PDA

View Full Version : Davenport's resurrection proof of women's tennis decline?


Calimero377
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:45 PM
Watching a 28-year-old Lindsay dominating the US summer hard court tournaments makes me wonder whether this is another proof of how women's tennis has sunk in the last 5, 7 years.
Lindsay first profited at the end of the 90ies from Graf being caught at last by her numerous injuries (reconstructive knee surgery in 97), from Seles's gaining weight and from Sanchez' being over the hill.
She battled with the types of Hingis, Capriati and Venus for the top spot but was minced meat when more talented players like Serena and Henin elevated the game again to the level it had before 97. And now as Serena slowly transfers to a movie/TV career and the Belgians are sidelined due to injury she is back again to pick up the pieces! Although she clearly is not in prime age any more (for a tennis player!).

Opinions?

Andrew.
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:46 PM
Yes. Lindsay sucks and only wins because everyone else sucks more.

Leo_DFP
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:46 PM
I disagree. The way Davenport is playing right now, 2002's Serena or 2003's Justine would have problems beating her.

Leo_DFP
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:46 PM
Andrew said it better than I.

!<blocparty>!
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:50 PM
your dumb.

pokey camp
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:50 PM
Yes. Lindsay sucks and only wins because everyone else sucks more.
Ha. ;)

pokey camp
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:51 PM
your dumb.
His dumb what selesport? I'm hanging on the edge of my seat here.

Calimero377
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:52 PM
Andrew said it better than I.

:confused:
Andrew was even more radical then me!
I would never say Lindsay sucks but definitely she is a player in the Mandlikova, Martinez, Sabatini, Capriati, V. Williams mould who only won/win slams & dominate Tier I tournaments when there are no real great players in the field.

Leo_DFP
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:55 PM
:confused:
Andrew was even more radical then me!
I would never say Lindsay sucks but definitely she is a player in the Mandlikova, Martinez, Sabatini, Capriati, V. Williams mould who only won/win slams & dominate Tier I tournaments when there are no real great players in the field.
Andrew was being sarcastic... And once again, I don't agree. Davenport has always been able to beat the best when she plays her best.

jpurkey1
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:55 PM
are you people for real!?!?! Why don't you watch tapes of when Lindsay was winning slams, then watch her now? It's not that the game has declined, you'll see that she has upped her own game tremendously. She hits harder and moves faster today than she ever has. Not to mention that she FINALLY seems to have gotten over her poor attitude on the court.

It is true that injuries at the top have opened the door a bit--the same way LINDSAY's injury opened the door to others. Before she had her knee surgery, the belgian girls could barely keep up with her. Venus and Serena always gave her problems because of her movement. But now that she's moving so much better, she can hang with anyone. I think the way she's playing now is as good or better than Justine before her injury/illness.

Calimero377
Aug 1st, 2004, 06:57 PM
Andrew was being sarcastic... And once again, I don't agree. Davenport has always been able to beat the best when she plays her best.


Same with Casals, Jaeger, Mandlikova, Sabatini, Martinez - were always able to beat Navi, Evert, Graf when they played their best.

faboozadoo15
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:00 PM
what a bunch of crap. lindsay winning this late in her career only tells us about what lindsay has been able to do-- not the state of the tour. did you see some of the running shots she made against elena? she is better than maybe she ever way before, and the fields are stronger. watching davenport "dominate" once again is just showing us what she's capable of-- which is to say the least-- a lot.

faboozadoo15
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:01 PM
Same with Casals, Jaeger, Mandlikova, Sabatini, Martinez - were always able to beat Navi, Evert, Graf when they played their best.
:tape: what about steffi graf's "dominance" 93-95??? what did that tell us about the state of the game in those years? :eek:

Jakeev
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:03 PM
Watching a 28-year-old Lindsay dominating the US summer hard court tournaments makes me wonder whether this is another proof of how women's tennis has sunk in the last 5, 7 years.
Lindsay first profited at the end of the 90ies from Graf being caught at last by her numerous injuries (reconstructive knee surgery in 97), from Seles's gaining weight and from Sanchez' being over the hill.
She battled with the types of Hingis, Capriati and Venus for the top spot but was minced meat when more talented players like Serena and Henin elevated the game again to the level it had before 97. And now as Serena slowly transfers to a movie/TV career and the Belgians are sidelined due to injury she is back again to pick up the pieces! Although she clearly is not in prime age any more (for a tennis player!).

Opinions?
You know when I read crap like this I always wonder what compells people to sit at their computer chair and insight junk posts like this without truly pondering a simple thought.

Tennis has declined the last 5 years because in 2004, Lindsay does not have serious injuries and is gaining her confidence back? Because she is beating players she is capable and powerful enough to beat?

Over the years it has never ceased to amazed me that people who dump on Lindsay have absolutely no clue about this woman as a tennis player.

There are only two Universal facts about Lindsay that have prevented her from winning more big titles:

1. She is not as fast as the Williams sisters or the top two Belgians. Therefore, they caught up to her. Not because Lindsay is less talented

2. Lindsay has dealt with two major injuries. No great player can play hurt and be successful. NOBODY.

Other than that Lindsay deserves to be where she is. I really wish people would think about what they are writing about once in a while when they start garbage like this thread.......

Calimero377
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:12 PM
You know when I read crap like this I always wonder what compells people to sit at their computer chair and insight junk posts like this without truly pondering a simple thought.

