[crazillo]

I have been wanting to create a thread on the "second guard" of the WTA tour for quite a while. I might do so in the future, but now I'd simply like to ask: Out of these players, who do you consider to be the most successful? Why?

I initially wanted to include Pennetta as well but as she is the only one to have won a doubles slam I decided to leave her out of the competition. Sugiyama has been very successful in doubles, too. Same for Tauziat who has played in a GS final.

I actually am quite fascinated by those player that are not exactly considered GS singles titles winners yet have managed to stay at the top of the tour for a very long time. We should do a list of that "second guard" sometime.

Here is a list of their career accomplishments:

Daniela Hantuchova - still active -
WTA singles titles: 5, 2 Tier I-titles (2012 - Pattaya City; 2011 - Pattaya City; 2007 - Indian Wells, Linz; 2002 - Indian Wells)
WTA doubles titles: 9
Career high ranking: #5 (5 year-end top 20 finishes)
Career record: 483-315 (1.53 wins/event)
GS singles results: 1*SF, 3*QF

Chanda Rubin
WTA singles titles: 7 (2003 - Madrid, Eastbourne; 2002 - Eastbourne, Los Angeles; 2000 - Quebec City; 1999 - Hobart; 1997 - Linz)
WTA doubles titles: 10
Career high ranking: #6 (5 year-end top 20 finishes)
Career record: 399-254 (1.57 wins/event)
GS singles results: 1*SF, 3*QF

Magdalena Maleeva
WTA singles titles: 10, 2 Tier I-titles (2003 - Birmingham; 2002 - Moscow; 2001 - Budapest; 1999 - Pattaya City; 1995 - Chicago, Moscow, Oakland; 1994 - Moscow, Zurich; 1992 - San Marino.
WTA doubles titles: 5 (1 Tier I)
Career high ranking: #4 (7 year-end top 20 finishes)
Career record: 439-290 (1.51 wins/event)
GS singles results: 1*QF, 15*4R

Patty Schnyder
WTA singles titles: 11, 1 Tier I-title (2008 - Bali; 2005 - Gold Coast, Cincinnati; 2002 - Zürich; 2001 - Pattaya City; 1999 - Gold Coast; 1998 - Hobart, Hannover, Madrid, Maria Lankowitz, Palermo)
WTA doubles titles: 5
Career high ranking: #7 (7 year-end top 20 finishes)
Career record: 555-369 (1.5 wins/event)
GS singles results: 1*SF, 6*QF

[crazillo]

My liste would be:

1. Schnyder
2. Maleeva (although she has the surface slam, Schnyder's GS results are superior.)
3. Rubin
4. Hantuchova (I think she and Rubin are very close.)

[In The Zone]

I think I'd put Rubin ahead of Schnyder. Rubin contended with and defeated the best.

1. Rubin.
2. Schnyder.
3. Maleeva
4. Hantuchova

Maleeva also contended with the best but other than her GOAT Moscow run, she was always stuck behind the best.

[babsi]

Originally Posted by In The Zone

I think I'd put Rubin ahead of Schnyder. Rubin contended with and defeated the best.

1. Rubin.
2. Schnyder.
3. Maleeva
4. Hantuchova

Maleeva also contended with the best but other than her GOAT Moscow run, she was always stuck behind the best.

Charleston Tier I Clay Apr 21 2002
1 Schnyder - Virginia Ruano Pascual 6-2 6-3
2 Schnyder - Amélie Mauresmo(6) 6-3 3-6 6-2
3 Schnyder - Mary Pierce-WC 7-64 6-2
QF Schnyder - Serena Williams(3) 2-6 6-4 7-5
SF Schnyder - Jennifer Capriati(1) 6-4 6-3
F Iva Majoli - Schnyder 7-6 6-4

Just one example.

[crazillo]

Originally Posted by In The Zone

I think I'd put Rubin ahead of Schnyder. Rubin contended with and defeated the best.

