Hingis of AO 2002 played best tennis of her career - Page 3 - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 05:57 AM
Senior Member
 
deja_entendu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: taradise.
Posts: 1,599
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Hingis won 5 Tier I's and Tour Championships in 2000, 4 Tier I's and a slam in '99, 2 Tier I's, the tour championships and a slam in '98. That's the results of the form you're calling 'in long decline'.
Actually, Volcana, Robbie didn't say that Hingis' form in 1999 and 2000 were in long decline... he said post-Australia 2001 and 2002.
deja_entendu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 06:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,704
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Because the two situations aren't at all analogous. Or, to put it in your terms, that 'is a pretty asinine analogy'

Hingis won 5 Tier I's and Tour Championships in 2000, 4 Tier I's and a slam in '99, 2 Tier I's, the tour championships and a slam in '98. That's the results of the form you're calling 'in long decline'.

In the 18 months in question, Venus won
2004 - Charleston, Warsaw
2003 - Antwerp

1 Tier I, 2 Tier II's. And going from the OZ final to a third round loss, and four straight Wimbledon finals to a second round loss.

Are you seriously saying those two records represent comparable losses of form? Hingis finished 1999 and 2000 ranked #1. Venus fell out of the top ten.

You can say Hingis' form was in long term decline all you want. It doesn't show in the record. And watching her on TV, I sure didn't see it either.
I'm talking about Hingis at AO 2002 and Venus At Wimbledon '05. Not Hingis at AO '01.

When Hingis arrived at AO '02 she was holding two tier twos (Sydney '02 included) and a tier three as her only wins in the past 12 months. She had only had only three wins over top 10 players in her match record since AO '01. She only had one top five win (over Clijsters in Sydney '02) Obviously her loss of form was not as pronounced as Venus', but if you think that isn't WAY down on what she was doing in the previous 4 years then you have to take the blinkers off.

As you say Hingis was very dominant in 2000 when she didnt play Venus Williams. How do you explain a woman going from winning a tour championship, 5 tier 1's and 4 other titles with a winning record against Davenport, Serena and anyone else you care to mention and respectable 1-2 h2h with Venus to barely being able to compete with top ten players - including the likes of Seles, ASV and Mauresmo who she toyed with at her best - at all in the space of six months?

A loss of form seems to be much more reasonable than the idea that the tour suddenly became too powerful in a matter of months. Moreover, I saw her loss of form with my own eyes and it correlates with the results.

Last edited by Robbie.; Jul 11th, 2005 at 06:09 AM.
Robbie. is offline  
post #33 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 07:30 AM
Senior Member
 
tennisIlove09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 44,073
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie.
This is a pretty asinine analogy.

Hingis was 15-5 against Seles. Williams is something like 7-1 against Henin. Completely different situation. The Hingis-Seles h2h suggest that MOST of the time Hingis had the ascendency over Seles and should lead us to an inquiry as to WHY Hingis lost those matches she did.

If you take a look at Hingis' record against Seles she only ever lost to her when all the form around that loss suggests a slump. At all other times she dominated her virtually completely. A loss to Seles is probably the definitive indicator of Hingis' form being below par. Two losses in Summer '98. Slump in which she didn't win a title from May till November. Two losses in Summer '01. Slump in which she didnt win a title from February till the following January. One loss in Summer '02. On the verge of Retirement, she barely won a match afterwards.