Tennis has declined the last 5 years because in 2004, Lindsay does not have serious injuries and is gaining her confidence back? Because she is beating players she is capable and powerful enough to beat?

Over the years it has never ceased to amazed me that people who dump on Lindsay have absolutely no clue about this woman as a tennis player.

There are only two Universal facts about Lindsay that have prevented her from winning more big titles:

1. She is not as fast as the Williams sisters or the top two Belgians. Therefore, they caught up to her. Not because Lindsay is less talented

2. Lindsay has dealt with two major injuries. No great player can play hurt and be successful. NOBODY.

Other than that Lindsay deserves to be where she is. I really wish people would think about what they are writing about once in a while when they start garbage like this thread.......


But you don't want to compare her with all-time greats like Evert, Navratilova, Graf, or even with players like Seles (90-96), Hingis, Serena & Henin, do you?

:confused:

bandabou
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:28 PM
Hmmmm....I think injuries are a factor for Lindsay´s dominance right now. Let´s face it..everything equal and Lindsay is 5th best player at best, behind the Williamses and the Belgians. Now all four are injured or still finding their form and Lindsay´s taken advantage of this.

Stamp Paid
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:33 PM
Hmmmm....I think injuries are a factor for Lindsay´s dominance right now. Let´s face it..everything equal and Lindsay is 5th best player at best, behind the Williamses and the Belgians. Now all four are injured or still finding their form and Lindsay´s taken advantage of this.
Yes, we saw how she took Venus to two tiebreaks, and Venus was a forehand mess that day. And we saw hoe Venus had her at 5-love until her wrist popped at the JPMorgan Chase Open. If only she can, Venus can definitely punish Davy's movement and ruin her US Open chances.

Andrew.
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:34 PM
But you don't want to compare her with all-time greats like Evert, Navratilova, Graf, or even with players like Seles (90-96), Hingis, Serena & Henin, do you?

:confused:
I compare her to other number ones such as Sanchez Vicario, Hingis, and Henin, because in her career she has been just as good as they have. :confused:

wongqks
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:38 PM
Davenport sucks, only Steffi Graf is the best ;)

bandabou
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:40 PM
We´ll see what this run of form will bring her...has a history of not playing her best when it REALLY matters. You win the California swing then you better win the u.s.open too.

Doc
Aug 1st, 2004, 07:53 PM
Twenty Eight is not too old to be at the top in tennis. Players can reach their peak at over 30. Just because some people are retiring younger these days, due to injuries, changes in style of play, or simply coz they've made enough money, doesn't mean everyone has to retire at 25.

Lindsay may not be a charismatic player, but she's won slams without losing a set. Her dominating in California is no shame to tennis at all.

Calimero377
Aug 1st, 2004, 08:02 PM
Davenport sucks, only Steffi Graf is the best ;)


;) :worship:

Crazy_Fool
Aug 1st, 2004, 08:49 PM
Hmmmm....I think injuries are a factor for Lindsay´s dominance right now. Let´s face it..everything equal and Lindsay is 5th best player at best, behind the Williamses and the Belgians. Now all four are injured or still finding their form and Lindsay´s taken advantage of this.
What about Masha, surely top 5 no?

Yeh I think she is the 5th best player, her groundstrokes imo are just as good as all the others, maybe better, but the movement is the problem. She isn't less talented than any of them, jsut less athletic.

rue
Aug 1st, 2004, 08:54 PM
I certainly disagree because Lindsay really is an incredible player and deserves what she has gotten.

tterb
Aug 1st, 2004, 08:54 PM
Tennis has declined the last 5 years because in 2004, Lindsay does not have serious injuries and is gaining her confidence back? Because she is beating players she is capable and powerful enough to beat?

Over the years it has never ceased to amazed me that people who dump on Lindsay have absolutely no clue about this woman as a tennis player.

There are only two Universal facts about Lindsay that have prevented her from winning more big titles:

1. She is not as fast as the Williams sisters or the top two Belgians. Therefore, they caught up to her. Not because Lindsay is less talented

2. Lindsay has dealt with two major injuries. No great player can play hurt and be successful. NOBODY.

Other than that Lindsay deserves to be where she is. I really wish people would think about what they are writing about once in a while when they start garbage like this thread.......

Well said, Jakeev. And to everyone who brings the "what ifs" into play, please realize that at any point there are great players injured. Lindsay was one of those injured greats at one point as well.

Crazy_Fool
Aug 1st, 2004, 08:59 PM
Well said, Jakeev. And to everyone who brings the "what ifs" into play, please realize that at any point there are great players injured. Lindsay was one of those injured greats at one point as well.
Yeah good point from both of you. She's had a lot of injuries, yet she has managed to come back from them and played at a high level which is something that should be admired.

Whenever a player does well, all the Williams fans etc are always coming out for reasons why they are doing well rather than just they are playing great.

bandabou
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:04 PM
The thread starter isn´t a williams fan to my knowledge,crazy.. I for one don´t see anything wrong with Lindsay winning three titles in a row. Of course I´d rather have either Serena or Venus win them, but I have no problem saying that Lindsay is BLAZING the tour right now.

