 1985-1986 and 1995-1996. Conchita reached the Aus Open final, the French Open final, had wins over Sabatini, ASV and Navaratilova (pre-1993), Hingis, Davenport, Seles, and ASV. If it wasn't for Martinez' longevity, then Sabatini's overall career would clearly be better. But because of the longevity, I find their careers inseparable.


I dont understand Amanda`s peak periods and being impressive? yes she had good seasons, but honestly Amanda was never a contender for a Grand Slam title. And her best wins ever are against an injured Steffi Graf in 1997. Amanda is such a hardworker yes, normally gave pretty good matches to the top player but did not have enough talent (or strenght? power?) to beat them or to be a Grand Slam potential winner.

This debate was never about whether Coetzer, Huber, Date or Majoli were ever contenders for the Slam. It was an evaluation of their whole career achievements. The general consensus is that they all come out similarly, either because of (a) whose 'peak' was the best or (b) who was most solid i.e. "perenially tough".


On this matter you never know what could have happened.... the same goes for Date who retired at 26 as well.

Which is why there's a good case for treating "potential" results in the non-playing period as "0". Is it fair to suppose that Gaby or Kimiko would have had 3-5 more solid years between 1996-1999, followed by 2-3 low-key years and then retiring? I don't think so. That's putting 'virtual trophies' on the table. But that's a matter of opinion.

Clearly I don't feel it's easy to assess Monica Seles' career on the basis of achieved results, because there's an incredibly strong possibility that she would have won at least 6, maybe 10 additional Slams between 1993-1996 based on past results. But if pressed to answer the question of whose career is better, Steffi or Monica, then I have to look at the career achievements, look at the timespan and say "Steffi".

Hope we're closer to reaching a consensus :-)

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 06:49 PM
Which is why there's a good case for treating "potential" results in the non-playing period as "0". Is it fair to suppose that Gaby or Kimiko would have had 3-5 more solid years between 1996-1999, followed by 2-3 low-key years and then retiring? I don't think so. That's putting 'virtual trophies' on the table. But that's a matter of opinion.

Hope we're closer to reaching a consensus :-)
As you say its a matter of opinion, you can never know what could have happened because Gaby opted to retire, you can't assume she would have done well or not.

With Sabatini, I think of her peak as 88-92, but agree that 87 and 93/94 were great seasons. So let's agree that Sabatini's peak is 87-94 :-) (8 seasons)

But by this logic, I class Martinez' peak as 93-96 and 2000 (5 seasons). There's a borderline case for including 1998 (Aus Open final and winning a Tier I in Berlin).

So in terms of peak, then you're right that Sabatini comes out on top. But Conchita's achievements in 1989-1992, 1997-1999 and 2001-2003 are more than Gabriela's achievements in 1985-1986 and 1995-1996. Conchita reached the Aus Open final, the French Open final, had wins over Sabatini, ASV and Navaratilova (pre-1993), Hingis, Davenport, Seles, and ASV. If it wasn't for Martinez' longevity, then Sabatini's overall career would clearly be better. But because of the longevity, I find their careers inseparable.
I just dont understand your logic here, Sabatini peaked for more years than Conchita and then you say Gaby won less in her "non peak" years than Conchita's "non peak" years?
Sorry but the big diference between them are that Gaby performed way better in the masters 2 wins , 2 RU finishes, while Conchita not even semis. Plus her performance in head to head against Graf (11 wins), Seles (3 wins), Sanchez Vicario (12 wins) and even Martinez (9 wins).
And well you can mention the 32 events by Conchita when half of them are Tier III or less?? :rolleyes:

In the way you think Gaby retired and prevented herself to have "average" years after 1996, i can even look at it in this way, Conchita has had more years to perform better and she has not... also from 1986 to July 1996 Gaby was a top ten player (10 straight years) , not even in time as top ten player Conchita tops Gaby, despite she has played more than 12 years (which were Gaby's carreer).

Not because Navratilova played for more years than Steffi makes her the better singles player.


