Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
25. Venus
26. Jim Courier
27. ASV
28. Nastase
29. Lindsay Davenport
30. Arthur Ashe
31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
32. Tracy Austin
33. Hana Mandlikova
34. Lleyton Hewitt
35. Stan Smith
36. Jennifer Capriati
37. Gustavo Kuerten
38. Virginia Wade
39. Patrick Rafter
40. Gabriela Sabatini

And some 'own horn' tootiin'. In an earlier thread, Tennis Magazines 40 greatest players (I think I've figured out who's on the list) I tried to figure out who was left to go on the list. I hit 28-25 pretty good. (Actually, I don't KNOW that, but my friend told me on the phone.)
14 Sampras ......... 22 Graf
11 Bjorn Borg ...... 18 Navratilova
08 Ivan Lendl ...... 18 Evert
08 Jimmy Connors ... 16 Court (?)
08 Andre Agassi .... 12 King
07 John McEnroe .... 09 Seles
07 Mats Wilander ... 07 Goolagong
07 John Newcombe ... 06 Serena (list was made pre OZ '05)
06 Boris Becker .... 05 Hingis
06 Stefan Edberg ... 04 Venus
05 Rod Laver ....... 04 Sanchez-Vicario
05 Roy Emerson
04 Roger Federer
04 Jim Courier
04 Guillermo Vilas
04 Ken Rosewall
02 Ilie Nastase

Already Listed

...... 29. Lindsay Davenport
...... 30. Arthur Ashe
...... 31. Justine Henin-Hardenne
...... 32. Tracy Austin
...... 33. Hana Mandlikova
...... 34. Lleyton Hewitt
...... 35. Stan Smith
...... 36. Jennifer Capriati
...... 37. Gustavo Kuerten
...... 38. Virginia Wade
...... 39. Patrick Rafter
...... 40. Gabriela Sabatini


I therefore predict that the only woman on next month's list, if there are any, is Hingis. (It might be Rosewall, Emerson, Federer, Vilas.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
tommyk75 said:
I don't get why Justine is ranked higher than Hana. Hana=4 Slams going up against two of the best players ever (Chris & Martina), Justine=3 Slams in fields largely depleted by injured players...
I'm not saying I agree with it either, but Mandlikova was never #1. Henin-Hardenne was #1 for 45 weeks. More important than the ranking though, Henin-Hardenne was the best active player on the tour for the better part of a year. Yes, injuries to other players had something to do with that, but she beat the best to win her first slam. Mandlikova was never the best player, her career records vs Evert and Navratilova are something like 7-19 and 7-29.

I would guess that's the principal reason. Another issue is that one of Mandlikova's GS titles was OZ '80, which happened to be during a run a fairly weak fields at OZ. Again, I think that's bogus reasoning, but those are some of the things they might have considered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,969 Posts
how can they make a list comparing players that are still playing and players that are already retired?! i mean it´s good to see Vee in 25 but her carrer ain´t over yet she might become higher then she is. the same to other girls on tour imo that is an unfair list
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Sphenx said:
how can they make a list comparing players that are still playing and players that are already retired?! i mean it´s good to see Vee in 25 but her carrer ain´t over yet she might become higher then she is. the same to other girls on tour imo that is an unfair list
Would you rather see her not on the list?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,980 Posts
It will be interesting to see where they place Federer on this list. He obviously is in mid-career at most and could go on playing another five or six years, possibly at this level. That might mean another dozen slams to his credit, possibly breaking Sampras record.

But it is hard to assemble a list based upon what "might" happen in the future and so a number of players who have accomplished more so far would probably have to be ranked above him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,837 Posts
yeah seriously, Hana should be above Justine and ASV above Venus. Hana was never no.1 but she won one more slam and was a top player for many more years (compared with Justine so far). And ASV doesn't have Venus's gold medals (she's got two silvers and two bronzes) but she won her first slam at a younger age and her last slam almost a decade later. They spent about equal time on no.1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
anabel said:
yes, how can venus be ahead of arantxa.. geez.
Actually, their career statitcs are eerily close.

..........................Williams..Sanchez-Vicario
GS singles....................4.........4....
GS doubles....................6.........6....
GS mixed......................2.........4....
Total Singles Titles.........31........29....
Total Doubles Titles..........9........67....

GS singles finals record... 4-6.......4-8

Weeks at #1..................11........12....
Olympic Gold (s)............. 1........ 0 ...
Olympic Gold (d)..............1........ 0 ...
Olympic Silver (s)............0.........1....
Olympic Silver (d)............0.........1....
Olympic Bronze (s)............0.........1....
Olympic Bronze (d)............0.........1....
Fed Cup titles................1.........5....