The biggest miconception about Hingis' form is not that it deteriorated after 2000, which is without question a reality to anyone not interested in pursuing an alternative agenda by establishing that her form was great, but that '98 was a great year for her. '98 was a wasted year in which she became overweight, complacent and succumbed to hubris after the extraordinary successes of 1997. At a time where she still held an advantage, albeit an ever diminishing one, over rivals of her own generation, she allowed the old guard of Seles, Novotna and ASV - all players who she had dominated in 1997 and resumed domination of in 1999 - to sneak away with 2 of the 4 GS titles. The Hingis of 1999 and 2000, working harder and shedding superflous weight, was a far superior player to the Hingis of 1998. That she added only 1 GS title to her resume in those two years was the result of the fact that by the time she inexplicably blew the 1999 French title she was only one of the 4 best players on the tour. Serena, Venus and Lindsay were by then atleast her equals. The simplistic notion that Hingis 'couldn't handle power' doesn't really hold. Yes, when she lost, she lost to a power player. But by then all of the top players, bar Hingis were power hitters. When Lindsay lost, who did she lose to? A power player or Hingis. When Venus lost who did she lose to? A power player or Hingis. When Serena lost who did she lose to? A power player or Hingis. In the 9 GS from Australian Open '99 to Australian Open '01 she was 6 wins (Venus (twice), Serena, Pierce, Seles (twice)) against 6 losses against elite power players (Venus (twice), Serena, Pierce, Davenport, Capriati) in GS tournaments. She could handle power, she just couldnt break through to win any of those 8 slams in a field that included 3 players who were atleast her equal and have subsequently carved out careers to prove it. After getting through both Williams Sisters and with Davenport eliminated, Hingis must have felt that AO'01 was finally her due. But low and behold Capriati appears and knocks her out. She was now one of 5. I have no doubt that Hingis playing in her 99-AO'01 form would have eventually found an opening to win another slam, maybe several, 2004 would have been a smorgasboard for her. Her first chance and as it turned out, last chance, was AO'02, but what that final revealed was the Hingis' mental game had been fractured for her good. Hingis was never content with being a contender. Her ego couldnt handle it. She was a ridiculously good junior and her rise as a pro was meteoric. Unlike every number one before her and since, she never beat the previous holder of the throne in any match which resembled a shoot out for the title. Up until mid-'99 Hingis had for 18 years been unquestionably the best every time she stepped onto the tennis court. From mid '99 onwards she had to come to the slow realisation that she was only one of the best. In time this had devastating effects on her game.

After the Australian Open '01 Hingis' form DID fall off. This is without question. Anke Huber once said something to the effect that when you looked at Hingis' game in isolation it was not so great. An average forehand and serve, an above average but not devastating backhand. But, Huber said, 'she's always there'. I think Huber identifies two aspects to what made Hingis so good, one was tangible, her footspeed, the other, more important in my view, was an intangible. That intangible was the confidence bordering on arrogance; that self-assured belief in her own superiority. So much of Hingis' game was instinct; from her anticipation to her uncanny shot selection. Her unassailable belief in her superiority as described above was the glue that allowed her to trust her instincts fully. This is why, in my belief, that as she slowly came to the realisation that her earlier beliefs were unsustainable, she placed so much emphasis on the number one ranking for validation. But Martina was an intelligent girl and she couldnt fool herself for too long. By 2001 the effects of her crisis of confidence were really showing in her game. She was accosted by her old whipping girls Seles (twice), ASV (who she hadn't lost to since 1996) and Mauresmo (twice) and crushed by Dementieva. She progressed to the semis in Paris only on the back of an extremely soft draw and was quickly swept aside by Capriati in a low quality semifinal. She then fell in the first round of Wimbledon and was only points away from being knocked out in the third round of the US Open. This from woman who was accustomed to winning her early rounds barely breaking a sweat. Anyone who has actually watched any of Hingis' 2001 matches would realise how her level had deteriorated. By the clay season her game was afflicted by a strange condition, a mixture of passivity and unforced errors - the tennis equivalent of stagflation- something one would never have imagined possible by watching her self assured play in 1999 and 2000. By the end of the year injuries kicked in and, with her footspeed, that second all important component of her game, stolen from her, the end was nigh.

