Tennis Forum banner

Could they?

Could Kournikova or Golovin have won a Grand Slam?

6772 Views 72 Replies 47 Participants Last post by  donniedarkofan
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.
21 - 40 of 73 Posts
ok just shut up now:help:
Hater :ras:
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.)
Yeah, but we're talking about what would have happened without injuries. Almost every single girl on that last missed their peak years because of injuries (save for Peer and Cornet).
i don't think i am
Roddick is a grand slam winner and a former world no.1
there's no comparison:help:

Kournikova was a pretty good player and did have a few good results,
but c'mon don't get ahead of yourself:lol:
Kournikova win a slam?! :spit: She couldn't even win a singles title period.

Golovin, possibly. She'll always be a question mark. But I will say she is vastly overrated on this forum regardless.
Schnyder Dislikes Kournikova :devil:

AP News Archive May. 29, 1999 12:41 PM ET

PARIS (AP) _ Anna Kournikova may be adored by the French fans, but she's not so well-liked by No. 11-seeded Patty Schnyder.

That's putting it mildly. The 20-year old Swiss player said after losing her match Saturday with the Russian star that she played badly because she so dislikes Kournikova.

``I have a problem playing her,'' Schnyder said. When asked if the problem was personal, she nodded in the affirmative.

This isn't the first time Schnyder's disike for Kournikova has affected her play. In April the two played each other in Florida at the Bausch & Lomb Championships and Schnyder seemed to tank the match.

``I hate playing (Kournikova) and I don't play if I'm on the court with her,'' said Schnyder afterward. ``It's her ... and everything around her.''
See less See more
Today ? Why not. I know Kournikova never won a single title, but neither did Schiavone till she was 27- Kournikova retired at 21. Its the Era when scrubs of yesterday became champions of today.
Kournikova - yes.
Golovina - no.
Kournikova win a slam?! :spit: She couldn't even win a singles title period.

Golovin, possibly. She'll always be a question mark. But I will say she is vastly overrated on this forum regardless.

Golovin might have gotten one, But I for sure Golovin would been an top 10 player, Kournikova Hell No, But if any names that should be brought up who could've who a slam is Vaidisova, Dementieva & Safina (if she would stayed injury free.
There's always a possibility. So "could"? Yes. That's so for any player. But very unlikely that they would have.
I thought we had 8 more months before the typical Golovin delusion.

I'm already readying "a FEW finals" and "yes." :rolls:
Pretty loose question - I mean they both *could* have won a slam, but I think Golovin is the more likely candidate although it is so hard to say when someone has such a short career and all you can do is speculate.

On another topic, why do people seem to think Myskina had some form of cake draw for her French Open title? Sure the final vs Dementieva was a wash out because Elena had a meltdown, but Kuznetsova/Venus/Capriati/Dementieva is hardly a weak final 4 opponents. That season Venus was having a great clay season; won Charleston and Warsaw and withdrew from the final of Berlin. Her QF loss to Myskina was her only loss on clay that year. Capriati was in decline as a force, sure, but she was still ranked #6, and a multiple slam winner who played well on clay and who had beaten Myskina comfortably just a few weeks earlier in Berlin (from memory it was 3 and 2, but it was routine for sure.) Kuznetsova was slamless at this point, admittedly, but she was already a notably good performer on clay and backed this up with strong results at the FO for the next few years.

Myskina winning the FO was a surprise, because usually she didn't play especially well on clay (I'd bet that clay is her worst win/loss ratio surface but would need to check) - but she had a great fortnight and beat legitimate players. I don't see what's cakewalkish about beating #11/#9/#6/#10 consecutively. It's not the hardest draw in the history of the sport, but it's really far from being the easiest. Do people really think Ivanovic beating Cetkovska/Schnyder/Jankovic/Safina is more impressive? Or Schiavone beating Kirilenko/Wozniacki/Dementieva(ret)/Stosur? I'm not trying to say anyone else doesn't deserve their slam or really to choose who had the "easiest" draw, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone could deduce that Myskina had a cakewalk draw.
See less See more
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.
I think Golovin could have.
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.
This is why I think Anna could in theory have won a slam. Novotna was a headcase and eventually won a slam also at the end of her career.

Not to mention Kournikova would have picked up a WTA title had she had a longer career. She rarely played anything lower than a Tier 2 and lost in most tournaments to top players like Seles, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Hingis, Capriati etc.

Her loss to Smashnova was the title she should most certainly have won however the amount of pressure to win was too much, but had she played a few more years I reckon she'd have picked up a few titles, not tons but a handful.

Anna may not have been the best of her generation but in terms of ability would probably be Top 5 in this generation. :shrug:
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.
Schiavone atleast kept the ball in play, and atleast played with a brain, both things completely foreign to Anna Kournikova (and to a lesser degree Golovin). Even Schiavone is also a hard thing to sell for someone who in her career regularly got drubbed by Anna Smashanova who is basically just an even shorter version of Schiavone with less craft.

Kournikova leads the Smashnova H2H and of the 2 losses Anna was ranked World No. 77 in Auckland and of course the second was the Shanghai final.

Admittedly the Auckland loss to Smashnova also in a way denied Anna a title, very likely she could have beaten Panova although with the amount of pressure on her I'm not sure. Even more embarassing is she managed to take Serena to 3 sets a week later in Sydney but couldn't beat Smashnova in Auckland :sad:
Please, Schiavone won a Slam.
Playing literally the match of her life, then backed it up by making the finals the next year. She showed you absolutely the talent was there.

Schiavone is the prefect example of maximizing potential. Kournikova, probably the perfect example of minimizing it. Golovin? Such a short career, she never had a chance to show what she could be. She won two titles, and once made a slam QF. You can't make a theoretical slam winner out of that.
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.
Really? Kournikova could beat Sveta, Venus, Capriati and Dementieva in a row? Or was there another 2004 FO that I missed. :confused:
21 - 40 of 73 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.