I love this assertion that the 2011-2015 era was this amazingly competitive beacon of quality for the WTA. And that everything since is a cesspool. Wake up, Pearl: 2011 to 2015 was also pretty crappy. And even if it wasn't as crappy, you can't just assume that those who did well during that time will suddenly be killing it today. Kvitova has had incredible moments of quality and improvement in the last couple of years, and she hasn't been killing it at the slams. The mathematics that people try to build up here don't add up.The glorifying. A year when Eugenia can make a GS F + 2 GS SF and VIP mount a "comeback" is by definition the opposite of a strong era. The same goes for a deeply flawed Sloane going deep in all slams in 2013 (when Bartoli won one) and Errani making 2 YEC in a row, or a past her peak Jankovic, Walking Bye Navarro and Kirilenko making the top 10 in those years, Vinci and Flavia playing a GS F... at the time everyone was moaning and bitching about weak eras when all that was happening.
This is... WRONG actually.Good on you for making the poll, but certainly you could have included Kerber and Woz?
I would go with this:
Might do a breakdown later but as far as I remember achievements of each this is the way they rank.
You could say peak Vika because she would hit Simona off the court surely, but from achievements it's clearly Simona. Also Vika is most likely done (this Wimbledon was her best chance I guess) and Simo will likely get the Career Slam with Cahill, especially now where it is a likely goal.
1. HalepThis is... WRONG actually.
I did a breakdown and here's what I got:
4.Woz(basically tied with Kvitova though)
I underestimated achievements of all players pre 2012, which is how I overrated Kerber compared to others.
I gotta say I did not follow WTA in 2011, don't know the level of play. If AO 2012 SF is any indication though it was not worse than today. I didn't realize Azarenka had a great year there. Surely Azarenka 2012 and Kerber 2016 rank above any season of Halep. But overall, maybe you're right about Halep on top. But I'd still put Azarenka above Kerber(and the other two also above Kerber but that is controvesial I know).1. Halep
Kerber is there, I know she has 3 Slams but lost 1 final. Halep has 2 Slams and lost another 3 finals. But Halep beats her without discussion in consistency and Premiers (best player in Premier semifinals in the last 6 years, surpassed Serena). So I think Halep is clearly superior but Kerber is close.
Azarenka lost the 3 matches against Halep, last 2 were straight sets barely reached 4. Has 2-2, Kerber has 3-1 is being more proved because of this era. The current era doesn't allow Azarenka and Sharapova to reach once again the top. Kim Clijsters returned from pregnancy and was winning Slam(s). Serena played finals, but maybe the age or lack of activity isn't helping her.
So yes, I know it sounds crazy, but there is much more competition today than when Azarenka played.
Soon I might expect Pliskova to do much better and I hope Stephens.
I seem to remember at one point after winning RG Simona saying the Olympics was what she wanted next so that could change.Though I think it's actually quite tricky - to be on form for a tournament that only happens every four years. It's kind of a small window of opportunity.OP left out a few things. Petra and Vika also have Olympic medals to their resume while Simona doesn't.
And Serena is a 37 year old mom who just played her 3rd Slam final in the last 12 months. And Clijsters won 3 of her 4 slams after giving birth, but she was younger, so I'll cut you some slack on that one. Maybe try that whole excuse again.she's a 30 year old mom, stfo
Did you see Pliskova at Eastbourne? She absolutely destroyed Kerber with precision and firepower, and it wasn't that Kerber was bad. Halep beat Williams with consistency and determination , i.e. she let Williams beat herself; she certainly didn't overpower her.Ostapenko is to young to rule her out, but she isn't part of the discussion.
I also think 2 Wim > 2 AO, but Azarenka was also #1, Kvitova wasn't, so Azarenka > Kvitova.
I also think it's a shame that Kvitova wasn't #1 and Pliskova was, but that's that.
You can't make an opinion based on 1 tournament, especially 1 match! It depends on so many factors ... health, confidence, match-up (very important), surface, mood etcDid you see Pliskova at Eastbourne? She absolutely destroyed Kerber with precision and firepower, and it wasn't that Kerber was bad. Halep beat Williams with consistency and determination , i.e. she let Williams beat herself; she certainly didn't overpower her.
Kvitova on her day can be a force , Azarenka as well; but until Pliskova and them can demonstrate some consistency, players like Barty and Halep will continue to outlast them in the tournaments.
Sorry to break your imagination bubble you got going there but Azarenka lost the plot with the top of the tour even before having Leo. She had a good 5 years and a great 3 of those, but starting 2014 (two and a half years before she took a break to have Leo) she was never the same and you know it. Where she is now is not as far from her 2014 form as you'd like to think she is.