[Julian.]

The only ones with 1 slam and world #1.

 

[Julian.]

I think Wozniacki just overtook Ivanovic in term of greatness with this Australian Open 2018 title.

 

[ZverDel]

Wozniacki for sure.

 

[gold fangs]

Wozniacki and it's not remotely close.

More Slam SFs. More titles. More PM/P5/Tier I equivalent titles. YEC title. More weeks at #1, and the circumstances of Ivanovic's stint mean even Wozniacki's first period there is more credible. Most importantly, much greater longevity at the top.

 

[jimbo mack]

Wozniacki - more titles, YEC Champion & a significant number of more weeks holding the number 1 position.

In the grand scheme of things the difference in achievements are not huge , they are in the same bracket in terms of ‘greatness’...

 

[Poltergeist]

Ivanovic is a better ambassador of the sport and that is not even an issue.
More talented, versatile player, everything but accomplishments speak in her favor. Every one of her GS runs was harder than any of Wozniacki, her RG win was harder than Wozniacki's AO...

Career-wise it is Wozniacki, it's much easier to push the ball back when 80% of the tour will self-destruct at some point so she has more titles, yes, but half of them are vultured MMs. Then again, it's no one's fault but her own that her head injury kept Ivanovic from having at least 5 Slams

 

[toxina90]

Wozniacki has a backhand, no forehand.
Ivanovic has a forehand, no backhand.
Wozniacki beat some MM opponents and weak #1 for her first Slam late in career.
Ivanovic beat some decent top 10 players on clay to win her first Slam early in career.
In terms of overall achievements, Wozniacki has way more titles albeit most MM and is more consistent.
Ivanovic maybe mentally weaker.

In terms of natural talent I suppose Ivanovic is better, but overall numbers and achievements Wozniacki. However considering how long it took Wozniacki to win a major I fail to see how she can be considered the greater player? :shrug:

 

[Sam L]

Ivanovic underachieved with her talent.
Wozniacki overachieved with her talent.

Ivanovic achieved her main achievements in a respectable era. My vote goes to her.

 

[Gentleman]

Neither is one slam wonder, that's for sure.

One slam wonder is someone who randomly won a slam and never again (or before) did anything remotely close to that. These two have played other grand slam finals, reached the top, and won many more tournaments. Wozniacki did win more outside of slams and lasted longer on the top.

Ana played better tennis and dominated in H2H, but that's something else.

 

[Celestial]

Wozniacki's accomplishments far outweigh Ivanovic's.

Ivanovic should have accomplished much more, but only has herself to blame for that.

 

[Holte139]

I'm a big fan of Ana's but I would have to say Woz on this question. Woz has made the most of her ability but arguably Ana never quite reached her full potential.

 

[hurricanejeanne]

La Borz. But damn, I never cared for Ana but this makes me realize how underachieved she was following the spring/summer of 2008. That French Open curse is real y'all.

 

[Tennisstar86]

Ana was probably the worst #1 player we ever had. She was terrible after she got it. THe only post slam win performance that is worse than hers is Sloanes. Love or hate Caroline she at least won matches when she was #1.

 

[aloeball]

Caro definitely. Her two year ending number 1 is impressive in itself. Regardless of how she plays her style of game.

 

[WilliamsOhanian]

Titles: 1 slam each.
Peak Ranking: #1.
Weeks at #1: Wozniacki by a huge margin.
Overall titles: Wozniacki nearly 2x.
Tier I (or equivalent) titles: Wozniack 5 > 3 Ivanovic.
YEC: Wozniacki 1 > 0 Ivanovic


Annualized Ranking Notes:

Ivanovic:
0 seasons #1
3 seasons Top 5
3 seasons Top 10
9 seasons Top 20

Wozniacki:
2 seasons #1
4 seaons Top 5
7 seasosn Top 10
10 seasons Top 20

Conclusion: Wozniacki wins out by virtually every imaginable criteria.

Frankly, Wozniacki is among the absolute most accomplished 1-slam wonders in history (Sabatini, Martinez, Novotna....anyone else?).

Ivanovic is just a notch above Sam Stosur and Marion Bartoli on the one-slam wonder list.

 

[WilliamsOhanian]

Ivanovic is a better ambassador of the sport and that is not even an issue.

How is she a better ambassador of the sport? By quitting at 29 to become a WAG for some footballer? You're definitely right, Billie Jean King would be proud.

You may not like Wozniacki (I'm guessing this is the case, or else you're just super, super bitter), but the resilience to prove a LOT of naysayers wrong is a sign of grit that Ivanovic never, ever had.

More talented, versatile player, everything but accomplishments speak in her favor.

HAHAHAHA. That's fucking hilarious, "everything but accomplishments speak in her favor." Guess we'll just have to ask Newport whether accomplishments are more important than some nutjob fans' entirely subjective opinions.

 

[midaso]

There is no other 1 slam winner in the conversation. Wozniacki won almost 30 titles including YEC, IW, Beijing and is #1 at least 68 weeks and counting, and already top 4 in career prize money at age 27

Throw away the prize money,it means absolutely nothing.

 

[gold fangs]

Wozniacki has a backhand, no forehand.
Ivanovic has a forehand, no backhand.
Wozniacki beat some MM opponents and weak #1 for her first Slam late in career.
Ivanovic beat some decent top 10 players on clay to win her first Slam early in career.

Ivanovic's RG run is one of the weakest Slam title routes of the past three decades. Ironically it's Wozniacki herself becoming a Slam champion that's slightly elevated Ivanovic's run - prior to this AO, RG 2008 was the only Slam-winning run in the past 28 years that didn't involve beating a past or future Slam champion.

I mean, let's not pretend that Safina in a final is any stronger than Halep :lol:

(And I'm not arguing that Wozniacki's AO run is strong in any sense of the word, it's pathetically weak, but Ivanovic just doesn't get to benefit from "strong era" arguments considering the context in which she won her Slam and got to #1.)

In terms of natural talent I suppose Ivanovic is better, but overall numbers and achievements Wozniacki. However considering how long it took Wozniacki to win a major I fail to see how she can be considered the greater player? :shrug:

I don't see why winning a major late in your career is worse than winning it at the start? Is Novotna's Wimbledon devalued by this logic? Wozniacki has at least displayed the mental fortitude needed for career longevity, as opposed to backing into a Slam and gagging on it for the next eight years.

 

[chingching]

Wozniacki career-wise is well above the other 1 Slam wonders, including Ivanovic. However considering how weak her run in Melbourne was, she is really a long way off the two slam players like Azarenka, Li, Kerber, Kvitova etc. in terms of greatness.

Even though she got a Slam and #1, given the era she did it in I don't even think Ivanovic had a better career than some slamless players. I don't say that lightly, as I really do value Slams, but for me Ivanovic was by far the worst player when #1 in the rankings, and only had better overall careers than Pliskova and Jankovic :shrug: Even Halep and Safina would probably have won slams with her luck.

 

[Potato]

dinara was a much bigger bye in finals than simona is, at least simona made all her opponents work for it