[Lin Lin]

Considering she was not a so good player and really didn't win some huge events,but she is so famous all over the world,even now she doesn't play tennis,she still has a huge influence.And I heard that she earns as much as Serena or Sharapova does from sponsors,so,I think maybe she is the most successful player commercially.

However,her compatriot Nadia Petrova is not so lucky,I heard she even has no sponsors sometimes,which doesn't assort with her achievement I think.

 

[Agape]

Anna was a great player. And yes she easily is. In the late ninteys and early 00s, if you went to one of her practice sessions you would see a HUGE crowd of panting grown men proposing to her.

 

[Vanity Bonfire]

Well her looks certainly made up for her (lack of) ability.

 

[bad_angel_109]

i reckon so. altho as the years go on (and depending on at wat age masha retires at ) anna will lose that crown to sharapova. and perhaps one day (say in 8 years) to ana

but if u jus generally mean the tennis sexpot, then yea, anna's the most commercialized 'successful' player. im a bit dubious about her being "successful". succuessful in being the most commercialized player, hell yes. successful on-court? no.

 

[Golovinjured.]

Without a doubt.

 

[Golovinjured.]

Also, anyone who talks about Kournikova's lack of ability is a complete hack, and has no idea about tennis, nor the way Anna played it.

 

[Vanity Bonfire]

Also, anyone who talks about Kournikova's lack of ability is a complete hack, and has no idea about tennis, nor the way Anna played it.

She started off really well and could have had a great career, but then she just got more interested at the camera lens that was poking in her face.

 

[Mashafaaaaan]

Sharapova

 

[Polikarpov]

Sharapova

In terms of money, yes. But in term of worldwide name recognition, I have to say Kournikova.

 

[Helen Lawson]

As against her on-court results, absolutely yes. Dollar for dollar, not sure, Sharapova is making gigantic money right now and it's like 10 years later so it's likely more money in terms of amount. Adjust for inflation, not sure.

 

[Marionated]

I don't get the whole she wasn't a good player notion.
Yes, she didn't win a singles title, but I'd take her career over a Smashnova career any day.

 

[Balltossovic]

Considering she was not a so good player and really didn't win some huge events,but she is so famous all over the world,even now she doesn't play tennis,she still has a huge influence.And I heard that she earns as much as Serena or Sharapova does from sponsors,so,I think maybe she is the most successful player commercially.

However,her compatriot Nadia Petrova is not so lucky,I heard she even has no sponsors sometimes,which doesn't assort with her achievement I think.

With all due respect ...... that's GARBAGE!

Not so good players don't make the semifinals of slams. Not so good players aren't ranked number one in doubles (And certainly not top 8 in singles). Not so good players don't win slams in doubles.

And to answer your question. I think she use to be but Maria may have taken over that spot

 

[sammy01]

she transcended the sport for a while, making pop videos, fitness videos, bra contracts ect she was a big celebrity, people bought into her name.

 

[Helen Lawson]

How could I have forgotten about that bra ad, "only the ball should bounce." That was fanstastic. I still maintain Sharapova should do some ad in Central Park flriting with boys while Tina Turner's "Typical Male" plays in the background. She could sell ice to Eskimos with that ad. Totally hot, right?

 

[Max565]

Kournikova is not that famous or popular anymore... is she?

 

[joão.]

:worship:

 

[Dawn Marie]

Anna was a player that woudl piss me off. She and her management handled her all the wrong way.

Sure she hurt her thumb but with all her NATURAL talent there was no rhyme or reason that she should not have won 1 title.

Whoever says that Anna had very little talent has no clue about tennis. Anna to this day still hold more tennis ability then 95% of her countrywomen. She had great soft hands at the net. Good solid groundies, good solid footwork. Anna was a great all court player.
Which is why it's pathetic that she NEVER won 1 freakin title.
Yes, Anna is #1 because she's more world wide known. Even here in the states.

 

[Dave.]

Yeah, probably.

Okay she didn't win a singles title but her career had to be somewhat impressive for her to be recognised as she was. She proved a worthy top-tenner and even played like a top 5 at times. Not to mention her incredible doubles career where she was the best at one point. Not winning a singles title is not the defining note of her career. She had a much better career than loads of others who did win titles.


So it's not like Anna achieved all that she did off-court purely due to looks. She did have the results to back it up. If she was not a top 10 player getting those big results, she would have been as commercially successful.

 

[azinna]

She had reams of talent. And this ridiculous beauty. Watched her live at Wimbledon in both singles and doubles (97 or 98?) and can testify to both qualities.

But, as many have said, her downfall was her very early awareness of the camera. For example, during that Wimbledon visit, while we were watching a Rafter match on Court 2, Anna came out of the player's lounge to lean on the rail of a balcony. Ostensibly to watch. But boys and men started calling her name longingly. And within 15 minutes, about half the stadium had around to look up and watch her watching our match. She stayed there for a good half hour. And loved every minute of it.

 

[Polikarpov]

I remember watching her second round match in Wimbledon '00 against Anne-Gaelle Sidot. She was I think ranked 19 in the world at that time, but was given a slot to play in Court 1, which she managed to fill. Her popularity during her heydays was really amazing.