Julian
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:08 PM
I dont think its a decline mainly because:

1. Lindsay is HEALTHY...when she's healthy she could beat about anybody
2. she LOVES the california hardcourts
3. She's beaming with confidence after beating Venus who she hasnt beaten in 4 years and the same goes for Serena
4. she says this is her last year so she's giving it all that she's got...altho I doubt now that she will retire ;)

Crazy_Fool
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:12 PM
The thread starter isn´t a williams fan to my knowledge,crazy.. I for one don´t see anything wrong with Lindsay winning three titles in a row. Of course I´d rather have either Serena or Venus win them, but I have no problem saying that Lindsay is BLAZING the tour right now.
I wasn't really talking about you, you are pretty fair, its more others to be honest.

jimbo mack
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:13 PM
lindsay is a legend, nobody can disagree with that!

* multiple grandslam champion
* world number 1 at year end of 1998 and 2001
* olympic gold medallist
* only 8 players has won more titles than her (lindsay has 43 titles to her credit)

fair enough, she's not up there with graf, navratilova, evert, seles or serena
but definitely in the same league or better than hingis, henin, austin, venus, capriati, sanchez and clijsters

Stamp Paid
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:15 PM
The thread starter isn´t a williams fan to my knowledge,crazy.. I for one don´t see anything wrong with Lindsay winning three titles in a row. Of course I´d rather have either Serena or Venus win them, but I have no problem saying that Lindsay is BLAZING the tour right now.
Yes, we're the scapegoats for all thats wrong with WTAWorld. Whenever a thread pops up thats inflammatory thats not directed towards the Williams Sisters, one of started it. http://wtaworld.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

QUEENLINDSAY
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:16 PM
Davenport was the BEST Player in the world right now regardless who is injured or not!!!!!

People always have excuses!!!!!!!

Lindsay is also one the BEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME!!!!!! 43 titles??? I wont be sure if Henin, Serena, Venus, etcc..... could surpass that.

!<blocparty>!
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:24 PM
I dont think its a decline mainly because:

1. Lindsay is HEALTHY...when she's healthy she could beat about anybody
2. she LOVES the california hardcourts
3. She's beaming with confidence after beating Venus who she hasnt beaten in 4 years and the same goes for Serena
4. she says this is her last year so she's giving it all that she's got...altho I doubt now that she will retire ;)
:worship:

Kart
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:26 PM
Watching a 28-year-old Lindsay dominating the US summer hard court tournaments makes me wonder whether this is another proof of how women's tennis has sunk in the last 5, 7 years.
Lindsay first profited at the end of the 90ies from Graf being caught at last by her numerous injuries (reconstructive knee surgery in 97), from Seles's gaining weight and from Sanchez' being over the hill.
She battled with the types of Hingis, Capriati and Venus for the top spot but was minced meat when more talented players like Serena and Henin elevated the game again to the level it had before 97. And now as Serena slowly transfers to a movie/TV career and the Belgians are sidelined due to injury she is back again to pick up the pieces! Although she clearly is not in prime age any more (for a tennis player!).

Opinions?
Perhaps a 30+ year old Steffi Graf winning the French open in 1999 would be example enough that the womens' tennis level has remained much the same in the last five years.

Not that it was any different before 1997 when an injured Steffi Graf could come back after months of injury and still win everything as if she'd never left.

Of course it was different for Steffi because unlike Lindsay she had all her major rivals around at full fitness didn't she ?

Hant Hant
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:30 PM
Please, let's give credit where credit is due. Lindsay played the best out of everyone so far.

Leo_DFP
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:32 PM
Of course it was different for Steffi because unlike Lindsay she had all her major rivals around at full fitness didn't she ?
No, Steffi didn't have rivals before 1997. Everybody else sucked after Seles, her rival who was starting to get the best of her, went out.

jimbo mack
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:36 PM
No, Steffi didn't have rivals before 1997. Everybody else sucked after Seles, her rival who was starting to get the best of her, went out.

what a dumb statement :cuckoo:

Kart
Aug 1st, 2004, 09:44 PM
No, Steffi didn't have rivals before 1997. Everybody else sucked after Seles, her rival who was starting to get the best of her, went out.
I know that, I was being sarcastic ;).

I absolutely love Steffi but if someone's going to claim Lindsay had lucky breaks to win her big titles, I've no problem with pointing out that even the greatest have had their fair share of luck.

Dava
Aug 1st, 2004, 10:02 PM
WHAT!!!

lindsay is often credited as being one of the key figures in raising the profile of the womens game, to see her play well it a joy, hardly anyone can touch her when shes in full swing.

StarDuvallGrant
Aug 1st, 2004, 10:07 PM
Whenever a player does well, all the Williams fans etc are always coming out for reasons why they are doing well rather than just they are playing great.


I'll take it as today is a Sunday and you are just too lazy so you had to say "all". It's weird when "all" Williams fans can usually be summed up in 3 to five posters who usually make the same comments. Whatever.

Robbie.
Aug 1st, 2004, 10:26 PM
I compare her to other number ones such as Sanchez Vicario, Hingis, and Henin, because in her career she has been just as good as they have. :confused:Where on earth did Henin get this lofty status from? Henin won her three Grand Slams at a time when the tour was at its absolute weakest, two of those in the absense of the previously dominant (on everything but clay) best player in the world. How many players have managed to win three slams without facing a GS winner in any of those finals?

When Lindsay was #1 in 1998-2000 there was no doubt as to who was the best player. She held Grand Slams titles concurrently during that period and it was the most competitive era women's tennis has seen in a very long time to boot. In her GS finals Lindsay clobbered Hingis twice, and dealt to Steffi on the great ones best surface.

If anything it is Henin who doesn't deserve to be compared to Lindsay YET not the other way around. Check up their career records and come back to me.

