Tennis Forum banner

Players with the deepest results at each slam in the 2010-2019 decade

2K views 19 replies 14 participants last post by  VeeJJ 
#1 · (Edited)
This is of course not taking into a lot of factors, so please don't think this thread is "best players" at each slam.

This does not take into account things like consistency, win percentage etc. It's just based on their best results.

Things I have looked at:

- Winners of each slam, separated then by number of times won, then by number of finals, then by number of SFs, then by number of QFs, etc etc.
- Finalists of each slam, separated then by number of finals, then by number of SFs, then by number of QFs etc etc.

The top 10 were filled by this criteria.

Results pre-2010 were not taken into account at all.


Australian Open

1. Serena Williams
2. Victoria Azarenka
3. Li Na
4. Caroline Wozniacki
5. Angelique Kerber
6. Naomi Osaka
7. Maria Sharapova
8. Petra Kvitova
9. Simona Halep
10. Venus Williams

French Open

1. Maria Sharapova
2. Serena Williams
3. Simona Halep
4. Francesca Schiavone
5. Garbine Muguruza
6. Li Na
7. Ash Barty
8. Jelena Ostapenko
9. Sam Stosur
10. Sara Errani

Wimbledon

1. Serena Williams
2. Petra Kvitova
3. Angelique Kerber
4. Garbine Muguruza
5. Simona Halep
6. Marion Bartoli
7. Agnieszka Radwanska
8. Sabine Lisicki
9. Venus Williams
10. Maria Sharapova

US Open

1. Serena Williams
2. Flavia Pennetta
3. Angelique Kerber
4. Sam Stosur
5. Sloane Stephens
6. Naomi Osaka
7. Kim Clijsters
8. Bianca Andreescu
9. Victoria Azarenka
10. Caroline Wozniacki


I know I have probably made some mistakes in the order here (it's after 1am and I should definitely be sleeping rather than doing this) so feel free to correct me :grin2:
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Also worth noting:

The only players with multiple wins at any particular slam in this decade were

- Serena Williams: AO x3, RG x2, W x4, USO x3

- Maria Sharapova: RG x2

- Petra Kvitova: W x2

- Victoria Azarenka: AO x2

So every slam had one repeat winner except the AO with two.


The only players to have multiple finals appearances (win or lose) at the same slam were

- Serena Williams: AO x4, RG x3, W x6, USO x6

- Maria Sharapova: AO x2, RG x3

- Li Na: AO x3

- Victoria Azarenka: AO x2, USO x2

- Angelique Kerber: W x2

- Simona Halep: RG x3

- Francesca Schiavone: RG x2

- Petra Kvitova: W x2

- Garbine Muguruza: W x2
 
#5 ·
I don't agree with the criteria you are using..the criteria you are using makes more sense to decide who has had the best result in a tournament. So Bianca, Naomi have had more deeper results at USO than say Vika just coz they won the title once?

I would prefer it by assigning certain number of points for reaching each round and then take an average by number of times they participated in.

Like say,
10 points for winning title
7 for reaching final
5 for SF
3 for QF
1 point for 4th Round.

Say, if someone played in 3 US Opens and reached 3 SFs, then that player has consistently had better deeper results than someone who reached Final only once and 3rd Round the other 2 times
 
#8 ·
I like your criteria but why would you invent a points system for this when there already is a points system?

Simply add up the total number of ranking points and sort the players that way. Bianca has 2000 points but she's only played one Slam so she's probably not in the conversation of top 10 players at the USO for the decade (any player can easily accumulate over 2000 points by reaching the 4th round 10 times).
 
#6 ·
Who would have ever in a million years thought Franny would be on that list.

Also looking at all those finals unconverted this decade by Serena is both heart wrenching and astounding.


The idea that she could be close or at 30 if not for lack of conversion in finals is quite something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matmagix
#12 ·
Crazy how poorly Maria has performed in NY, not even in the top 10,
yet somehow #10 at Wimbledon.
 
#13 ·
Let's not get carried away here with the results of Sharapova please ... she is not even in top 50 of any slam (maybe RG) post-Meldonium era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angostura
#14 ·
Just for curiosity's sake I decided to add up the points each has accumulated in each Slam for the decade. I feel that more accurately and objectively depicts one's dominance in the Slam.

I think too much weight is put on winners, especially recent winners. Bianca, Osaka, and even players like Halep and Barty have no business being in a top 10 for the decade since they've scarcely played in all of it (Bianca was 9 when the decade started).

Caroline Wozniacki, for instance, has never won the US Open but she's had a final and several semi-finals and a good run every year which adds up over a decade. She's actually been better at this event than any of the winners not named Serena Williams. And that's what should matter for a list of this sort. Anyone can get hot and win one tournament (looking at you Francesca Schiavone). But being consistent over the course of a decade is what matters.


Australian Open

1. Serena Williams - 8,640
2. Victoria Azarenka - 5,760
3. Li Na - 5,620
4. Caroline Wozniacki - 4,160
5. Angelique Kerber - 3,780
6. Naomi Osaka - 2,440
7. Maria Sharapova - 4,670
8. Petra Kvitova - 2,870
9. Simona Halep - 2,570
10. Venus Williams - 2,590

French Open

1. Maria Sharapova - 6,780
2. Serena Williams - 6,180
3. Simona Halep - 5,440
4. Francesca Schiavone - 3,840
5. Garbine Muguruza - 4,090
6. Li Na - 2,450
7. Ash Barty - 2,170
8. Jelena Ostapenko - 2,030
9. Sam Stosur 4,960
10. Sara Errani - 3,110

Wimbledon

1. Serena Williams - 11,210
2. Petra Kvitova - 6,180
3. Angelique Kerber - 5,160
4. Garbine Muguruza - 3,530
5. Simona Halep - 3,830
6. Marion Bartoli - 2,740
7. Agnieszka Radwanska - 3,860
8. Sabine Lisicki - 3,210
9. Venus Williams - 3,270
10. Maria Sharapova - 2,890

US Open

1. Serena Williams - 11,190
2. Flavia Pennetta - 3,340
3. Angelique Kerber - 3,680
4. Sam Stosur - 3,270
5. Sloane Stephens - 3,020
6. Naomi Osaka - 2,500
7. Kim Clijsters - 2,070
8. Bianca Andreescu - 2,004
9. Victoria Azarenka - 3,800
10. Caroline Wozniacki - 4,120
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top