She was never a dominant #1. Her best results came in the journey to get to #1. But after she got there by virtue of winning the USO, she hardly did anything. She went just 33-19 during her time as #1, and reached just 2 finals, 3 QF, and 1 SF up until she forfeited the #1 after Wimbledon. She had one of the worst seasons as a #1 in 2017, and she wound up falling out of the top 20.I can’t get over everyone treating Kerber like some bridesmaid when she had to play absolutely out of her mind to have the resume she has! :lol:
Her slam runs are some of the most impressive of the decade. She was a dominate number 1.
She is lacking these tier 1’s and mandatories. For whatever reason that doesn’t bother me so much.
I could genuinely see Kerber snagging the French before she retires to have all 4 and ya’ll will be lost puppies.
And not having any Tier 1 titles, as well as sporting a 12-18 finals record is part of the reason why she her extra slam doesn't put her clear ahead of 2 slam winners. Yes, she has a silver medal, but from another finals loss. And players like Simo, Vika, Petra, and Naomi have a wider body of work because they have those Tier 1s to compliment their GS. Even Mugu, while having a low title count, still has 2 Tier 1s. Li Na even won one.