Once again going back to the topic, in this case i think Amanda tops Date, because she stayed on top ten for a longer time.
Huber-Amanda, very interesting and very close, but that's really the difference of winning one more match on a big stage like the latter round of a Grand Slam, and Huber did that in AO 96, and over Amanda.

baleineau
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:46 PM
I just dont understand your logic here, Sabatini peaked for more years than Conchita and then you say Gaby won less in her "non peak" years than Conchita's "non peak" years?

Yes:

Gaby
Excellent seasons: 6 (finished top-5 in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993)
Very good seasons: 4 (finished top-10 in 1986, 1987, 1994 and 1995)
Good seasons: 1 (finished top-20 in 1985)
Mediocre/Weak seasons: 2 (finished outside top-20 in 1984 and 1996)

Conchita
Excellent seasons: 5 (finished top-5 in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 2000)
Very good seasons: 4 (finished top-10 in 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1998)
Good seasons: 4 (finished top-20 in 1997, 1999, and 2003)
Mediocre/Weak seasons: 3 (finished outside top-20 in 1988, 2001 and 2002)

So what I'm saying is that the two are very similar, because the slight edge Gaby has in 'peak years' is drowned out by the fact that Conchita can add more years of 'good' finishes i.e. top-20 finishes.

When asking the question "who has had the better career", it is more objective to look aside from the details of particular matches, particular hot streaks, particular ranking positions (e.g. Tauziat reaching 3 for about 1 week, Date reaching 4 for about 2 weeks), and particular head-to-heads. Sure, Gaby pushed Seles and Graf harder than Conchita, but Conchita wasn't at her peak then. Conchita 'owned' Davenport, Date, Rubin and others who were at their peak, and frequently troubled Hingis between 1996-2000. But these details cloud overall 'career assessment' excercises.


Sorry but the big diference between them are that Gaby performed way better in the masters 2 wins , 2 RU finishes, while Conchita not even semis. Plus her performance in head to head against Graf (11 wins), Seles (3 wins), Sanchez Vicario (12 wins) and even Martinez (9 wins).
And well you can mention the 32 events by Conchita when half of them are Tier III or less?? :rolleyes:

Well, these are your alternative measures. The problem with these measures is that they are not constant. Hingis can point to a winning head-2-head versus Venus, but that's partly because Hingis was beating up on Venus in the latter's earlier days, and in the former's peak days. It doesn't mean that much. Serena beat up Hingis more, because they played one another mainly between 1999-2001 when Hingis had fallen and Serena was on the ascendency. Head-to-Heads are very context-dependent. Stages reached at Grand Slams, Year-End Ranking Positions are much more objectively measured indictators when used to compare players who competed at similar (but not identical) times on the circuit.

In the way you think Gaby retired and prevented herself to have "average" years after 1996, i can even look at it in this way, Conchita has had more years to perform better and she has not... also from 1986 to July 1996 Gaby was a top ten player (10 straight years) , not even in time as top ten player Conchita tops Gaby, despite she has played more than 12 years (which were Gaby's carreer).

Yes, but you know that age/injuries will play a part in this. They're not 'equal' attempts. And besides, if you incorporate the highlights of Conchita's "good-mediocre" years (1988, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003) you get numerous Slam QFs, one Slam F, and wins over top-3 players.

Not because Navratilova played for more years than Steffi makes her the better singles player.

Results are merely an indicator of quality, not the determinant of quality. Most tennis observer considered Sabatini to be more talented than Graf and Seles. Conchita was considered more talented than ASV. Novotna more talented (i.e. better) than her results suggest.

[QUOTE=petosp]
Once again going back to the topic, in this case i think Amanda tops Date, because she stayed on top ten for a longer time.
Huber-Amanda, very interesting and very close, but that's really the difference of winning one more match on a big stage like the latter round of a Grand Slam, and Huber did that in AO 96, and over Amanda.

Well that's the simplistic, slightly lazy method of deciding. This is how some people decide that Pierce's career is better than Conchita's: based on the outcome of one match in June 2000.

I agree that Huber and Coetzer are difficult to separate. I don't know their rankings / results well enough to make an objective assessment. My hunch is to go with Huber. But I'm not happy to go with a hunch. If someone can provide the stats, I'm happy to make a more objective assessment.

