[mmcdonald]

I really think this is fair. You cant be in the top 10 with out a deep run (SF+) at a GS. All of the current top 10ers got there that way, and i think thats how it should work.

1. Serena ('99 USOpen Champ)
2. Venus ('97 UsOpen Finalist)
3. JCap ('90 French Open SF)
4. Monica ('89 French Open SF)
5. Dokic ('00 Wimbledon SF)
6. Amelie ('99 OZ Finalist)
7. Henin ('01 Wimbledon F)
8. Clijsters ('01 French Open F)
9. Lindsay ('97 Us Open SF)
10. Hingis ('96 UsOpen SF)

so all this buzz around Hantuchova should be silenced unless she can prove that shes a top 10er, shes only been able to beat 7-10 top ten players and that one win against Hingis. Same with Myskina. Chanda I think deserves that Top 10 spot more than the other two do.

11. Danilea Hantuchova (QF, '02 Wimbledon, '02 UsOpen)
12. Anastasia Myskina (3rd round '02 Wimbledon '02 USOpen)
13. Chanda Rubin (SF, '96 Australian Open)

 

[disposablehero]

You don't deserve to be a top 10 player based on an above-average result in a Slam nearly 7 years ago. I'd concentrate more on Chanda's victory over Serena.

 

[mmcdonald]

what i meant was that she could go deep into a grand slam, heck dont forget she was up 5-2 30-0 against Monica, but we all know what happened, its just that shes beating more top 5 players (serena, lindsay, soo close against venus) and not getting rolled over by them (6-2 6-2, and 6-3 6-3 isnt very impresive)

 

[Dawn Marie]

She'll get there in time.

 

[dany_pro66]

daniela's 2 QF appearances are better then jelena's one this year

 

[[email protected]]

Plus to get to the Top 10, your ranking will include all your results from the past 52 weeks so other good results can override mediocre slam results, but I get what you say in a way that to be DESERVING of a Top 10 place, you should've accomplished something special in a slam.

Testud got up to #9 but had only reached two slam quarter finals in her career (could be more, can't be sure), Maleeva was #4 but did she ever get past the quarters of a slam?

IMO, Hantuchova IS deserving of a Top 10 place, maybe we should start calling the elite the Top 11 (maybe we should even be saying Top 13). IMO Hantuchova's results are better than (for example) Dokic's this season, having beaten her twice and having won the prestigious Tier I tournie and recording better results at the Slams.

 

[Experimentee]

Results more than a year ago shouldnt determine who is a top ten player or not. And some of those players got a lucky run to the semis, for example Dokic only had to beat Kristina Brandi and Magui Serna to reach the semis at Wimbledon, while Daniela has beaten better players than that at Slams this year.

 

[mmcdonald]

Yeah I dont get how players got that high without good slam results. But i dont think you should be considered a top player if you cant regularly get to the QF of grandslams, thats why Dokic is considered the most overranked player and is never mentioned by anyone.