PDA

View Full Version : was Lucic ever really that "good"


Dr.Phil
Apr 19th, 2004, 04:50 PM
looking at her record, yes, she did have wins over good players at a young age...but with a Wimbledon SF in her ranking she was only ranked as high as mid 30's I think. Not good at all.

CanadianGuy
Apr 19th, 2004, 04:53 PM
I don think you know what you are talking about. Steffi said she was not as good Mirjana was at her age. That alone should give you some indications of how good she is. You are probably one of those who think only 10 players exist in WTA, and the rest of the top 20 players are ball kids, and the rest is just trash:rolleyes: She was way underranked. Just check her record then you will know.:rolleyes:

CanadianGuy
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Hingis was 17, and she was 15, Martina carried her yes, but you have to have substance to be carried by the doubles legend Martina.
Australian Open Australia
SL 19 Jan 1998 to 01 Feb 1998 Entry : WC Hard (O)
partnering Martina HINGIS (SUI)
64 W SAEKI (JPN) / YOSHIDA (JPN) 6-2 6-3
32 W KOURNIKOVA (RUS) / NEILAND (LAT) 7-5 6-2 :)
16 W KRIVENCHEVA (BUL) / TATARKOVA (UKR) 6-1 6-3
QF W BOLLEGRAF (NED) / SANCHEZ-VICARIO (ESP) 6-1 6-1 :)
SF W RAYMOND (USA) / STUBBS (AUS) 4-6 6-4 6-1 :eek:
FR W DAVENPORT (USA) / ZVEREVA (BLR) 6-4 2-6 6-3 :eek:

Strasbourg France
WT 19 May 1997 to 24 May 1997 Entry : Q Clay (O)
32 W Petra BEGEROW (GER) 6-2 4-6 6-2
16 W Nathalie TAUZIAT (FRA) 6-1 3-6 7-5
QF W Natalia ZVEREVA (BLR) 7-5 6-3
SF W Judith WIESNER (AUT) 7-5 6-7 7-6
FR L Steffi GRAF (GER) 2-6 5-7

And her 14 matches winning streak (15 with w/o) before stopped by Steffi.
Not to mention a win over Amanda Coezter who later made Roland Garros semi's
Strasbourg Qualifying France
WT 17 May 1997 to 18 May 1997 Entry : WC Clay (O)
32 W Sandra KLOESEL (GER) 6-7 7-6 6-1
16 W Rene SIMPSON (CAN) 2-6 7-6 6-2
QF W Nathalie DECHY (FRA) 6-0 5-7 6-2

Bol Croatia
WT 28 Apr 1997 to 04 May 1997 Entry : Q Clay (O)
32 W Rachel MC QUILLAN (AUS) 6-2 6-2
16 O Alexandra FUSAI (FRA) W/O
QF W Katarina STUDENIKOVA (SVK) 7-5 6-4
SF W Amanda COETZER (RSA) 6-4 6-3
FR W Corina MORARIU (USA) 7-5 6-7 7-6


Bol Qualifying Croatia
WT 26 Apr 1997 to 27 Apr 1997 Entry : WC Clay (O)
32 W Caroline DHENIN (FRA) 6-2 6-1
16 W Nathalie DECHY (FRA) 6-1 6-2
QF W Rita KUTI KIS (HUN) 7-6 6-3


Believe me, she does not suck as much as you think:rolleyes:
I dont understand why this much negativity towards Mirjana, she is (or was) one of my favourite players.

Martian Willow
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:03 PM
...actually in retrospect, she didn't achieve that much, but there were reasons for that...she was very inconsistent, but when she played well she was very good, top 10 material, she just didn't do it very often...but it was reasonable to expect and assume she would gain consistency...but with all the injuries and other problems it never happened... :sad:

Dr.Phil
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:04 PM
I don think you know what you are talking about. Steffi said she was not as good Mirjana was at her age. That alone should give you some indications of how good she is. You are probably one of those who think only 10 players exist in WTA, and the rest of the top 20 players are ball kids, and the rest is just trash:rolleyes: She was way underranked. Just check her record then you will know.:rolleyes:

have you ever considered that prehaps Steffi was in a sense a later bloomer than Lucic?
Lucic had a great start (at Bol and later Rome) but take away her Wimbledon SF and she would be in the 60's. Too hyped IMO just cause she hit the ball hard.