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:31 PM
Conchita 'owned' Davenport, Date, Rubin and others who were at their peak, and frequently troubled Hingis between 1996-2000.
Conchita never owned Date go and check 6-2 Date leads the overall the head 2 head, and Gaby also leads the head 2 head against all the players you mentioned here Davenport, Date, Rubin and got even with Hingis.



Well, these are your alternative measures. The problem with these measures is that they are not constant. Hingis can point to a winning head-2-head versus Venus, but that's partly because Hingis was beating up on Venus in the latter's earlier days, and in the former's peak days. It doesn't mean that much. Serena beat up Hingis more, because they played one another mainly between 1999-2001 when Hingis had fallen and Serena was on the ascendency. Head-to-Heads are very context-dependent. Stages reached at Grand Slams, Year-End Ranking Positions are much more objectively measured indictators when used to compare players who competed at similar (but not identical) times on the circuit.

So head 2 head matches does not count, does not matter how many times she beat Seles? Graf? Sanchez Vicario? :rolleyes:...?.. Just because you say at some instances one player is playing her best and the other is not so the matches does not count? lol...

Good also how you ignore the fact of the Masters and how well Gaby did in them may i repeat 2 wins (88,94), 2 finals (87,90) and 3 (86,91,92) semifinals. While Conchita`s best performance in the tournament where the ONLY the best players of the year take part, is Quarterfinals.



Yes, but you know that age/injuries will play a part in this. They're not 'equal' attempts. And besides, if you incorporate the highlights of Conchita's "good-mediocre" years (1988, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003) you get numerous Slam QFs, one Slam F, and wins over top-3 players.

3 Grand Slam Quarterfinals (Rg99, Wim 01, Rg 03) to be exact... and where is that GS final she reached during this time you mention here? 88,97,99,01,02,03??? So by your analisis is that Conchita owns a better carreer because she has more "good medriocre" years than Sabatini?.. LOL again.. and sorry but this is not even an argument.


Well that's the simplistic, slightly lazy method of deciding. This is how some people decide that Pierce's career is better than Conchita's: based on the outcome of one match in June 2000.

Yes, that`s the diference between being the winner of a Grand Slam event than being the winner of 2 grand slam events.


I agree that Huber and Coetzer are difficult to separate. I don't know their rankings / results well enough to make an objective assessment. My hunch is to go with Huber. But I'm not happy to go with a hunch. If someone can provide the stats, I'm happy to make a more objective assessment.

I have given you the stats, tournament wins, head 2 head wins and you still come up the the Subjective Sabatini-Martinez having a similar carreer based on??? the longevity of Conchita Martinez and having more "medriocre" years?...


and LOL how we turned this into a Sabatini-Martinez comparisson.. Bah :p

baleineau
Nov 22nd, 2003, 01:45 AM
Conchita never owned Date go and check 6-2 Date leads the overall the head 2 head, and Gaby also leads the head 2 head against all the players you mentioned here Davenport, Date, Rubin and got even with Hingis.

The Data H2H was a mistake. But it's hardly an achievement that Gaby had strong H2H records against these girls, because they were not in their prime at the time. Davenport was owned by almost every top player between 93-96. Conchita owned her up until 1998 when Davenport emerged as number 2-3.


So head 2 head matches does not count, does not matter how many times she beat Seles? Graf? Sanchez Vicario? :rolleyes:...?.. Just because you say at some instances one player is playing her best and the other is not so the matches does not count? lol...

LOL. You lose track of the definition at stake here. Again. It's about career achievement, not about who's best. Career achievement is about winning titles and winning rounds, particularly in the Slams and Tier I and II events. This is what largely determines rank, to a much greater extent than bonus points. If Gaby was winning so much and beating all of the top players so often, why is her peak ranking so similar to Conchita's, and over a similar time frame? How was Conchita earning those points? And don't say loads of Tier IIIs, because Conchita played limited schedules until around 1993, something like 10-12 events per year, and didn't play all the Slams until then.

H2H's clearly count in an assessment of who is better, who is the toughest to beat etc. But not who has the better career.