Hingis' form at the start of '02 was excellent, particularly at the Australian Open where she was back to somewhere near her old fearless self, but to rely on that to say that her form was not in long term decline is pretty ridiculous. Does Venus winning Wimbledon suddenly erase the fact that her form in the past 18 months has been well below par? Of course it doesn't, and why would it for Hingis? What A0 2002 should highlight is that a confident Hingis had more than enough game to take apart the power babes on any given day. What the final should highlight if previous experiences didnt, was that Hingis was mentally incapable of winning GS by that stage.

AMAZING post.

I always, always believed that the AO 01 changed Hingis' career forever. To battle past Serena in the epic, and then crush Venus...she must have felt that it was her time. Then she lost. However, I really believe the Venus match is what changed it. She had just battled through Serena. The last two times she played Venus, there were three epic sets of tennis, Venus coming out. She had to be expecting more of the same. Instead, Hingsi played amazing and Venus was all over the place, and HIngis won easily. I think that gave her the confidence, and almost TOO MUCH belief that she would then crush Capriati...who she had never lost to at the time, and had only dropped ONE set against her. I think the Venus semi is the match that in the end chagned her career. Because after the AO, she was out of sorts...as Robbie's post stated.
tennisIlove09 is offline  
 
post #34 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 07:32 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,425
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
The person I was responding to recognized it was sarcasm. had I been responding to you, I'd have been less subtle. (If that's possible.)

Moving right along.....

Because the two situations aren't at all analogous. Or, to put it in your terms, that 'is a pretty asinine analogy'

Hingis won 5 Tier I's and Tour Championships in 2000, 4 Tier I's and a slam in '99, 2 Tier I's, the tour championships and a slam in '98. That's the results of the form you're calling 'in long decline'.

In the 18 months in question, Venus won
2004 - Charleston, Warsaw
2003 - Antwerp

1 Tier I, 2 Tier II's. And going from the OZ final to a third round loss, and four straight Wimbledon finals to a second round loss.

Are you seriously saying those two records represent comparable losses of form? Hingis finished 1999 and 2000 ranked #1. Venus fell out of the top ten.

You can say Hingis' form was in long term decline all you want. It doesn't show in the record. And watching her on TV, I sure didn't see it either.

It all comes down to, did Hingis' sudden inability to win slams come about because she played worse, or her opponents played better. Well, there's no doubt her main opponents played better, against her and the rest of the tour.

As to how she played, you call it worse, I call it the same, maybe a bit better. I think the record books back me up. Your opinion backs you up.
OWNED
G1Player2 is offline  
post #35 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 07:40 AM
Senior Member
 
tennisIlove09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 44,073
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
It all comes down to, did Hingis' sudden inability to win slams come about because she played worse, or her opponents played better. Well, there's no doubt her main opponents played better, against her and the rest of the tour.

As to how she played, you call it worse, I call it the same, maybe a bit better. I think the record books back me up. Your opinion backs you up.
And, if you look at the record...it's kinda weird

Majors since the 99 Aussie (Hingis' last major)

99 French--Graf def. Hingis (Graf wins title)
99 Wimbledon -- Dokic def. Hingis
99 US Open -- Serena def. Hingis (Serena wins title)
00 Aussie -- Davenport def. Hingis (Davenport wins title)
00 French -- Pierce def. Hingis (Pierce wins title)
00 Wimbledon -- Venus def. Hingis (Venus wins title)
00 US OPen -- Venus def. Hingis (Venus wins title)
01 Aussie -- Capriati def. Hingis (Cap wins title)
01 French -- Capriati def. Hingis (Cap wins title)
01 Wimbledon - Ruano-Pascual def. Hingis
01 US Open -- Serena def. Hingis
02 Aussie -- Capriati def. Hingis (Capriati wins title)
02 US Open -- Seles def. Hingis

So 9 out of 13 times, she lost to the eventual winner. The only "bad" losses there were to Dokic (who was a qualifer at the time) and Ruano-Pascual (who may have played the match of her life...but if I remember correctly, didnt Hingis claim a back problem?)
tennisIlove09 is offline  
post #36 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 08:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,520
                     
Nonsense.