Princess Fiona
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:05 PM
I remember seeing Lucic play Jana Novotna in the US Open a few years ago - it was a three set match and Lucic was really hitting the ball hard... (From what I remember) Lucic also won her first tournament when she was so young!! (15? Again, from what I remember... :o ;) ) Not to mention making the Wimbledon Semi when she was only 17 years of age...

I'd really like to see Mirjana come back - I think she's great. :)

Dr.Phil
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:06 PM
I am not saying that she is not good or untalented. I am saying her HYPE was over-blown.

CanadianGuy
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:12 PM
Career-High Singles No. 32 (May 11, 1998) at 16
Career-High Doubles No. 19 (October 26, 1998) at 17

1997 - Unranked and a wildcard qualifier, won the first WTA Tour event she played, Bol; upset No. 10 Coetzer in the SF; became the fifth youngest player to win a title at age 15 years, 1 month and 25 days (Austin, Rinaldi, Jaeger and Capriati were younger);

reached final of second career event on WTA Tour at Strasbourg; before even having a ranking and as a qualifier, d. seeds Wiesner (ranked No. 19) and Tauziat (ranked No. 22) en route to final, where she fell to Graf 62 75; following the final, Graf said of Lucic, 'I was not nearly as good as she is at 15.

I'm not sure about you. But there are players who played for 10 years without ever reaching top 50. There are players who played for 15 years dreaming about winning just one tournament. No one said she was going to be top 10. All we are saying is she does have what it takes to reach top 50 like now if she find her games back. She is not overhyped. She is just unlucky and had to go through life's hardships at a young age and could not achieve this potentials. All this negativity is just unfair.

spencercarlos
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:41 PM
looking at her record, yes, she did have wins over good players at a young age...but with a Wimbledon SF in her ranking she was only ranked as high as mid 30's I think. Not good at all.
She was expected to be that good, she was. She just had many personal problems.

Dr.Phil
Apr 19th, 2004, 05:56 PM
Career-High Singles No. 32 (May 11, 1998) at 16
Career-High Doubles No. 19 (October 26, 1998) at 17

1997 - Unranked and a wildcard qualifier, won the first WTA Tour event she played, Bol; upset No. 10 Coetzer in the SF; became the fifth youngest player to win a title at age 15 years, 1 month and 25 days (Austin, Rinaldi, Jaeger and Capriati were younger);

reached final of second career event on WTA Tour at Strasbourg; before even having a ranking and as a qualifier, d. seeds Wiesner (ranked No. 19) and Tauziat (ranked No. 22) en route to final, where she fell to Graf 62 75; following the final, Graf said of Lucic, 'I was not nearly as good as she is at 15.

I'm not sure about you. But there are players who played for 10 years without ever reaching top 50. There are players who played for 15 years dreaming about winning just one tournament. No one said she was going to be top 10. All we are saying is she does have what it takes to reach top 50 like now if she find her games back. She is not overhyped. She is just unlucky and had to go through life's hardships at a young age and could not achieve this potentials. All this negativity is just unfair.

So she had some great wins/runs when she was young. Fact is that with all the hype around her (due to whatever problems) she was not able to deliver in the long run. That is my point.

fammmmedspin
Apr 19th, 2004, 06:02 PM
Where were the current top ten ranked when they were 15-17? if the ones in her age group were as good why weren't they winning tournaments that young or getting to Wimbledon SF. By that logic its difficult to find anyone in the top 10 who wouldn't qualify as over-rated if you took such a snapshot of their early career.

