Tennis Forum banner

WITG?

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
23,244 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Nadia Petrova
GS Perf QF+: 2SF 7QF
CHR: 3
Titles: 13 (3 T1 equivalent+)
Tour Finals: 3 RR
Doubles Titles: 24 (2 O/GS/WTAF)
Doubles CHR: 3

Natasha Zvereva
GS Perf QF+: 1F 1SF 6QF
CHR: 5
Titles: 4
Tour Finals: 2QF
Doubles Titles: 80 (23 O/GS/WTAF)
Doubles CHR: 1

Zina Garrison
GS Perf QF+: 1F 4SF 9QF
CHR: 4
Titles: 14
Tour Finals: 2QF
Doubles Titles: 24 (3 O/GS/WTAF)
Doubles CHR: 5

Elina Svitolina
GS Perf QF+: 2SF 8QF
CHR: 3
Titles: 16 (5 T1 equivalent+)
Tour Finals: 1W, 1F
Doubles Titles: 2
Doubles CHR: 108

Bianca Andreescu
GS Perf QF+: 1W
CHR: 4
Titles: 3 (3 T1 equivalent+)
Tour Finals: 1RR
Doubles Titles: 0
Doubles CHR: 147
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
Random selection. I think Andreescu has shown a lot of potential but it’s hard to know what sort of career she will have.
I haven’t seen much of Garrison and Zvereva (and that RG final beatdown really colours my view of her lol).
Svitolina has obviously had a decent career. But she really lacks a special game imo, and has been shown up on the big stage many times.
Petrova was a great claycourter and generally good player, and could have achieved more at RG i think.

out of the ones I’m familiar with, it has to be Bianca.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
The answer is clearly Garrison by any objective view point
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117,742 Posts
I would take Petrova over Svitolina. That was a tougher era where there someone like Serena or Sharapova in her way
I remember her beating Wozniacki badly in a final in Bulgaria, and beating Clijsters the same way at AusOpen
IDK what Andreescu is yet. Could be an Ostapenko, could be a legit Hall of Famer
IDK about the players from the wooden racket era, but I like the Connors T 2000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,371 Posts
Come on ....this is a loaded poll. Bianca the only one with a Slam and she is 21 years old.....get serious. Obviously the other girls have more titles, their careers over except for Svitolina. Who is going to bet Bianca won't win more slams with her game?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,754 Posts
Obviously Zvereva.
 

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
38,983 Posts
Of the three players here who are eligible one of them is in the Tennis Hall of Fame, the other two are not. That should tell you something.

1. Natasha Zvereva
2. Zina Garrison
3. Nadia Petrova
4. Bianca Andreescu
5. Elina Svitolina
It is pretty close between Nadia and Bianca, it all depends on how much weight one wishes to place on her Grand Slam title. Bianca is still early into her career and I would give her a good chance at overtaking Petrova (and very possibly Garrison) in the coming years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,549 Posts
Singles:

1- Garrison
2- Svitolina
3- Petrova (best player but mentally too fragile)
4- Andreescu (one-season wonder, but it's still too early to tell about her)
5- Zvereva (fun to watch, amazing personality, doubles specialist mostly)
 

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
38,983 Posts
Singles:

1- Garrison
2- Svitolina
3- Petrova (best player but mentally too fragile)
4- Andreescu (one-season wonder, but it's still too early to tell about her)
5- Zvereva (fun to watch, amazing personality, doubles specialist mostly)
And yet, Zvereva's singles results in Grand Slams are almost identical to those of Svitolina and Petrova. All three reached the semifinals of a grand slam on two occasions. Only difference is Natasha won one of her single's semifinals whereas Nadia and Elina lost them both. Times in the last eight of a Grand Slam in singles? Nadia 9, Elina 8, Natasha also 8. Not much in it. Natasha also finished as many years as a top 10 player in singles as did Nadia (2 for each of them). Yes, Svitolina and Petrova won a few more singles finals, mostly because Zvereva was pretty lousy in singles finals whereas Svitolina has a great record in finals. Interesting, both Natasha and Elina have reached the same number of singles finals, nineteen. Elina however converted 16 of those 19 finals into titles whereas Natasha only converted four of her 19 opportunities into titles. She did have a mental barrier that seemed to prevent her from playing her best in singles finals which was unfortunate. That is really the only difference in their singles careers. On the other hand Natasha won 18 doubles Grand Slams wheres in the 10 times Svitolina attempted to played doubles in a Grand Slam she won a grand total of three matches. Frankly I would much rather have a doubles Grand Slam title than a singles non Grand Slam title. Yeah, Elina won Rome a couple of times, good for her.