Venus has had a better career than Henin as well.

Crazy_Fool
Aug 1st, 2004, 10:28 PM
Where on earth to Henin get this lofty status from? Henin won her three Grand Slams at a time when the tour was at its absolute weakest, two of those in the absense of the previously dominant (on everything but clay) best player in the world. How many players have managed to win three slams without facing a GS winner in any of those finals?

When Lindsay was #1 in 1998-2000 there was no doubt as to who was the best player. She held Grand Slams titles concurrently during that period and it was the most competitive era women's tennis has seen in a very long time to boot. In her GS finals Lindsay clobbered Hingis twice, and dealt to Steffi on the great ones best surface.

If anything it is Henin who doesn't deserve to be compared to Lindsay YET not the other way around. Check up their career records and come back to me.

Venus has had a better career than Henin as well.
Yeah, i agree with that.

Volcana
Aug 1st, 2004, 10:35 PM
Players suddenly raising their games in their 20's isn't anything abnormal.

The tour isn't WORSE, per se.

Neither Venus nor Serena has gotten back to the level there were at pre-injury. This isn't a surprise. Remember how long it took Lindsay to. Kim and Justine are still out. Capriati's hurt. And Amelie's no hardcourt demon.

Add to that, Lindsay knows this is the last roundup. She's said repeatedly that she's not going to keep playing when she can't win slams. She's inliterally the best shape of her life, she as focused, or more focused, than anyone else on tour, and she has the extra motivation of knowing that this may be her last chance to win the US Open.

So obviously the tour HAS declined, but only in the sense that Venus, Serena, Jenn, Kim, and justine aren't what they were in 2002, 2003, and the players who've replaced them are not yet up to that level. Yet. All those players are younger than 25, and improving.

It is more likely than not that Venus and Serena will return to their previous level. They won't be as dominant, becasue other players willhave improved. Assuming Kim and Justine DO return, they to, after a year or so, will return to their level. So the 2005 US Open field looks very strong, from here.

Truth is, Lindsay's the one player considered elite last year who's BETTER than she was last year.

tterb
Aug 1st, 2004, 10:41 PM
Nice post, Volcana! :D

foreva lindsay
Aug 1st, 2004, 11:47 PM
are you people for real!?!?! Why don't you watch tapes of when Lindsay was winning slams, then watch her now? It's not that the game has declined, you'll see that she has upped her own game tremendously. She hits harder and moves faster today than she ever has. Not to mention that she FINALLY seems to have gotten over her poor attitude on the court.

It is true that injuries at the top have opened the door a bit--the same way LINDSAY's injury opened the door to others. Before she had her knee surgery, the belgian girls could barely keep up with her. Venus and Serena always gave her problems because of her movement. But now that she's moving so much better, she can hang with anyone. I think the way she's playing now is as good or better than Justine before her injury/illness.

well said :bowdown: :yeah:

bandabou
Aug 1st, 2004, 11:55 PM
Davenport was the BEST Player in the world right now regardless who is injured or not!!!!!

People always have excuses!!!!!!!

Lindsay is also one the BEST PLAYERS OF ALL TIME!!!!!! 43 titles??? I wont be sure if Henin, Serena, Venus, etcc..... could surpass that.


But Serena already has eclipsed her in big titles, so that evens it out.

vogus
Aug 2nd, 2004, 04:33 AM
i agree with the thread starter, the tour is going through a little lull this summer and Davey was happy to make the most of it in SoCal where she has the home court advantage.

Garnet
Aug 2nd, 2004, 05:10 AM
I don't see any proof of women's tennis decline in Davenport's resurgence. If anything, it shows what a superb player can deliver when healthy, fit and self-confident.

As several posters above have indicated, if a decline there is, it's just a matter of injuries affecting the other equally superb players.

#1 Lindsay
Aug 2nd, 2004, 05:10 AM
Watching a 28-year-old Lindsay dominating the US summer hard court tournaments makes me wonder whether this is another proof of how women's tennis has sunk in the last 5, 7 years.
Lindsay first profited at the end of the 90ies from Graf being caught at last by her numerous injuries (reconstructive knee surgery in 97), from Seles's gaining weight and from Sanchez' being over the hill.
She battled with the types of Hingis, Capriati and Venus for the top spot but was minced meat when more talented players like Serena and Henin elevated the game again to the level it had before 97. And now as Serena slowly transfers to a movie/TV career and the Belgians are sidelined due to injury she is back again to pick up the pieces! Although she clearly is not in prime age any more (for a tennis player!).

Opinions?


Oh no did your favourite lose??
what a pity u have 2 come up with such bull to keep yourself busy.

irma
Aug 2nd, 2004, 05:47 AM
half of the top 10 is injured and that's already the case since wimbledon 2003. lindsay herself is not even 100% fit (2 months ago people were speculating that her career was over because she was thinking about another surgery) so of course the tour is not in 100% condition and is missing out. there is no doubt about that!

But that has nothing to do with Lindsay and that sh should get the blame or devaluation. She won 3 slams and was number 1 or 2 for years before injury in 2002. So she has nothing to prove anymore!

jojoseph
Aug 2nd, 2004, 06:44 AM
Lindsay's type doesn't come along very often. She's a very big girl and that makes for a very fine athlete. Being able to pound the ball and with the height advantage makes her tough to stop. Her only weakness is making her have to run for the ball, but even that takes a lot of work to accomplish. :)

Greenout
Aug 2nd, 2004, 08:16 AM
Where on earth did Henin get this lofty status from? Henin won her three Grand Slams at a time when the tour was at its absolute weakest, two of those in the absense of the previously dominant (on everything but clay) best player in the world. How many players have managed to win three slams without facing a GS winner in any of those finals?

When Lindsay was #1 in 1998-2000 there was no doubt as to who was the best player. She held Grand Slams titles concurrently during that period and it was the most competitive era women's tennis has seen in a very long time to boot. In her GS finals Lindsay clobbered Hingis twice, and dealt to Steffi on the great ones best surface.

If anything it is Henin who doesn't deserve to be compared to Lindsay YET not the other way around. Check up their career records and come back to me.

Venus has had a better career than Henin as well.


This is an insult to Justine. What do you mean she never faced
a grand slam champ in the finals? She didn't because it happened
in QF's and the semi's!!!!! I suppose this sort of comment
is expect from an obvious person that likes Aussie Kim,
and refuses to acknowledge any of the Walloon's talents
as a tennis player. :o The least you can do is hide your
personal prejudice and give a non-partial account of LD, rather
than go straight for the cheap Henin barbs. And if the tour was at it's
weakest that ALSO MEANS that KIM IS just as bad and perhaps
MORE PATHETIC than JUSTINE for not capitalizing
on the gimpness of the draws at all of the above mentioned
grand slams! Know what I mean. :tape:

Semi- final Rg 2003 Serena Williams
Semi- final USO 2003 Jennifer Capriati
Qf's AO 2004 Lindsay Davenport


Get real. She also assaulted LD on her home tournament Indian
Wells earlier this year. LD is great; but when she plays other
type of opponents who move better and can play beyond the
baseline with a wider variety of shot- things may not go her
way. Sometimes, when she plays an all and all out hitter that
uses pace just like herself (Sharapova WIMBLEDON, Dementieva
RG) she will lose.

The way I see it, LD is playing well, and everyone isn't. On any
given day Serena, Venus, etc.. could well have beaten LD. This
is the new depth on tour. Ld does have a nice career record; but
the fact is that everyone can play well on a given day now.

Instead of gloating or trying to bury your un-favorites. Enjoy
the variety of tour winners now.

Cheers!!!!!!!

Robbie.
Aug 2nd, 2004, 09:16 AM
This is an insult to Justine. What do you mean she never faced
a grand slam champ in the finals? She didn't because it happened
in QF's and the semi's!!!!! I suppose this sort of comment
is expect from an obvious person that likes Aussie Kim,
and refuses to acknowledge any of the Walloon's talents
as a tennis player. :o The least you can do is hide your
personal prejudice and give a non-partial account of LD, rather
than go straight for the cheap Henin barbs. And if the tour was at it's
weakest that ALSO MEANS that KIM IS just as bad and perhaps
MORE PATHETIC than JUSTINE for not capitalizing
on the gimpness of the draws at all of the above mentioned
grand slams! Know what I mean. :tape:

Semi- final Rg 2003 Serena Williams
Semi- final USO 2003 Jennifer Capriati
Qf's AO 2004 Lindsay Davenport


Get real. She also assaulted LD on her home tournament Indian
Wells earlier this year. LD is great; but when she plays other
type of opponents who move better and can play beyond the
baseline with a wider variety of shot- things may not go her
way. Sometimes, when she plays an all and all out hitter that
uses pace just like herself (Sharapova WIMBLEDON, Dementieva
RG) she will lose.

The way I see it, LD is playing well, and everyone isn't. On any
given day Serena, Venus, etc.. could well have beaten LD. This
is the new depth on tour. Ld does have a nice career record; but
the fact is that everyone can play well on a given day now.

Instead of gloating or trying to bury your un-favorites. Enjoy
the variety of tour winners now.

Cheers!!!!!!!I wasn't trying to bury anyone. I was just pointing out the obvious. The thread starter made the not-too-intelligent assertion that Davenport is not of the same callibre as Henin, a statement that the facts make a mockery of. Even you would admit that Davenport's career at this stage is superior to Henin's. The thread starter went further and said that Davenport was more the standard of Sabatini, Novotna, Martinez and co which is simply laughable. When did those players ever get to number one let alone finish the year twice there? When did those players win 3 Grand Slams? When did those players win 43 titles?

You have also made the not-too-intelligent assumption that because I am Australian I am a Kim fan. Couldn't be more wrong (or rascist but we won't go into that ;) ). If you go over my posts at Aus Open time I was EXTREMELY complimentary about Justine and her talents.

Here are TWO articles I wrote dedicated to Justine at the time:
http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=102595
http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=101571

At the same time as being respectful of Henin's talent it doesn't take much to realise that Henin's two hardcourt slams were achieved in favourable circumstances and that Davenport's singles career is up there with the ten best of the modern era, which the thread starter couldn't seem to grasp, despite the facts being right in front of him. The thread starter used the fact that the tour was weak to discredit Davenport's achievements, but the fact of the matter is that Henin's inferior achievements came during an era that was much much weaker than Davenport's, yet he rates Henin's inferior achievements superior. He belittled the careers of Capriati, Venus and Davenport by saying that they didn't beat great players to win their titles. We all know this is not true and there is no logical means by which you could rate Henin superior to Davenport or Williams at this stage, certainly not on the grounds of stronger competition. Odd that he also places ASV a rung above Capriati, Venus, Davenport, her being a player who benefited from the stabbing of one rival and the chronic injury of another to win most of her titles and she still didnt rack up the numbers, nor was she ever as dominant, as Davenport was.

Furthermore, it doesn't take much nous to realise that one of the ten best players of the modern era dominating tournaments at ANYTIME let alone when in red hot form is hardly evidence of "weakness" or "decline".

On a brighter note, I Love your passion for the BOSS and the tour will be a better place when she returns :)

Greenout
Aug 2nd, 2004, 11:36 AM
Ok, Rob. I see where your coming from, and I apologize for only checking
your recents posts, and not going back further to the Australian Open.

Well, we both agree that it make no sense to compare players with one
another because each has different histories. LD and Mary Pierce IMHO
are the one's who really brought the so called "big babe" tennis into the
WTA. It started with heavy hitting with the Capster and Monica; but really
came into it's own with Mary and LD. It's not Venus or the Serena that
changed the women's game w/ power; they sort of capitalized on the
grounds that LD and Mary have already established with an added emphasize
on fitness, court coverage and better footwork.

If your going to compare careers for LD- the better barometer would be
Venus or Capriati since, they overlap each others career peaks and play
in similar styles.

The Boss's career is different to LD's in practically every
way imaginable. When LD was at her best in 1998-1999, the BOSS was
a junior player. When the BOSS got into the WIMBLEDON final in
2001, LD lost confidence and was having a slump etc..

The BOSS's career is still new, and years on down the line it could be
compared to Hingis or Serena- since she's sort of the missing link in
between these two players in terms of tennis craft and ambition.

Calimero377
Aug 2nd, 2004, 04:35 PM
Oh no did your favourite lose??
what a pity u have 2 come up with such bull to keep yourself busy.


My favourite has lost a lot of matches. 115 - to be precise ...

;)

darrinbaker00
Aug 2nd, 2004, 04:45 PM
Women's tennis is in decline because a 28-year-old has won three titles in a row? By that line of reasoning, baseball (Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson) must also be in decline..... :rolleyes:

mboyle
Aug 2nd, 2004, 04:50 PM
But you don't want to compare her with all-time greats like Evert, Navratilova, Graf, or even with players like Seles (90-96), Hingis, Serena & Henin, do you?

:confused:
I'll compare Lindsay with Hingis and Henin every day. I think that when all is said and done, LD will be remembered as the best player of the three. She is going to end her career w/ 4 slams, three years at no. 1, and c. 50 titles. That's pretty good.

Calimero377
Aug 2nd, 2004, 04:55 PM
I .... The thread starter went further and said that Davenport was more the standard of Sabatini, Novotna, Martinez and co which is simply laughable. When did those players ever get to number one let alone finish the year twice there? When did those players win 3 Grand Slams? When did those players win 43 titles?

...


I agree completely with the thread starter.

Without Graf Sabatini would have won multiple slams. Gaby lost 2 slam finals against Graf (USO 88, Wim 91) and 6 slam semis (FO 87, FO 88, AO 89, USO 89, Wim 92, USO 95). She could have retired in 96 with 4 or 5 slams weren't it for Steffi ...

And have a look at Novotna: Everybody else would have lost Wim 93 to her - only Graf could stop her in the last minute! And at FO 90, USO 94, Wim 95 Steffi defeated her in the semis. Jana most certainly would have at least 3 slams under her belt - weren't if for Steffi ....

Martinez was the best clay courter in 1995 (had a 24 match winning streak) until Graf denied her reaching FO finals by beating her in a tough 3-setter. Martinez would have defeated an ill ASV in finals as Graf did. Conchita would not be a one-slam-wonder today ....

So it is safe to say that without Graf - the greatest-ever - Sabby, Jana & Conchita each would have 3 slams on average. Same as Davenport. Lindsay peaked in 98/01 when Graf was washed up (after reconstructive knee surgery) & retired respectively.

Case closed.




:wavey:

Calimero377
Aug 2nd, 2004, 05:00 PM
Women's tennis is in decline because a 28-year-old has won three titles in a row? By that line of reasoning, baseball (Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson) must also be in decline..... :rolleyes:


Baseball?
Is that this funny game where middle-aged, pot-bellied men stand around almost the whole time on a field with no goals?

BTW, do we want to compare women's swimming contests with men's marathon championships next?

;)

Joana
Aug 2nd, 2004, 09:52 PM
Whatever happens people will says it's a decline of women's tennis.
17 year old Sharapova winning Wimbledon? Horrors, the tennis is going down.
A 28 year old Lindsay wins 2 titles in a row? Good Lord, tennis is in serious crisis.
Myskina unexpectedly win Roland Garros? Oh dear, tennis is dead.

:yawn:

Andy T
Aug 2nd, 2004, 10:54 PM
Watching a 28-year-old Lindsay dominating the US summer hard court tournaments makes me wonder whether this is another proof of how women's tennis has sunk in the last 5, 7 years.
Lindsay first profited at the end of the 90ies from Graf being caught at last by her numerous injuries (reconstructive knee surgery in 97), from Seles's gaining weight and from Sanchez' being over the hill.
She battled with the types of Hingis, Capriati and Venus for the top spot but was minced meat when more talented players like Serena and Henin elevated the game again to the level it had before 97. And now as Serena slowly transfers to a movie/TV career and the Belgians are sidelined due to injury she is back again to pick up the pieces! Although she clearly is not in prime age any more (for a tennis player!).

Opinions?
Was Steffi Graf's domination at the age of 27 in 1996 proof of a decline, or Martina Navratilova's age 27-8 in 1983-4, or BJ King's in 72 aged 29 or Margaret Court's aged 31 in 1973? Nope. Dumb question.

Leo_DFP
Aug 2nd, 2004, 11:01 PM
I know that, I was being sarcastic ;).

I absolutely love Steffi but if someone's going to claim Lindsay had lucky breaks to win her big titles, I've no problem with pointing out that even the greatest have had their fair share of luck.
Ah, now I see your logic.

#1 Lindsay
Aug 3rd, 2004, 09:12 AM
I agree completely with the thread starter.

Without Graf Sabatini would have won multiple slams. Gaby lost 2 slam finals against Graf (USO 88, Wim 91) and 6 slam semis (FO 87, FO 88, AO 89, USO 89, Wim 92, USO 95). She could have retired in 96 with 4 or 5 slams weren't it for Steffi ...

And have a look at Novotna: Everybody else would have lost Wim 93 to her - only Graf could stop her in the last minute! And at FO 90, USO 94, Wim 95 Steffi defeated her in the semis. Jana most certainly would have at least 3 slams under her belt - weren't if for Steffi ....

Martinez was the best clay courter in 1995 (had a 24 match winning streak) until Graf denied her reaching FO finals by beating her in a tough 3-setter. Martinez would have defeated an ill ASV in finals as Graf did. Conchita would not be a one-slam-wonder today ....

So it is safe to say that without Graf - the greatest-ever - Sabby, Jana & Conchita each would have 3 slams on average. Same as Davenport. Lindsay peaked in 98/01 when Graf was washed up (after reconstructive knee surgery) & retired respectively.

Case closed.




:wavey:


Well that is very very retrospective!!!!!
The same thing can be said for Davenport. Without Venus Lindsay will have had the same number of slams as Seles has and without Steffi Seles would have won Many more then she has!!

Hingis wouldnt have won so much if it wasnt for all of Lindsay's injuries.

Your comments are total rubbish as anyone can claim if it werent for....

Robbie.
Aug 3rd, 2004, 10:13 AM
I agree completely with the thread starter.

Without Graf Sabatini would have won multiple slams. Gaby lost 2 slam finals against Graf (USO 88, Wim 91) and 6 slam semis (FO 87, FO 88, AO 89, USO 89, Wim 92, USO 95). She could have retired in 96 with 4 or 5 slams weren't it for Steffi ...

And have a look at Novotna: Everybody else would have lost Wim 93 to her - only Graf could stop her in the last minute! And at FO 90, USO 94, Wim 95 Steffi defeated her in the semis. Jana most certainly would have at least 3 slams under her belt - weren't if for Steffi ....

Martinez was the best clay courter in 1995 (had a 24 match winning streak) until Graf denied her reaching FO finals by beating her in a tough 3-setter. Martinez would have defeated an ill ASV in finals as Graf did. Conchita would not be a one-slam-wonder today ....

So it is safe to say that without Graf - the greatest-ever - Sabby, Jana & Conchita each would have 3 slams on average. Same as Davenport. Lindsay peaked in 98/01 when Graf was washed up (after reconstructive knee surgery) & retired respectively.

Case closed.




:wavey:I can't believe someone supposedly intelligent can rattle off such delussional waffle.

Aren't you Graf fans the ones who go around telling us we can't rewrite history? Evidentally the same rules don't apply to your causes. The truth is that you have left out the biggest variable of all - the stabbing of Seles. Jana and Conchita's careers were both effected in a very positive way by the removal of Seles from their path, as was ASV's. You can't speculate on the "what if's" of the early to mid nineties without menitoning the Seles stabbing, yet in typical Graf fan style you have brushed it aside as if it was a non event. The truth is that for every advantage Davenport gained through the natural decline of Graf (remembering she did beat a close to her peak steffi in the final of W `99), the advantage Jana, ASV, and Conchita gained from the stabbing of Seles in peak form was ten times as significant and their career numbers (accept ASV's) still pale in comparison to Lindsay's.

Jana would have lost that Wimbledon final to ANYBODY, not just Steffi. The great one did nothing to get herself back into that match, Jana just self destructed like she did many times in her career against players not called Steffi Graf. Jana did not have the mentality of a multiple GS winner, that's why she only won one when she was pushing thirty years of age, and at her very next slam (US '98) choked away a perfectly good chance to win another against the same player she had beaten pointlessly at Wimbledon. You cannot blame Steffi for Jana's underachieving. Jana was 1/4 in GS finals and only one of those losses was to Steffi.

As for Conchita, well she only reached three Grand Slam finals in her whole career. Her record in finals during the Graf era was 1/1. Her record in finals during what you call the "weak" Davenport-Hingis era was 0/2. Surely if the era was so weak and Conchita was so good she should have capitalised on these opportunities? Again its difficult to blame Steffi for Conchita's lack of multiple GS titles.

You do make some good points about Sabatini, but then again Gaby had shown that she did have the game to beat Steffi as evidenced by her record against her at venues other than Grandslams. She beat her 10 times at venues other than Grand Slams. In majors she beat her just once and lost eleven times! Going into the Wimbledon 1991 Final Gaby had beaten Steffi five straight times, and beat her another two consecutive times straight after, but she missed out on the one that mattered! The fact that she lost the most important matches is a sign of weakness, not greatness!