TheBoiledEgg
Apr 19th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Mirjana at 15 was frighteningly good and apart from Wim 99
its just been one disaster after another :sad: on and off court.

she's still only 22.
we could see her comeback but i doubt it.

tennisIlove09
Apr 19th, 2004, 06:22 PM
I think she had the potential to be the real deal. How many players can say that made the Wimbledon semis...and took a set off Steffi Graf in the process? Graf is probably the greatest Wimbledon Champion EVER behind Martina Navratilova.

spencercarlos
Apr 19th, 2004, 06:55 PM
So she had some great wins/runs when she was young. Fact is that with all the hype around her (due to whatever problems) she was not able to deliver in the long run. That is my point.
You were asking if she ever was really that good, the answer is yes, since at 15 she was winning tournaments, coming off from being without any doubt a dominant 1 in the juniors, and tecnically she was really good, she had the shots to dominate anyone, and she was really competitive out there mentally as well, but that was in her early carreer, she has had way too many problems and her tennis took a different path :(

bandabou
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:14 PM
I think she should be a lesson to all the people jumping all over the Russians. One big win doesn´t a career make.

Dr.Phil
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:16 PM
I think she should be a lesson to all the people jumping all over the Russians. One big win doesn´t a career make.
wonderful post :worship: :worship: :worship:

Volcana
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:21 PM
No one said she was going to be top 10.
Actaully, back in the day, A LOT of people said just that.

But hey, it comes down to, what's the definition of 'that good'?

Kournikova never won a tournament. Lucic won two. Kournikova was a top ten player. Lucic wasn't ever a top THIRTY player. (Career high ranking was #32.)

Objectively, no, she never was 'that good'. 80% of the time, she was mediocre to bad. 10% of the time, she was okay. Oh boy but that other ten per cent! No she wasn't 'that good'. But she showeved every indication that she had the potential to be great. Potential is crap, of course, if it isn't fulfilled. But she wasn't overhyped, per se. Most players who can do what she didat fifteen (like there've been a lot of them or something) go on to be GREAT players. She didn't liveup to the hype, but she won more WTA events than most of the top hundred will their whole careers.

Wojtek
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:28 PM
She was really good. She was hitting very hard - she had great serve. Steffi was really lucky that she won semi-final against Lucic. That was the only event where she showed who good she could be. She just had too many personal problems.

Nie kazdy ojciec boksuje swoją córkę po twarzy za nieudane zagranie na treningu. :(

Dr.Phil
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:33 PM
She was really good. She was hitting very hard - she had great serve. Steffi was really lucky that she won semi-final against Lucic. That was the only event where she showed who good she could be. She just had too many personal problems.

Nie kazdy ojciec boksuje swoją córkę po twarzy za nieudane zagranie na treningu. :(
Sad, I know :(.
But I ready did not want this to be an analysis of her personal life. Although that does explain a lot.

ghosts
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:37 PM
Ajmo Miri :)

CanadianGuy
Apr 19th, 2004, 07:42 PM
Actaully, back in the day, A LOT of people said just that.

But hey, it comes down to, what's the definition of 'that good'?

Kournikova never won a tournament. Lucic won two. Kournikova was a top ten player. Lucic wasn't ever a top THIRTY player. (Career high ranking was #32.)

Objectively, no, she never was 'that good'. 80% of the time, she was mediocre to bad. 10% of the time, she was okay. Oh boy but that other ten per cent! No she wasn't 'that good'. But she showeved every indication that she had the potential to be great. Potential is crap, of course, if it isn't fulfilled. But she wasn't overhyped, per se. Most players who can do what she didat fifteen (like there've been a lot of them or something) go on to be GREAT players. She didn't liveup to the hype, but she won more WTA events than most of the top hundred will their whole careers.
Yup, people do think she is talented. But I dont think she was the most impressive newcomer, Venus beat her on that. However, she was good. Taking out one of the most consistent player Amanda on clay when Amanda was top 10 showed how good she was. Her ability at 15 can put her into top 50 today easily. She was not ranked her because she didnt play that many. As you know, the AER restricts youngsters from moving up too fast. Maria only reach top 30 deep into her 16, and she did not reach a semi. Serena was no where near top 30 at 16. No one is hyping her up to be top 10, just like no one would hype Iva to be top 50. They just werent as good. However, there is no need to demean her comeback by saying she is never good. You know and I know she was talented. And if she was, at 22 she should be talented as well. I believe in her:)