As for sheer talent, Natasha was leagues ahead of the others. Watching Nastasha play when she was in the zone was like watching a genius at work. She could hit shots other players could barely dream of.

I do agree with you that Zina Garrison has the best singles results out of these 5 players and by a decent margin. That she is last in this poll is hard to justify, defend or explain. Anyone who is genuinely voting entirely based on singles results should be casting votes in her direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,549 Posts
And yet, Zvereva's singles results in Grand Slams are almost identical to those of Svitolina and Petrova. All three reached the semifinals of a grand slam on two occasions. Only difference is Natasha won one of her single's semifinals whereas Nadia and Elina lost them both. Times in the last eight of a Grand Slam in singles? Nadia 9, Elina 8, Natasha also 8. Not much in it. Natasha also finished as many years as a top 10 player in singles as did Nadia (2 for each of them). Yes, Svitolina and Petrova won a few more singles finals, mostly because Zvereva was pretty lousy in singles finals whereas Svitolina has a great record in finals. Interesting, both Natasha and Elina have reached the same number of singles finals, nineteen. Elina however converted 16 of those 19 finals into titles whereas Natasha only converted four of her 19 opportunities into titles. She did have a mental barrier that seemed to prevent her from playing her best in singles finals which was unfortunate. That is really the only difference in their singles careers. On the other hand Natasha won 18 doubles Grand Slams wheres in the 10 times Svitolina attempted to played doubles in a Grand Slam she won a grand total of three matches. Frankly I would much rather have a doubles Grand Slam title than a singles non Grand Slam title. Yeah, Elina won Rome a couple of times, good for her.

As for sheer talent, Natasha was leagues ahead of the others. Watching Nastasha play when she was in the zone was like watching a genius at work. She could hit shots other players could barely dream of.

I do agree with you that Zina Garrison has the best singles results out of these 5 players and by a decent margin. That she is last in this poll is hard to justify, defend or explain. Anyone who is genuinely voting entirely based on singles results should be casting votes in her direction.
I do agree with you that Zvereva was an amazing talent, but the biggest headcase of this group. There's a big difference between reaching a final and winning a title. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare doubles career. Most of the top players don't/didn't play doubles.

And regarding to sheer talent, it's difficult to rank. In my opinion Garrison and Petrova were better than her. They were all court player who could dominate the back and net as well.

The reason Garisson is last in the poll is probably because people in the forum are too young to remember her. (same as Zvereva) (I'm not that old :ROFLMAO: )
 

·
All I want for Christmas is EU
Joined
·
38,983 Posts
I do agree with you that Zvereva was an amazing talent, but the biggest headcase of this group. There's a big difference between reaching a final and winning a title. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare doubles career. Most of the top players don't/didn't play doubles.

And regarding to sheer talent, it's difficult to rank. In my opinion Garrison and Petrova were better than her. They were all court player who could dominate the back and net as well.

The reason Garisson is last in the poll is probably because people in the forum are too young to remember her. (same as Zvereva) (I'm not that old :ROFLMAO: )
Actually Zina Garrison and Nadia Petrova most definitely DID play doubles and played doubles with a lot of dedication and commitment. Both of them had better records and success in doubles than they did in singles actually. That said, despite it all neither of them had it in them to win a Grand Slam doubles title whereas Natasha won 18.

The "Grand Slam doubles titles are easy to win and Zina and Nadia would have won plenty of doubles Grand Slam titles if only they tried" argument simply doesn't wash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,100 Posts
Andreescu feels like a weird addition to this poll as she is still in the earlier stages of her career.

I went with Garrison (considering only singles) - her being in or near the top 10 for a very long time as compared top the others tips her over
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top