Looking at it, where's you criteria for putting Arantxa ahead of Venus? Total Doubles Titles? Fed Cup titles? GS mixed doubles? Nothing wrong with ay of that. But the same standards that apply here will apply further up the list.

Monica Seles, Steffi Graf and Chris Evert all didn't play much doubles or mixed. Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Evonne Goolagong and Martina Navratilova all did. Whose ranked where changes a lot for the top seven women, based on that. And every country doesn't have a great Fed Cup team.

OTOH, what's the case for ranking Venus ahead of Arantxa? Simply that she has virtually the same accomplishments in a lot less time.

Or maybe, The Makers of the List figured they were contemporaries, sort of, and they just thought Venus was better. Certainly this is where they both belong on the list, among the women. Below Hingis and Serena, above Mandlikova, Davenport, Henin-Hardenne et al.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,024 Posts
Hana Mandlikova was consistently 3rd best behind Chrissie and Martina, I don't think she should be any higher than she is on the list.

It will be interesting to see the rest of the women. I can see them putting Hingis ahead of Goolagong, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,969 Posts
jan. said:
Would you rather see her not on the list?
did u read what i said?! i said that it wasn´t just because of Vee but for all the girls on tour cuz their carrer ain´t over yet so they can´t imo be compared to those that have retired i just took Vee as an example :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,843 Posts
Volcana said:
I'm not saying I agree with it either, but Mandlikova was never #1. Henin-Hardenne was #1 for 45 weeks. More important than the ranking though, Henin-Hardenne was the best active player on the tour for the better part of a year. Yes, injuries to other players had something to do with that, but she beat the best to win her first slam. Mandlikova was never the best player, her career records vs Evert and Navratilova are something like 7-19 and 7-29.

I would guess that's the principal reason. Another issue is that one of Mandlikova's GS titles was OZ '80, which happened to be during a run a fairly weak fields at OZ. Again, I think that's bogus reasoning, but those are some of the things they might have considered.
If the ranking system of 2003 had applied to Mandlikova, she would have hit No 1 in 1981, I believe (maybe 1980).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,096 Posts
And Arantxa also would have had more weeks at number one if the system that had Davenport and Venus at number one was used in 1994-1995. Arantxa and Venus's career stats (to date for Venus) are very close. Perhaps the fact Venus has two Wimbledons may edge her ahead for the people who conducted this poll. I think ASV's stats are bolstered slightly just by the sheer fact that she beat Steffi in 2 Slam finals and Monica in 1 other. Those were the two best players of her 1990s generation and she managed to beat them in Slam finals which I think makes the line between ASV and Venus even more blurred. Also many give ASV credit for getting the absolute most from her game. It doesn't just come down to numbers when it's that close. Venus ahead of ASV is arguable - but Jim Courier ahead of ASV I don't agree with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,298 Posts
viggen said:
yeah seriously, Hana should be above Justine and ASV above Venus. Hana was never no.1 but she won one more slam and was a top player for many more years (compared with Justine so far). And ASV doesn't have Venus's gold medals (she's got two silvers and two bronzes) but she won her first slam at a younger age and her last slam almost a decade later. They spent about equal time on no.1.

I don't understand this argument. What does when someone did something have anything to do with accomplishments? Now maybe if you were trying to say that because they are so close, the fact that Arantxa accomplished more at a younger age than Venus, then I'd give you some lead way, but I really don't think that age should be taken into consideration unless it is VERY VERY close, which I don't think Arantxa and Venus are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
SelesFan70 said:
It will be interesting to see the rest of the women. I can see them putting Hingis ahead of Goolagong, though.
I don't think so. I can see them putting her ahead of Serena though. Remember, this list was compiled LAST year. They're essentially ranking a Serena who never recovered enough to win a slam, or even a big tournament after her comeback in Miami.

Then again, they are releasing it a month at a time. They could edit, if they chose.

Fascinating side note. Margaret Court, BJK and Evonne Goolagong were never WTA #1. So none of them have any weeks at #1. It will be interesting to see how much weight The Makers of The List give Martina Hingis' 57,000 weeks-at-#1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,165 Posts
Martina only had 209 weeks at #1. :p

I don't think Martina will make it to the Top 20. She's not American and the fact that Goolagong and Serena have more singles Slams than her seal her fate in this list.
 
1 - 20 of 76 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.
Top