She was in decline. She was a lot more passive, serve was worse, unforced errors at crucial moments, etc.
She almost choked against Monica, and she did choke against Jen who was nowhere near her 2001 form.
GoDominique is offline  
post #37 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 12:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,704
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
It all comes down to, did Hingis' sudden inability to win slams come about because she played worse, or her opponents played better. Well, there's no doubt her main opponents played better, against her and the rest of the tour.

As to how she played, you call it worse, I call it the same, maybe a bit better. I think the record books back me up. Your opinion backs you up.


The biggest problem is that the point you raise in bold was never the issue at all.

The anti-hingis crew love to blur the issues to discredit her fully.

The first post in this thread, to which I was responding said that the suggestion was 'silly' that 'Hingis was past her prime, not PEAK, injured, etc. her last couple years on tour'.

It is this statement that I contend is wrong. And in contending so I donít contend what you insinuate I am contending in bold.

There is a danger that the reality that Hingis at the peak of her game struggled against Davenport and Williams Sisters becomes, in the light of 2001 and 2002, a falsity that peak Hingis couldn't handle power at all. This is something that needs to be debunked.

I don't think you will find any Hingis fan who says that the Hingis of 1999 or 2000 was past her peak or in decline, atleast concerning her physical game.

Her form post Aus Open 2001, is another matter. A failure to recognise the decline in her game from that point is what I am concerned with.

From RG '99 to AO'01 she lost her slams fair and square to better players at the time. However, even during this time you see how ridiculous the suggestion is that Hingis 'couldn't handle power'. I mentioned earlier that from AO'99 to AO'01 Hingis had 6 wins against elite power hitters in GS tournaments. Over the same period no one had more wins than Hingis over elite power hitters in GS tournaments. Davenport had 6, Venus 3, Serena 2.
I am in full acknowledgement of the fact that Lindsay, Serena and Venus had the games to take Hingis apart regularly. But then whose games exactly don't they take apart? We're talking about the three women who continue to dominate fast court tennis today, 6 years after they took the challenge up to Hingis.

The reality is that no one has come close to being as competitive with the big three Americans as Hingis was.

Martina has 11 wins against Lindsay, 10 wins against Venus and 6 wins against Serena.

The greatest player to emerge since Hingis' retirement, Henin, has 3 wins against Serena and one against Venus - all on clay. She has not seriously challenged them on fast courts. The next best player, Clijsters has one win over Serena on a hard court and one win over Venus on clay. Both have faired better against Lindsay, but then they never faced a Lindsay as ferocious as that of '98-'00 (before the first knee surgery), and Lindsay, closer to her old form than any time since 2001, has turned the record around against Clijsters in the last two matches. The Russians, purportedly so superior to Hingis in weight of shot and to whom Hingis would supposedly have no chance against according the 'she couldn't handle power thesis', have, with the possible exception of Sharapova, been pretty powerless against the big three as well. Mauresmo has been equally inept. If Hingis couldnt handle power, then why was it that she could beat the three most powerful players on tour far more often than her supposedly superior successors?

One might say, as Iím sure you would, that Hingis got a lot of those wins while the three were under-developed. Surely, however, that is balanced somewhat by the fact that she had the misfortune of playing a string of matches during the period that Venus and Lindsay were at the absolute peak of their powers. They haven't been as good before or since. Serena was awesome during that period as well, in patches.

As for the record suggesting that there was no decline, that is 'Alice in Wonderland' stuff. Post AO-01 the record shows the opposite. It shows precisely the decline I am talking about. The idea that she played better in that period than ever before is outrageous. It smacks of a lack of objectivity.

You want facts from the record. Then here they are. If Hingis wasnít in decline then;

How do you explain the fact that she went from winning the tour championships, 5 tier 1ís and 3 other tournaments in 2000 to winning one tier two and one tier III beating no top ten players post AOí01?