To make it more simple:

2 different questions:
1. Who is the cleverest and most knowledgeable student in the Year?
2. Who achieved the highest grades and consistently got good results for the longest?

2 different comparisons:
1. Joe Bloggs earned an average of 20,000 dollars per year in his career, but in one five year period managed to earn 60,000 dollars per year. However, he cut short his career by retiring at age 45.
2. Fred Bloggs earned an average of 20,000 dollars per year in his career, but in one five year period managed to earn 45,000 dollars per year. Fred worked on until 65.

Hope that makes it easier for you. Be mad with Gaby for retiring early and reducing her career potential. Don't try to denigrate the achievements of those who carry on, even if those achievements lessen with time. They are still adding to their trophy cabinet. They are able to take the pace.


Good also how you ignore the fact of the Masters and how well Gaby did in them may i repeat 2 wins (88,94), 2 finals (87,90) and 3 (86,91,92) semifinals. While Conchita`s best performance in the tournament where the ONLY the best players of the year take part, is Quarterfinals.

It's notable that you stress the importance of this tournament, as if it somehow "clinches" the sabatini case. For a top-8 player to reach the semis of the Masters requires winning what? Two matches. One against somebody ranked 9-16 (e.g. Leila Meskhi), the other against a quality player. Conchita can boast of something like 5 QF finishes at the Masters, but is that really impressive? No. She hates the surface.


3 Grand Slam Quarterfinals (Rg99, Wim 01, Rg 03) to be exact... and where is that GS final she reached during this time you mention here? 88,97,99,01,02,03??? So by your analisis is that Conchita owns a better carreer because she has more "good medriocre" years than Sabatini?.. LOL again.. and sorry but this is not even an argument.

I did not say that Conchita has the better career. I said their careers are too similar to separate.

Having more "good/mediocre" years counts for something. 2003 was a good/mediocre year for Conchita, but she managed several wins against top players, and added another QF GS appearance to her accomplishment list. 2001 added another Wimbledon QF. 1999 added a French Open Quarter final. 1998, not a peak year, included a GS final and a Tier I title.


Yes, that`s the diference between being the winner of a Grand Slam event than being the winner of 2 grand slam events.

Of course, and we know how tiny it is. Therefore you conclude that Majoli, Conchita and Gaby are equal, but less than Pierce in career achievements? You must have been crapping yourself since 1996 in case Conchita added Roland Garros. Bet you're behind the voodoo curse :)


I have given you the stats, tournament wins, head 2 head wins and you still come up the the Subjective Sabatini-Martinez having a similar carreer based on??? the longevity of Conchita Martinez and having more "medriocre" years?...


Not more "mediocre" years, but also more "good" years, so don't twist it to try to make your point again. Conchita continues to add, whereas Sabatini quit whilst ahead, presumably to save face. Graf was whipping her again 0 and 1, and she never recovered from the 1st Round loss at Roland Garros in 1994.

By the way, have you taken account of the choking factor? Can you think of any critical match that either Sabatini or Martinez lost when having a lead of, say, 6-1 5-1 and zillions of match points?

I think that this type of result acts as a clear negative, a clear drainer of all good things earned too. Zvereva's career is defined as much for her 6-0 6-0 defeat to Graf, as her wins over Navratilova en route, and her wins ober Graf and Seles at Wimbledon in 98.

If you want to get into the fine details, then you'll have to cover choking, you'll have to cover serving statistics etc. etc.

Anyway, back to Huber-Date-Majoli-Coetzer LOL...... Can we throw Maggie Maleeva into the mix?

jenn
Nov 22nd, 2003, 01:51 AM
Anyway, back to Huber-Date-Majoli-Coetzer LOL...... Can we throw Maggie Maleeva into the mix?

I like Maggie but she doesn't belong with the other 4, her GS record is woeful. Tauziat is probably more appropriate.

spencercarlos
Nov 22nd, 2003, 02:17 AM
The Data H2H was a mistake. But it's hardly an achievement that Gaby had strong H2H records against these girls, because they were not in their prime at the time. Davenport was owned by almost every top player between 93-96. Conchita owned her up until 1998 when Davenport emerged as number 2-3.

