TennisForum.com - View Single Post - Peak Kournikova v. Peak Vaidisova?

View Single Post

Old Nov 18th, 2012, 03:51 PM   #48
country flag forehand27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 416
forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold forehand27 is a splendid one to behold
Re: Peak Kournikova v. Peak Vaidisova?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KournikovaFan91 View Post


Using the title argument surely Smashnova with her 19 is one of the greatest players to never win a slam
I wouldnt say that but it seems peak Smashanova > peak Kournikova probably. Anna at her peak (and she is only making tournament finals to play people like Anna S. at her peak considering she isnt good enough to win a tournament ever) cant do what Smashanova managed many times, win tournaments, even sometimes entering some of the same Mickey Mouse draws and events she did and won. Anna leads their H2H 3-2 when both were roughly at their career peak, but Anna S. won their two most important finals, a tournament final, and the semis of Auckland which led to a title for Ana over Panova in the final (which Anna probably also would have won but for the 2nd time was denied the title she so desperately craved by Anna S.).


Quote:
I personally like Nicole but to say she is immensely better than Kournikova is ridiculous, had Anna played in the same era she would have had a similar if not better career than Nicole, Anna's years on tour were possibly the toughest, whereas Nicole was peaking 2006-2008 a pretty weak time for the WTA.
Yes a time ruled by peak Justine Henin, who light years from her prime many years earlier was beating peak Kournikova in straight sets everytime they met (even once as the World #58 while Anna was a top 16 seed), would be easy fodder for the great 0 titles Kournikova. BTW Anna was owned by both Henin and Clijsters in 2000 when they werent even top 30 players, are 2000 versions of Clijsters and Henin (when they were pre of their pre prime periods if you will, lol) better than peak Nicole. Anna lost one of her best ever chances at a tournament title as well in Leipzig 2000 where she was crushed in the semis by a 16 year old 31st ranked Clijsters, who would go on to win the title in 3 sets over Likhovtseva in the final. So lets not pretend Anna didnt have some fairly easy opportunities at tournament titles, but still wasnt good enough to get it done.

You say it is laughable to imply Nicole is immensely better than Anna, yet you of course say NOTHING to the people I was responding to who imply Kournikova was immensely better than Nicole. Apparently in your eyes that is completely fine.

Last edited by forehand27 : Nov 18th, 2012 at 04:03 PM.
forehand27 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote