Tennis Forum banner

Who is best?

41 - 60 of 94 Posts

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
38,983 Posts
I don’t agree in this instance about the worthiness of Ka. Pliskova’s number 1 rank but I always respect your opinion.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,156 Posts
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.
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.

:facepalm:

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.
Alright, now that's a reasonable argument that I may have to analyse better, and may put her ahead of Aga and Bot.
 

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
38,983 Posts
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 simplistic. I'm not a huge fan of that, but it's how things are.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,786 Posts
strong end of season feel with that thread :yawn:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Zula and bud887

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
23,273 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
This comparison is so random.
I wanted to see how forumers compared slam win v. YEC win v. doubles v. no. 1 all in the context of actual players all in one fell swoop :sneaky:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,156 Posts
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.
The HOF doesn't really mean anything honestly. Results speak by themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,758 Posts
I appreciate this cool, weird poll because its officially the of season so why not...& was just thinking the other day how odd it is that on TF we usually divorce mixed and doubles results when talking about greatness, kind of a recent phenomenon as many of the greats also have been very successful in doubles. The HOF takes it all into consideration, and to me it only makes sense to include(when describing career achievements, overall greatness, impact on the game) But even not taking Pam's doubles success into account(which is impossible haha) she probably wins this poll. Incredibly consistent top single player for a decade, all those semis, beat peak Graf at the YEC in 1988 IIRC. if Aga had won a slam it could be different.

Barbora has the potential to be the best of this group I think, she could be an all time doubles great and if she can produce some consistent top 10 singles seasons. Maybe another slam final.
Would love to see Sloane come back. sigh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
Overall : Shriver > Radwanska > Pliskova > Krecjikova > Stephens
Singles : Shriver > Radwanska > Pliskova > Stephens

I'm not including Krejcikova because she's barely been a singles player, so hasn't had time to build a resume yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,156 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
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!
And vs Hana only 2 wins vs 190 losses_
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
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.
Do you always pride yourself on your ignorance, or just when it comes to tennis? Asking for a friend...
 

·
Registered
Henin, Radwanska, Hingis Court, Navratilova, Lisicki, Osaka, Kenin, Halep, Vinci.
Joined
·
425 Posts
Aga has all the shots. She know the diameter of a tennis court like few in the history of the game. She is the true Queen of tennis - if we played on decent courts with real equipment. If you don't adore Aga, you don't truly like tennis. On a human level she is also a beauty inside and out.
 
41 - 60 of 94 Posts
Top