How do you explain, and this is crucial, an 18-9 record against top tenners from the start of 2000 to the end of AO-2001 as opposed to a dismal 2-10 record against top tenners post AO-2001?

How do you explain a 3-6 record against Seles, ASV, Mauresmo and Dementieva in 2001, all players who showed no vast improvement, with the possible exception of Mauresmo, against the rest of the tour during that period and against whom she had had a combined 35-5 record against up until the end of 2000?

Those facts, my friend, are on the record. They are there for posterity. Until such a time as someone can explain the huge discrepancy between her 2000 results and her 2001 results in some other way than the disingenuous and highly improbable 'the tour got too powerful in 3 months' thesis the notion that Hingis was in worse form in 2001 than at anytime since 1995 is the only plausible conclusion based on the record. If you want to argue otherwise then put aside your dogmatic dislike for the girl and show me what in her post AO'01 results indicates that Hingis was as good as she was.

My beliefs are as follows. I do believe that Lindsay and Serena and, to a lesser extent, Venus at their bests would beat Hingis. I don't, however, believe that an inform Hingis couldn't handle power. The record does not show that whatsoever. I firmly believe that Hingis was in decline following AO 01. The record supports me on that as well. I do believe the Hingis of 97-2000 would be a top 5 player today and a contender for GS titles. Most of the Russians would not have the consistency to compete with Hingis at her best. They simply are not as good as í98-í00 Davenport, Venus and Serena or even Seles and Pierce who Hingis regularly beat. Of course, as I contended earlier, I doubt Hingis could compete now even if she was physically able. Hingis just didnít function as a contender, as one of the best. Her mental game was geared only to be the best. Once Hingis realised that she wasnít and was never likely to be THE best, definitively, the decline in her physical game was obvious.

Last edited by Robbie.; Jul 11th, 2005 at 12:22 PM.
Robbie. is offline  
post #38 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 12:16 PM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North, South & Third Pole
Posts: 36,357
                     
Maybe tennis-wise, yes but she looked REALLY slow to me.

I remember her at the AO2002 very well.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Reef, Aurora

Dancing and Skating through Life
Sam L is offline  
post #39 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 12:17 PM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North, South & Third Pole
Posts: 36,357
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVSK
OWNED

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Reef, Aurora

Dancing and Skating through Life
Sam L is offline  
post #40 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 12:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in time
Posts: 3,343
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVSK
Hingis' forehand at the 2002 AO had NOT deteriorated...Were you even watching the same tourney?
I did. Did you? It was terrible. She couldn't hit a winner to safe her life. Of course, lets not forget that before winning Sydney 2002, she had not won a tournament in like 10 months (she won just 3 titles in 2001, all early in the year). This is the period you call her "peak". Righto.

Hingis played decent in AO 2002 (against somewhat weak field) because she had spent couple of months to get back in shape, physically and emotionally. But in a big picture, it was over.
Timariot is offline  
post #41 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 01:01 PM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North, South & Third Pole
Posts: 36,357
                     
2000 was her last "great" year. She got worse in 2001 and the worst in 2002, IMHO.

I actually think that Venus Williams was the one who nailed the final coffin with her two wins in 2000 Wimbledon and US Open. It made Hingis have her first slamless year since she was 15, and she was only 20 at the time. She won a heck of a lot of tournaments in 2000 but I don't think they meant anything to her.

From then on, I don't think she felt she could win the majors anymore.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Reef, Aurora

Dancing and Skating through Life
Sam L is offline  
post #42 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Senior Member
 
moby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 14,614
                     
Robbie.