Yes, so Conchita owned a "peak" Davenport but 7 of her 9 wins come from 94 to 97. And the 9th one comes after a retirement at Roland Garros this year. How do you explain that then?.. Its the same Davenport simply got better and reached her own peak after Wimbledon 1998, but that does not erase the other macthes Conchita won over Lindsay, in the same way Gaby`s wins over Lindsay as well as against other players. All matches count.


LOL. You lose track of the definition at stake here. Again. It's about career achievement, not about who's best. Career achievement is about winning titles and winning rounds, particularly in the Slams and Tier I and II events. This is what largely determines rank
Yeah exactly this is about winning titles and about winning the better and more important events, here is another where Gaby tops Conchita with most of her wins being Tier II events or more... Half of Conchita`s tournaments wins are Tier III or less.

2 different comparisons:
1. Joe Bloggs earned an average of 20,000 dollars per year in his career, but in one five year period managed to earn 60,000 dollars per year. However, he cut short his career by retiring at age 45.
2. Fred Bloggs earned an average of 20,000 dollars per year in his career, but in one five year period managed to earn 45,000 dollars per year. Fred worked on until 65.
Hope that makes it easier for you. Be mad with Gaby for retiring early and reducing her career potential. Don't try to denigrate the achievements of those who carry on, even if those achievements lessen with time. They are still adding to their trophy cabinet. They are able to take the pace.

Lol at the example, this does not match here, as Gaby won better events than Conchita, More Tier I events, more Tier II events, 2 Masters, and they are only even in Grand Slam wins.


It's notable that you stress the importance of this tournament, as if it somehow "clinches" the sabatini case. For a top-8 player to reach the semis of the Masters requires winning what? Two matches. One against somebody ranked 9-16 (e.g. Leila Meskhi), the other against a quality player. Conchita can boast of something like 5 QF finishes at the Masters, but is that really impressive? No. She hates the surface.

LOL now this is an easy way to "excuse" Conchita`s not so good performances at the masters, "she hates the surface" LOL..



Of course, and we know how tiny it is. Therefore you conclude that Majoli, Conchita and Gaby are equal, but less than Pierce in career achievements? You must have been crapping yourself since 1996 in case Conchita added Roland Garros. Bet you're behind the voodoo curse :)

Not at all, yes Gaby, Iva, Conchita have 1 slam, but then you go and look at the rankings, tournament wins, head 2 head matches, quality wins, etc.. then you realize Iva is not even near to what Sabatini and Conchita have done. Yes Longevity counts.. but longevity of being among the best ranked players i the world..




Not more "mediocre" years, but also more "good" years, so don't twist it to try to make your point again. Conchita continues to add, whereas Sabatini quit whilst ahead, presumably to save face. Graf was whipping her again 0 and 1, and she never recovered from the 1st Round loss at Roland Garros in 1994.

Good years.. looking at your stats in your post..... good years meant to end in the top 20, so since Gaby ended in the top 5, for 6 straight years and 10 straight years in the top ten, are shadowed by Conchita`s 3 more years than Gaby ending in the top 20? LOL
Then explain me your logic...

spencercarlos
Nov 22nd, 2003, 02:17 AM
I like Maggie but she doesn't belong with the other 4, her GS record is woeful. Tauziat is probably more appropriate.
Yeah i was thinking of Nathalie too.. What about Sukova as well?

Veritas
Nov 22nd, 2003, 03:57 AM
Kimiko was terribly inconsistent. Even at her peak years of 1994/5, she managed to record a string of early round defeats to players who are ranked far below her.

But

I reckon she is just as talented as those other three ladies. She's consistent on all surfaces and has managed to beat nearly all the top players (save Monica). Also, I believe she had a great shot at winning Wimbledon in 1996. She was quite close to beating Steffi and if it hadn't been for that rain delay, we might have had Japan's very 1st GS champion :sad:

Also, Kimiko was hardly easy to beat. She's given top players a lot of trouble and I suspect that she actually prefered to play against those in the top 5/10 b/c she's relatively more experienced in reading their games.

Other than that, I reckon they're all talented and successful in their own rights. Kimiko's had a shorter career span while the others have made more progress in a longer period of time.

Doraemon
Nov 22nd, 2003, 04:31 AM
Kimiko was terribly inconsistent. Even at her peak years of 1994/5, she managed to record a string of early round defeats to players who are ranked far below her.

But

I reckon she is just as talented as those other three ladies. She's consistent on all surfaces and has managed to beat nearly all the top players (save Monica). Also, I believe she had a great shot at winning Wimbledon in 1996. She was quite close to beating Steffi and if it hadn't been for that rain delay, we might have had Japan's very 1st GS champion :sad:

Also, Kimiko was hardly easy to beat. She's given top players a lot of trouble and I suspect that she actually prefered to play against those in the top 5/10 b/c she's relatively more experienced in reading their games.

Other than that, I reckon they're all talented and successful in their own rights. Kimiko's had a shorter career span while the others have made more progress in a longer period of time.


Well said!
She really had a chance against everyone yet could lose to a player ranked far below (she had a terrible mental problem against her fellow Japanese players. She lost to Mana Endo and Sawamatsu twice respectively. All of which happened on big or important occasions!) When she was off, she was terrible to watch. Her 96 Fed Cup performance agains the U.S.A. which I saw from the stands was just pathetic and aweful as hell. We had expected a lot from her since she had beaten Steffi in the first round tie and just made the Wimlby Semis. She was totally demolished by Monica and Lindsay.. it was painful to watch. Then, suddenly she came up with the San Diego Victory where she beat Gaby, Conchita and Arantxa in a row. Then she lost to Po! in the first round of the Open.. She came home to play Nichirei Ladies (now moved to Shanghai) where she lost to Monica after blowing four MPs. Then came that retirement annoucement the day after....She had such ups and downs.. was totally unpredictable which made it even better and more exciting to follow her! When she first broke into the top 10, she was rather confused than happy cuz she wasn't sure whether she really belonged there. Her rankings kept going up despite mediocre or below par results which followed. She continued to struggle losing in the first round at the FO (to Amanda in a humiliating manner) and in the third round at the Wimby. Since she had done pre much nothing what with injuires and slump at the same period of the year before, her ranking still kept improving and she reached as high as no.5 leading up to the U.S. Open. She was just confused and didn't know what to do. That was pre much her roukie year as a top player and she said it took her so long before she finally got used to it and felt belonging. She said her loss to Mana at Tokyo after the U.S. Open was an eye opener for her. She really realized she didn't play tennis for the sake of ranking points or anything on-paper. She realized she hated losing and got sick of it. She had never lost to a Japanese player for soo long till then. She had so many things to deal with which she hadn't had to before becoming a top 10. one of the most difficult things was the media inside and outside home. She had some terrible confrontations with the domestic media. She didn't handle it well making it just worse. Some reporters referred to her attitude as lofty and snoby without having a clue how tough it was to play the tour travelling around the world. But that was all learning experience for her. She bounced back strongly at the YEC where she made it to the Semis. I think she was unlucky there. She had little time to recover after her gruelling QF match against Conchita. She had nothing leflt in her tank when she leveled the match winning the 2nd set against Gaby. But it was great. The crowd applauded her more than they did for Gaby. got a standing ovation after the match. Anyways, that was her rookie year as a top 10. Guess it wasn't as easy for her as for top players from some other countries. She was pre much the first asian to reach so high and she wasn't exactly friendly with the other players either.. I think Ai does that much better English wise and friendship wise. Kimiko was extremely individualisitc for a Japanese that I believe made her mentally as strong as she was. She was mentally one of the toughest players on the tour having come back from nowhere in a number of matches. In such a short of span of career, she played so many memorable matches winning or losing. She was just unique as a person and player. The way she left the sport was just an example of her uniqueness.

Doraemon
Nov 23rd, 2003, 08:40 AM
I like Maggie but she doesn't belong with the other 4, her GS record is woeful. Tauziat is probably more appropriate.

True.. Natalie can make it more competitive and complicated.
She was such a late bloomer and she could have won the Wimby if she had been able to take advantage of Jana choking in serving for the match. Jana almost wrote another page of her already infamous choking history book.