[bandabou]

Originally Posted by Steven.

these, especially the bolded parts.

I'm still convinced that if Clijsters was healthy (she was clearly hampered by her ankle injury and was not moving well for her standards at all), Azarenka would still be slamless but the stars aligned that week for her.

How so? Masha, the GOAT of GOATS ( with her 3 majors at the time...yet she was already discussed like she was some Juju or Vee.. ) was there in the final to stop her. What happened?

[In The Zone]

Originally Posted by Steven.

these, especially the bolded parts.

I'm still convinced that if Clijsters was healthy (she was clearly hampered by her ankle injury and was not moving well for her standards at all), Azarenka would still be slamless but the stars aligned that week for her.

Unfortunately, in the late 90s and early 2000s, there weren't any slams to be had. So many great players but only so many slams can be won. Now, anyone can win slams and now they will be compared. This is part of the reason why I still hold Davenport ahead of Maria.

[BodyElectric.]

Originally Posted by bandabou

How so? Masha, the GOAT of GOATS ( with her 3 majors at the time...yet she was already discussed like she was some Juju or Vee.. ) was there in the final to stop her. What happened?

True.

[BodyElectric.]

Originally Posted by In The Zone

Unfortunately, in the late 90s and early 2000s, there weren't any slams to be had. So many great players but only so many slams can be won. Now, anyone can win slams and now they will be compared. This is part of the reason why I still hold Davenport ahead of Maria.

I agree, i'm not trying to shade or anything. But Davenport had a very tough era, she had to fight a lot to win her slams and she could have won more but due to the high level of play in the late 90s and early 2000s she was at disadvantage and her mental strength wasn't really there either.

[Matt01]

It's dead obvious that Smitten's predictions are going to flop this season.

Originally Posted by JarkaFish

Yeah, Vika's slam win this year is such a sham, going through an injured Clijsters and error-fest Sharapova; she's lucky she didn't have to go through a real player like Errani.

Obviously posters like Sammy01 are still bitter that Vika ended Kim's last real hope of a Slam title so they want Vika to flop as much as possible when in reality her year will be fine while Kim is sitting at home, retired, probably thinking abour her next pathetic farewall tour.

[sammy01]

Originally Posted by Matt01

Obviously posters like Sammy01 are still bitter that Vika ended Kim's last real hope of a Slam title so they want Vika to flop as much as possible when in reality her year will be fine while Kim is sitting at home, retired, probably thinking abour her next pathetic farewall tour.

I said Vika would have a good year. Kim is happy, her husband doesn't have to throw himself out a window to get away from her unlike vika

[dsanders06]

Originally Posted by In The Zone

Unfortunately, in the late 90s and early 2000s, there weren't any slams to be had. So many great players but only so many slams can be won. Now, anyone can win slams and now they will be compared. This is part of the reason why I still hold Davenport ahead of Maria.

And yet, when it comes to Serena, you don't factor in that she's won HALF her Slams in the same weak era that you claim Maria's benefitted from Just screams inferiority complex / serial hypocrisy.

[bandabou]

Originally Posted by sammy01

I said Vika would have a good year. Kim is happy, her husband doesn't have to throw himself out a window to get away from her unlike vika

That's low, Sammy. Come on!

[Steven.]

Originally Posted by Break My Rapture

Kim was doing x-treme splits at will throughout their semi, hampered by her ankle my ass.

Originally Posted by borrowedheaven

I love Vika and I think she fully deserved her win (injuries are part of the game), but Kim was way slower after her ankle roll.

what borrowedheaven said. Come on, you've watched enough tennis to know that Kim's movement was completely rubish and she wasn't getting to shots she would've normally gotten.

Originally Posted by JarkaFish

Yeah, Vika's slam win this year is such a sham, going through an injured Clijsters and error-fest Sharapova; she's lucky she didn't have to go through a real player like Errani.

idk why people keep bringing Errani into this discussion. As much as I hate her, she was an outstanding player during the clay season and didn't fold during the entire FO tournament. She played like a top 10 player. People actually underrate the FO final because it had "only Errani" in it but she definitely made Maria work for the win (and they both came out with positive winners-ue ratio), unlike Maria in the AO final who gifted the match to Vika

Originally Posted by bandabou

How so? Masha, the GOAT of GOATS ( with her 3 majors at the time...yet she was already discussed like she was some Juju or Vee.. ) was there in the final to stop her. What happened?

Mental collapse. Bad match up. No longer the player she was when she won those 3 slams (in much steeper competition too).

Originally Posted by In The Zone

Unfortunately, in the late 90s and early 2000s, there weren't any slams to be had. So many great players but only so many slams can be won. Now, anyone can win slams and now they will be compared. This is part of the reason why I still hold Davenport ahead of Maria.

actually, unlike most Maria stans, I think there is very little separating Maria and Lindsay only because of the amount of tournaments Lindsay won. It's the one reason why I wish Maria would play more tier 2 and weaker tournaments (4 vs 3 slams, 10 vs 11 tier 1s, 1 vs 1 yecs).

[Excelscior]

Originally Posted by sammy01

I said Vika would have a good year. Kim is happy, her husband doesn't have to throw himself out a window to get away from her unlike vika

[effedcamel]

Originally Posted by LethalLaura

I agree, i'm not trying to shade or anything. But Davenport had a very tough era, she had to fight a lot to win her slams and she could have won more but due to the high level of play in the late 90s and early 2000s she was at disadvantage and her mental strength wasn't really there either.

And yet when the conversation turns to Martina's greatness, people turn around and say she took advantage of a weak, transitional era?

[NashaMasha]

Originally Posted by bandabou

How so? Masha, the GOAT of GOATS ( with her 3 majors at the time...yet she was already discussed like she was some Juju or Vee.. ) was there in the final to stop her. What happened?

Pova was after a long break from tennis due to her ankle injury . She actually should have lost in SF , but she decided after her Wimbledon loss never lose again to Petra

[bandabou]

Originally Posted by dsanders06

And yet, when it comes to Serena, you don't factor in that she's won HALF her Slams in the same weak era that you claim Maria's benefitted from Just screams inferiority complex / serial hypocrisy.

HALF of her slams... Okay, even if you discount those..still'd leave her with twice as many as Masha anyways, soo...

[sammy01]

Originally Posted by bandabou

That's low, Sammy. Come on!

Don't worry her new BF sideshow bob will bounce when he hits the floor thanks to his hair.

[Chrissie-fan]

Originally Posted by In The Zone

Unfortunately, in the late 90s and early 2000s, there weren't any slams to be had. So many great players but only so many slams can be won. Now, anyone can win slams and now they will be compared. This is part of the reason why I still hold Davenport ahead of Maria.

I think that by the time her career is over Maria will rank well ahead of Lindsay in terms of career achievements. But regardless of that, I think that Davenport is probably the most underrated player of the last fifteen years or so, not only based on her grand slam record but just her overall career.