[hingisGOAT]

Both in terms of accomplishments and actual game. Sabatini was a bit before my time, but from what I've seen they were very similar players. Great athletes, great backhands, great volleys, Mauresmo seems to have a better serve but worse forehand... right?

[Sammo]

Mauresmo

[SelesGOAT]

I think Sabatini is better. She played in a much tougher era. She had to deal with Graf, Seles, Evert, Navratilova, and Sanchez Vicario for years. When Seles was stabbed, Graf became frequently injury proned, and the entire WTA level went down she was already declining and past her prime, and saw people like Sanchez and Martinez vulture to the major titles instead. A very unlucky player.

Mauresmo had to wait for the Williams and Davenport to dissapear to win her only major titles and slams. She did post some big wins over Henin, Clijsters, and Sharapova, in 2006 but she was always a tough matchup for Henin since her heavy high kicking topspin went almost above the short Henin's head, Clijsters was shit after her U.S Open title and basically doing an 18 month retirement lap similar to her post 2011 Australian Open one, and Sharapova was a one dimensional ball basher back then (well not much has changed for her I guess).

[SelesGOAT]

Originally Posted by Sammo

Mauresmo

How many major events would Mauresmo have won had her prime been from 1988-1992 instead? I would guess zero, and that includes the WTA Championships as well. She doesnt have the game to take on prime Graf or prime Seles for starters, and that is without even considering what an epic choker she is.

[hingisGOAT]

Originally Posted by SelesGOAT

I think Sabatini is better. She played in a much tougher era. She had to deal with Graf, Seles, Evert, Navratilova, and Sanchez Vicario for years. When Seles was stabbed, Graf became frequently injury proned, and the entire WTA level went down she was already declining and past her prime, and saw people like Sanchez and Martinez vulture to the major titles instead. A very unlucky player.

Mauresmo had to wait for the Williams and Davenport to dissapear to win her only major titles and slams. She did post some big wins over Henin, Clijsters, and Sharapova, in 2006 but she was always a tough matchup for Henin since her heavy high kicking topspin went almost above the short Henin's head, Clijsters was shit after her U.S Open title and basically doing an 18 month retirement lap similar to her post 2011 Australian Open one, and Sharapova was a one dimensional ball basher back then (well not much has changed for her I guess).

Very good points, Amelie was a total match-up based player. She had very strange head-to-heads. She always, and I mean ALWAYS lost to Hingis, Clijsters, Venus, and Jennifer, but once those players lost form, she basically never lost to them again. She could almost never beat Lindsay or Serena, no matter how good or bad they were playing. Yet she totally owned Sharapova.

In a way a lot of Amelie's matches had this "never in doubt" feeling to them.

The only top player she had an actual, back-and-forth rivalry with was Justine.

[SelesGOAT]

Originally Posted by hingisGOAT

Very good points, Amelie was a total match-up based player. She had very strange head-to-heads. She always, and I mean ALWAYS lost to Hingis, Clijsters, Venus, and Jennifer, but once those players lost form, she basically never lost to them again. She could almost never beat Lindsay or Serena, no matter how good or bad they were playing. Yet she totally owned Sharapova.

In a way a lot of Amelie's matches had this "never in doubt" feeling to them.

The only top player she had an actual, back-and-forth rivalry with was Justine.

All this is true except for Jennifer. She always did pretty well with Jennifer, even winning many of their matches in 01/02 when Jennifer was at her peak, so I dont think Jennifer was a match up problem for her. Tall players or ones who could handle her spin like Lindsay, Serena, or Venus had no problems with her, until Venus started becoming a sucky player outside of grass and very fast hard courts that is. She is alot like Stosur in that there seemed to be only certain types of good players she could do well against. Although unlike Sam she did own Maria, lol! Mostly shorter players like Henin or Na. Hingis was a shorter player but she did so exceptionally well taking the ball and Mauresmo's heavy topspin early and controlling the rallies which is why she owned her in the early going.

Either way I dont see Mauresmo being such a force in the Graf-Seles era as Sabatini was. Too mentally weak, and while she has a good game she doesnt have a big enough weapon or defined enough style or game plan for that time. Sabatini was a really good player, she just played in the wrong time.

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by SelesGOAT

Either way I dont see Mauresmo being such a force in the Graf-Seles era as Sabatini was. Too mentally weak, and while she has a good game she doesnt have a big enough weapon or defined enough style or game plan for that time. Sabatini was a really good player, she just played in the wrong time.

Same is true for Sabatini.

"Better player" is subjective of course (IMO it's Mauresmo) but as far as acomplishments are concerned, it's not even close. (Mauresmo)

[SelesGOAT]

Originally Posted by Matt01

Same is true for Sabatini.

"Better player" is subjective of course (IMO it's Mauresmo) but as far as acomplishments are concerned, it's not even close. (Mauresmo)

I disagree about it not even being close in achievements. Mauresmo's only edges are 1 more slam and a bit of time at #1, but never ending a year there. Sabatini has 1 more WTA Championship, about 10 more WTA career titles, many more Premier titles, the same # of slam finals, a ton more slam semis, and she was a top 10 player for a whole decade. To someone who only values winning slams and nothing else about their careers yes 2 > 1.

[LightWarrior]

Momo has 2 slams, Sabatini just one...

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by SelesGOAT

I disagree about it not even being close in achievements. Mauresmo's only edges are 1 more slam and a bit of time at #1, but never ending a year there. Sabatini has 1 more WTA Championship, about 10 more WTA career titles, many more Premier titles, the same # of slam finals, a ton more slam semis, and she was a top 10 player for a whole decade. To someone who only values winning slams and nothing else about their careers yes 2 > 1.

Sabatini has not won 10 more WTA career titles (it's only 2) and she did not win many more Premier titles, either.
Mauresmo won twice as many Slams and made it to #1 while Sabatini never even reached #2. That's more than enough for Mauresmo to overcome those few less title wins.

[AcesHigh]

Sabatini. I prefer Mauresmo's game and I think in terms of raw talent, she was better.

But Mauresmo benefited immensely from the disintegration of the big 4 in 2003-2004 and her AO 2006 win, while totally legitimate does raise a few eyebrows and question marks.

Meanwhile, Sabatini had to play against Graf in her prime.

[Patrick345]

I don´t know whether I would say the stats back up that Mauresmo had a better career. It´s virtually equal.

77% Winning percentage vs. 70% Winning Percentage
0 weeks as #1 vs. 39 weeks as #1
27 vs. 25 titles singles
13 vs. 3 titles doubles
1 Slam vs. 2 Slams
2 Slam finals vs. 1 Slam final
15 Slam semifinals vs. 5 Slam semifinals
10 Slam quarters vs. 9 Slam quarters

Basically one had to contend in a top heavier era with a harder ranking system, while the other had to contest in a deeper era with a softer ranking system. It is reflected in their results. Sabatini has more titles, a higher winning percentage and the more consistent Slam results. Mauremso has more Slams and more weeks as #1. Personally I think either could have achieved what the other did, if you switch their time in history.

[spiceboy]

Sabatini IMO.

Her rivals during her career were most of the very best in the last decades and probably ever (Navratilova, Graf, Seles) plus her "second rated rivals" were the consistent Sánchez Vicario, Martínez and MJ Fernandez.

Mauresmo peaked when the Williamses were nowhere their peak and Clijsters, Henin and Davenport as their main rivals were good but nothing compared to the likes of Navratilova and Graf.

It is true that Mauresmo won 2 Grand Slams and Sabatini just one but they both played 3 Grand Slam finals, Gabriela facing no less than Graf in all those finals.

But probably the fact that actually proves who is the better player and what kind of rivals they had to face in the latter stages of GS tournaments is Gaby reaching a total of 18 GS semifinals while Amelie playing just 8 of them. And if you check their all time record you will see that their longevity is pretty much the same. Sabatini played 43 GS MD while Mauresmo played 42.

[SelesGOAT]

Originally Posted by AcesHigh

Sabatini. I prefer Mauresmo's game and I think in terms of raw talent, she was better.

But Mauresmo benefited immensely from the disintegration of the big 4 in 2003-2004 and her AO 2006 win, while totally legitimate does raise a few eyebrows and question marks.

Meanwhile, Sabatini had to play against Graf in her prime.

I agree with all you said except the part of the Australian Open win for Mauresmo. She was winning the match and decisive 3rd set vs Clijsters at the time of her very legitimate injury, and it isnt her fault Henin faked a sore tummy since she was getting her ass kicked in.

[thrust]

Originally Posted by LightWarrior

Momo has 2 slams, Sabatini just one...

Very close, but I give the slight advantage to Sabatini. Amelie was very lucky to win the AO in that either one or two players retired and Justine was very off form in the final. Amelie was never that good to beat Justine so easily if Justine was at her near best. Gaby did play in a very tough era and was unlucky not to beat Graf in that Wimbledon final, which devastated me almost as it probably did Gaby-LOL!! I loved both their games but liked Gaby more as a person, and especially, her looks.