1. Rubin.
2. Schnyder.
3. Maleeva
4. Hantuchova

Maleeva also contended with the best but other than her GOAT Moscow run, she was always stuck behind the best.

I think they all did, which is why I selected those players. And none of them reached a Slam final. I thought that was the most fair criteria for "second guard".

[AndreConrad]

They are all very close. Selecting different criteria for tie break will lead to different winner, so let me just go by my gut and say Patty leads the pack (five minutes from now maybe I will pick someone else )

[Shvedbarilescu]

It is very close. Trying to be objective, not easy because I am a fan of Dani's, I think I would go with 1) Patty, the amount of Slam quarterfinals is well ahead of the others, that helps, 2) Dani 3) Chandra (Dani and Chandra stats here are frighteningly similar but the fact that Dani has two Tier I's gives her the edge.) 4) Magdalena (The fact that her slam record in singles is very substantially weaker than the other three on from this group hurts her.)

Having said this, it is very close between the four, and access to another stat, particularly the four players record during their careers against top 10ers, could alter the order I would put them in.

[homogenius]

Originally Posted by Shvedbarilescu

It is very close. Trying to be objective, not easy because I am a fan of Dani's, I think I would go with 1) Patty, the amount of Slam quarterfinals is well ahead of the others, that helps, 2) Dani 3) Chandra (Dani and Chandra stats here are frighteningly similar but the fact that Dani has two Tier I's gives her the edge.) 4) Magdalena (The fact that her slam record in singles is very substantially weaker than the other three on from this group hurts her.)

Having said this, it is very close between the four, and access to another stat, particularly the four players record during their careers against top 10ers, could alter the order I would put them in.

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...374&highlight=

Patty had way more wins but the other 3 are pretty close to each other (last update was in 2010 so Dani must have improve a bit since then though)

[crazillo]

Originally Posted by homogenius

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...374&highlight=

Patty had way more wins but the other 3 are pretty close to each other (last update was in 2010 so Dani must have improve a bit since then though)

I honestly didn't expect to have Patty above the other three by such a big margin. That's quite suprising.
As I said, I originally had contemplated to include a couple more players. Pennetta for example might not even match the other players despite her AO doubles title when you look at those top 10 win stats.
Also, Rubin is the lowest of the four players in this thread.
Maybe we should do an even bigger thread and include the likes of Petrova, Date Krumm and Pennetta (although they are still active)...

[forehand27]

Rubin should have won the 96 Australian Open where she choked badly when firmly in control in the semis vs Seles. In the form she was in she would probably have beaten Huber in the final, and btw she had already drubbed Sabatini, and outlasted Sanchez Vicario in an epic at that event. That alone makes her the winner for me. She was the only one of these 4 ever capable of winning a slam, and she should have won that particular slam. Maggie Maleeva, Patty Schnyder, and Daniela Hantuchova never were capable of winning a slam. Hantuchova should have made the 2008 Australian Open final but had no chance of actually winning if she had.

[@danieln1]

What an interesting thread, I really like prime Hantuchova, Rubin and Maleeva

My order would be?
1.Maleeva
2.Schnyder
3.Hantuchova
4.Rubin

[Sammo]

Hantuchova obviously, she won Indian Wells, twice, none of them has won a title as important as Indian Wells. Daniela also has victories over Henin, Serena, Venus, Hingis, and Clijsters. She's also been number 5 in the world (the second best ranked of them all), and she has the Grand Slam in mixed doubles.

[Drake1980]

Maleeva!

[KournikovaFan91]

Dani has 2 IWs (Premier Mandatory which now trumps just a regualar Tier 1) and the Grand Slam in Mixed, I know its only mixed but still getting all 4 is quite an achievement.

So I'd go with Dani.

[Monzanator]

Chanda Rubin must be one of the most underrated players in the modern game. If she had Hantuchova's looks, she'd be winning this poll hands down. Rubin and it's not even close IMO.