...
The big knock on Lena will always be that her resume doesn’t include a major. But I’m not sure it really matters. When a number of journalists and publications ranked the Top 10 players of the decade, Lena ranked #10. Would a slam have moved her ahead of Mauresmo, Clisjters, Kuznetsova? She would have had to have won multiple slams to have moved up the list, frankly.
But the fact is that the numbers will never quite do Elena justice. At a time when the Top 100 is bursting with Russians, they routinely pick up titles and make runs at majors, it’s easy to forget the Elena was the second of the post-Soviet era after Kournikova to make a major impression on the tennis world. She was the first to make a US Open semifinal. The first to break $5 million in prize money. And, of course, the one of the first to play in an all-Russian slam final. Of course, she can’t take all the credit for her countrywomen’s success. But there’s no question she was an inspiration to the current crop of Russians, and played a major role in the changing demographics of the WTA.
Then there’s her role as an Olympian. Dementieva has long insisted that she’d rather win Olympic gold than a major. And while hers is still a minority opinion on the tour, there’s no doubt that the Olympic title is growing in importance and prestige. Again, it’s not solely due to Lena, but there’s no doubt that the fact she took it so seriously helped add to the luster of Olympic gold. For me, as a fan, I’ll always believe that Lena did have one slam in her, but that she used all that energy and focus on the Olympics instead.