By contrast Lindsay won most of the matches that mattered most in her career (atleast during her prime). And she didn't have it easy. On the contrary, to win her three titles she had to go through the title holder each time (Hingis X2, Novotna), beat the world #1 on two occassions (Hingis X2), the winner of the subsequent two Australian Opens at the Australian Open (Jen Cap), a winner of two US Open's at the US Open (Venus) and a Wimbledon legend in hot form at Wimbledon (Steffi Graf). I'm sorry but you must rate players upon what they achieve not on some fictional statistics derived from your world of Steffi worship where all the player's Steffi beat are better than they really are, and all those who came after her are worse than they really are. Davenport is streets ahead of the three players you mention and she will be remembered as such.

And you still haven't explained how Henin is superior to Davenport...

best best better
Aug 3rd, 2004, 01:22 PM
I tend to agree with the thread starter, and think that it's not so much Lindsay winning these tournaments being proof of something of an "arrest" (rather than "decline"), but the fact that there has been no real challenge to her.

I find it surprising, that without Henin-Hardenne, Clijsters, Capriati in the field and Both Williamses somewhat off their best, the rest cannot between them summon more of a challenge to someone - yes who is playing well - but has not been at all dominant in the game since 2002, and who is playing for "fun".

jenny161185
Aug 3rd, 2004, 01:46 PM
Lol at this thread 28 isnt that old you know and Lindsays been working hard on her game - there are not many many women who are ever going to win 43 + titles , we should really be relishing Lindsays dominance and hope she wins the USOpen since she will be leaving the tour soon enough

bandabou
Aug 3rd, 2004, 02:53 PM
I tend to agree with the thread starter, and think that it's not so much Lindsay winning these tournaments being proof of something of an "arrest" (rather than "decline"), but the fact that there has been no real challenge to her.

I find it surprising, that without Henin-Hardenne, Clijsters, Capriati in the field and Both Williamses somewhat off their best, the rest cannot between them summon more of a challenge to someone - yes who is playing well - but has not been at all dominant in the game since 2002, and who is playing for "fun".


Uhum.....that is the surprising part...I mean you would expect the dementieva´s and Myskina´s of this world being able to at least take a set off Lindsay.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 3rd, 2004, 04:17 PM
are you people for real!?!?! Why don't you watch tapes of when Lindsay was winning slams, then watch her now? It's not that the game has declined, you'll see that she has upped her own game tremendously. She hits harder and moves faster today than she ever has. Not to mention that she FINALLY seems to have gotten over her poor attitude on the court.

It is true that injuries at the top have opened the door a bit--the same way LINDSAY's injury opened the door to others. Before she had her knee surgery, the belgian girls could barely keep up with her. Venus and Serena always gave her problems because of her movement. But now that she's moving so much better, she can hang with anyone. I think the way she's playing now is as good or better than Justine before her injury/illness.


I agree, but would add that her offcourt attitude has improved as well, I remember when she first made it to number one she was all "I'm just happy to be here" I hated that because she'd worked her ass off to get there and fully deserved it, fastforward to 04, and once again we can see that she has put in work to make it back to the top, but this time she seems more aware of how hard she's worked and that she's earned her stripes.

Calimero377
Aug 3rd, 2004, 05:35 PM
Well that is very very retrospective!!!!!
The same thing can be said for Davenport. Without Venus Lindsay will have had the same number of slams as Seles has and without Steffi Seles would have won Many more then she has!!

Hingis wouldnt have won so much if it wasnt for all of Lindsay's injuries.

Your comments are total rubbish as anyone can claim if it werent for....


Novotna, Sabby & Martinez had the bad luck to peak when The Greatest-Ever played.
"Without Venus" ..... tsk, tsk, tsk ......

Calimero377
Jun 5th, 2005, 04:20 PM
WHAT!!!

lindsay is often credited as being one of the key figures in raising the profile of the womens game, ....



:tape:

azmad_88
Jun 5th, 2005, 04:53 PM
I think she played exceptionally well last year especially after wimbledon
she deserve all those titles

JCF
Jun 5th, 2005, 04:55 PM
Why is EVERY thread this guy starts indirectly related to Graf.

Do we really need to hear how great she is :rolleyes:

Calimero377
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:09 PM
Why is EVERY thread this guy starts indirectly related to Graf.

Do we really need to hear how great she is :rolleyes:


Of course!

Especially haters like you need to get that stuffed down their throats regularily ...

:)

bis2806
Jun 5th, 2005, 05:52 PM
Watching a 28-year-old Lindsay dominating the US summer hard court tournaments makes me wonder whether this is another proof of how women's tennis has sunk in the last 5, 7 years.
Lindsay first profited at the end of the 90ies from Graf being caught at last by her numerous injuries (reconstructive knee surgery in 97), from Seles's gaining weight and from Sanchez' being over the hill.
She battled with the types of Hingis, Capriati and Venus for the top spot but was minced meat when more talented players like Serena and Henin elevated the game again to the level it had before 97. And now as Serena slowly transfers to a movie/TV career and the Belgians are sidelined due to injury she is back again to pick up the pieces! Although she clearly is not in prime age any more (for a tennis player!).

Opinions?

Way to use Lindsay as an example, and how about Sharapova? :confused:

Calimero377
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:08 PM
Way to use Lindsay as an example, and how about Sharapova? :confused:


She is additional proof.

lindsayno1
Jun 5th, 2005, 10:10 PM
You'll all be moaning when the tours full of maria and serena clones!