You cannot mix single with doubles success. Nowadays, top players don't play doubles at all. There're strange rules too
Okay, let's put this in perspective. Never in Pliskova's career has she held 7000 ranking points. Never. In contrast Radwanska held 8000 ranking points for 12 consecutive weeks. These stats alone reveal how arbitrary Pliskova's number one ranking really was.I don’t agree in this instance about the worthiness of Ka. Pliskova’s number 1 rank but I always respect your opinion.
Not really. You can argue as much as you want, but at the end of the day, one has a slam title in singles and the other doesn't. It's that simple. I'm not a huge fan of that, but it's how things are.Yes and 9 years in the top 10 in singles dwarfs Ostapenko's one single year as a top 10 player. Outside of Ostapenko's one top 10 year she has never finished another season even in the top 20, let alone the top 10. You can't argue for one single tournament superseding a long, full career of excellence.
Alright, now that's a reasonable argument that I may have to analyse better, and may put her ahead of Aga and Bot.
Most of Shriver's peak happened before the Tier system was established (1988), with most of her titles being akin to Premiers. In 1987 alone she won Canada and Worcester, which had prize money (and fields) that would have put them in the Tier I league.
There you have it. As many big titles as Pliskova just in one season.
Fixed it for you.Not really. You can argue as much as you want, but at the end of the day, one has a slam title in singles and the other doesn't. It's that
simplesimplistic. I'm not a huge fan of that, but it's how things are.
The HOF doesn't really mean anything honestly. Results speak by themselves.Fixed it for you.
Let's see if Ostapenko (or Pliskova or Stephens or Radwanska for that matter - who I admire immensely) ever make it to the tennis HOF. Aga is retired and based on her numbers I can't see her making it. The other three, they can still add to there career statistics but based on their current statistics none of them have the remotest hope of entering the HOF. None of them are even particularly close.
They do. The fact that Shriver finished 9 consecutive years in the top 10 very much speaks for itself as does the fact that Ostapenko has finished outside the top 20 the last 4 years.The HOF doesn't really mean anything honestly. Results speak by themselves.
That's a very unique way to view things. You see, ask every WTA fan how many Slams Serena, Bartoli, Vicario, Sabatini have, I'm sure they'll answer you without much problems. Ask them how many years or consecutive years inside the top 10 these players have spend, if more than 5% know without checking, I'd be extremely surprised.They do. The fact that Shriver finished 9 consecutive years in the top 10 very much speaks for itself as does the fact that Ostapenko has finished outside the top 20 the last 4 years.
And vs Hana only 2 wins vs 190 losses_At first I thought the question was 'Who has had the Most MEN (NOT WOMEN!)! in the sack? In which case it would definitely be MOI! I love MEN NOT WOMEN!!! My head to heads against the greats of my era are also impressive: Shriver v. Evert 3 wins 436 losses, Shriver v. Navratilova 3 wins (2 at the U.S. Open!!!) 678 losses, Shriver v. Graf 3 wins 1,908 losses!
Do you always pride yourself on your ignorance, or just when it comes to tennis? Asking for a friend...For crying out loud. Shriver was playing in the dinosaur era. You can only compare her with the total of 25 other women who bothered to play tennis professionally back in the days.