A single flow'r he sent me, since we met./All tenderly his messenger he chose;
Deep-hearted, pure, with scented dew still wet - One perfect rose.
I knew the language of the floweret;/'My fragile leaves,' it said, 'his heart enclose.'
Love long has taken for his amulet/One perfect rose.
Why is it no one ever sent me yet/One perfect limousine, do you suppose?
Ah no, it's always just my luck to get/One perfect rose.
moby is offline  
post #43 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Experimentee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 13,064
                     
Hingis was still good in her last years on tour. Her level was consistent and there were only certain players that could beat her consistently, like the Williams sisters, Davenport and Capriati. The problem was that they all improved their games and she didnt, so she was left behind. She was beating everyone else with no problems.
Experimentee is offline  
post #44 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 02:42 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,980
                     
It's hard to dissect any player's career with accuracy, because no player's career exists in isolation. All these careers are intertwined, and all suffer from the fates as well as everything else. Was Martina in trouble from mid-2001 on? Yes, due to over play, exhaustion and eventually, injury. And then from lack of match play. Hingis' skills were such that she couldn't lay off for a long time, then pick up her racket and go out and play great tennis, as Serena seems able to do. Hingis needed to play a lot, which accounts for her loss in Pattaya to Marlene Weingartner.

Now, she is back playing regularly, and she is more than holding her own, beating Nav at love and Jackson at love. And she is again almost unbeatable at doubles, showing Navratilova the door in two matches.

And that is a factor ignored by those who noted her '98 fall off. While only winning five tournaments, including the AO that year, she also became only the fourth woman in history to win a calender year grand slam in doubles.

Doubles has always been the unsolved mystery for her and I believe,what really cost her that 2002 AO final was a combination of the heat, Jen's gutsy play, and the fact that Hingis played doubles in that tournament. In between her semi-final victory over Monica and her final against Jen, Hingis played I believe two three set doubles matches on back to back days.

You could see in her face during the doubles awards ceremony, when she should have looked very happy winning her fourth AO doubles crown, that she was already exhausted. Few if any grand slam contenders among the men have played doubles in recent years and today, fewer and women women are playing doubles. Everyone saves their energy for the singles matches.

But Hingis is very much a social animal and rightfully, perhaps, feels she is actually a better doubles than a singles player, probably because strategy plays even a greater role in doubles than singles.

As for Martina vs Monica, their relationship was always interesting. They appear to ahve had a strong personal friendship.They partnered briefly in doubles and Monica talked about being honored when Martina called her on a Christmas day and suggested they team up. And it briefly worked, the two of them beating the Williams sisters, despite Monica's lack of doubles skills.

But on the court in singles, it pretty much was all Hingis. Monica's first victory over Martina came at the FO in 98 and reportedly, Martina was out late on a date the night before, an appalling showing of poor judgement on her part, but sort of a youthful rebellion thing. I cannot speak to her loss in Canada later that year, but Martina was slumping, at least in singles.

Her next two losses came in the summer of 2001 when Monica was having a real resurgence and Hingis was hurting physically, suffering both back and foot problems. Actually, I think by this time she was suffering from both physical and mental fatigue as well, leading up to her on court accident at Filderstadt in which she tore three ligaments in her ankle. Why? Because Davenport wongfooted her? How many times do you think over her career that somebody wrongfooted her and Martina tried to change direction? I think she was a tired tennis player by then and tired players get injured.

But the next three times Martina and Monica played, early 2002, were all Hingis, especially the third meeting, at INdian Wells, where Martina simply dominated.
At that tournment, Martina pulled out of doubles because she was experiencing a sore right arm and undergoing acupuncture and other treatment. In fact, she had flown her personal physican in from Switzerland to treat her.

Martina talkd about doubles and said she simply couldn't make up her mind what to do about doubles play, realizing it was sapping her energy, but liking it too much to quit, despite what happened in Australia.
TonyP is offline  
post #45 of 72 (permalink) Old Jul 11th, 2005, 05:44 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,425
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoDominique
Nonsense.

She was in decline. She was a lot more passive, serve was worse, unforced errors at crucial moments, etc.
She almost choked against Monica, and she did choke against Jen who was nowhere near her 2001 form.
Like I said, you did NOT watch 2002 AO...Not Hingis' matches anyway...
G1Player2 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome