[Ciarán]

Having a bit of an argument with a fellow TF poster on MSN, who shall remain unnamed for the mean time as these claims are absolutely hysterical in my mind. He argues that had Kournikova and Golovin remained uninjured; they would have won 'at least a couple' of Grand Slams.

Your thoughts? I'm a resounding 'No. Never.'. While both were good players; there were at least 10 others capable of beating them easily at all times. They were miles behind the best of both of their respective generations. This is purely speculation, but in my mind, neither achieved anything close to even suggesting a Grand Slam title.

 

[Dav.]

Well, considering the career Golovin had by her last healthy match (at age 19, ranked 12th with no points to defend) and the way in which the tour has evolved to one where teenagers achieve very little and those in their late 20s are peaking, she probably would have had a very established career. At most, one or two slams could have been possible. She never really was able to show her true potential since injuries kept her out of the tour most of the year (except 2004). No way to tell. :shrug:

Kournikova's game wasn't improving since her teenage years so there is no way she would have won a large event.

 

[Olórin]

Kournikova: obviously not. She couldn't win a tier two title. And she played some of her best tennis in 1998 when the field was probably at one of its all-time weakest points. I suppose she could have if she'd been given Myskina's draw at the FO 2004, but so could have most top 10 players.

Impossible to tell with Golovin because her career ended so early, like Vaidisova. Might have won a slam (Schiavone did), might never have made another semi-final.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Kournikova, yes, if she weren't challenged by Hingis, and before she became a total headcase.
Golovin-she probably would sneak one in, or become a bridesmaid.

 

[Volcana]

Golovin? No chance.

Kournikova, if she had gotten past the mental block she had about winning tournaments? (A HUGE 'if') Still no. The players around same age as her were too good. But she'd have seen s few slam semis. Put it this way. She had as much talent as Myskina, so things could have fallen her way.

 

[Dav.]

Kournikova: obviously not. She couldn't win a tier two title. And she played some of her best tennis in 1998 when the field was probably at one of its all-time weakest points.

Impossible to tell with Golovin because her career ended so early, like Vaidisova. Might have won multiple slams, might never have made another semi-final.

Exactly.

It's kind of hard to answer the poll since it doesn't differentiate between the two and I only think one would...and is it saying "could?" Because the "Yes, for sure" makes it sound like it means they definitely would.

 

[BartoliBabes]

Having a bit of an argument with a fellow TF poster on MSN, who shall remain unnamed for the mean time as these claims are absolutely hysterical in my mind. He argues that had Kournikova and Golovin remained uninjured; they would have won 'at least a couple' of Grand Slams.

Your thoughts? I'm a resounding 'No. Never.'. While both were good players; there were at least 10 others capable of beating them easily at all times. They were miles behind the best of both of their respective generations. This is purely speculation, but in my mind, neither achieved anything close to even suggesting a Grand Slam title.

Kournikova couldn't win a singles title nevermind a grand slam

and Golovin never really showed much of a challenge either, she didn't make the top10 or advance further than a quarter-final of a grandslam

how someone can say something like that and be so assured about it is beyond me:lol:

 

[Tennis Fool]

Kournikova: obviously not. She couldn't win a tier two title. And she played some of her best tennis in 1998 when the field was probably at one of its all-time weakest points.

Impossible to tell with Golovin because her career ended so early, like Vaidisova. Might have won a slam (Schiavone did), might never have made another semi-final.

Exactly.

Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

 

[Ciarán]

Well, considering the career Golovin had by her last healthy match (at age 19) and the way in which the tour has evolved to one where teenagers achieve very little and those in their late 20s are peaking, she probably would have had a very established career. At most, one or two slams could have been possible. She never really was able to show her true potential since injuries kept her out of the tour most of the year (except 2004). :shrug:

Kournikova's game wasn't improving since her teenage years so there is no way she would have won a large event.

Actually; she was of generation Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Ivanovic and a respective mention to non-slam winners Chakvetadze and Vaidisova who achieved a top 5 and top 10 rankings. All of these players achieved big at a young age (younger than when Tati retired).

 

[Dav.]

Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

Yes, but, contrary to Golovin, Anna's game was declining so even if her back injury had not been chronic, she likely would not have had a career development.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Yes, but, contrary to Golovin, Anna's game was declining so even if her back injury had not been chronic, she likely would not have had a career development.

Yeah, her chances were in 1997 and 1998, but it was still her window of opportunity if not for Hingis.

 

[Olórin]

Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

What is your point? You want us to go back in time and stop Hingis from being born. Thank god for Hingis otherwise the standard of play for the Grand Slams in 1997 would have been abominably low and players who couldn't even win ordinary titles with YEARS on the tour would have been getting their maiden titles at slams.

 

[BlueTrees]

I think Golovin would at least reach a few finals/semifinals for sure. She was really starting to break through in the 2007 indoor season. A real shame what happened to her

 

[Tennis Fool]

What is your point?

I think I've made my point, several times. I disagree with your point about the lack of depth on the tour in the late 1990s.

 

[Dav.]

I think Golovin would at least reach a few finals/semifinals for sure. She was really starting to break through in the 2007 indoor season. A real shame what happened to her

And the reason her retirement age is important because you see players like Schiavone, Stosur and Li Na (who had nothing like the teenage career Tati did) winning slams and staying in the top-10 now. That's why you cannot say for certain she never would have won anything. :shrug:

 

[ToopsTame]

Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

Kournikova lost to lots of people besides Hingis in those years. Venus, Davenport, Seles, Huber, Novotna, Martinez, Coetzer etc. It's not comparable to Roddick's best years at all. In Roddick's case he was a solid top 3 player and was losing mainly to Federer. Kournikova had many other players who could beat her. By 1999 Serena arrived, by 2001 Kim, Justine and Capriati 2.0, by 2004 the other Russians were peaking. Kournikova would've had lots of problems with all those players.

 

[BartoliBabes]

Wrong, it was Hingis who kept her from titles that year and in 1997. She was like Roddick to Federer.

ok just shut up now

 

[Vincey!]

Golovin is hard to tell cuz she had to "retired" when she was at her peak so who knows where she would have gone. Kournikova I don't think so, she never won a title and rarely beat big top 5 of that time.

 

[Sean.]

Kournikova, yes.
Golovin, hell no!

 

[ToopsTame]

And the reason her retirement age is important because you see players like Schiavone, Stosur and Li Na (who had nothing like the teenage career Tati did) winning slams and staying in the top-10 now. That's why you cannot say for certain she never would have won anything. :shrug:

But then you can't say that about anybody then. It's always possible that someone will have a surprise late in their career. We can say it wasn't likely though. If anything, players who had success very early in their careers, tend to drop off and never attain the same heights again (Cornet, Sprem, Dokic, Peer, Szavay, Chakvetadze, Bovina etc.)