PDA

View Full Version : (Objectively) Did Martina Hingis have a bad year in 2002?


Volcana
Dec 13th, 2001, 03:15 PM
Martina Hingis had a worse year in 2001 than in 1997.

True. In fact, it was her worst year in five years. However, I would like to lay to rest two common mis-perception.

Mis-perception #1) Martina Hingis had a bad year.

Against any OBJECTIVE standard she had a GREAT year. She made the SEMI-finals or better in 3 GS tournamens. Only Jenn and Venus did as well.<br />The Big Girls take up 3 of the 4 available sports in GS semis. Venus, Lindsay and Jenn took up 9 of the available 16 spots in the semis this year. Martina got three of the remaining seven. That's significant. Excpeting VEnus and Jenn, Martina outcompeted the rest of top ten in the Slams.

OZ RG WB US name <br />** ** ** ** ****<br />CH CH SF SF Capriati<br />SF 1r CH CH Willaims, V

FN SF 1r SF Hingis

SF -- SF QF Davenport<br />4r SF FN 4r Henin

QF QF QF FN Williams, S<br />4r FN QF QF Clijsters

She won three tournaments (Two Tioer II's).<br />She ended the year in the top five for the fifth consecutive year.

Mis-perception #2) Martina Hingis owes her ranking to playing a lot of tournaments.

Martina only played 18 tournaments. One over the minimum. And yes, players ranked behind her played less. But not enough less. Clijsters, Henin and Dokic obviously don't count, since they played more tournaments than Martina. That leaves three players ranked below Martina with fewer tournaments. Even taking the liberal assessment reasonable, ad assuming each player wins at the rate they were winning before, Martina only drops to #5.

*******fake real<br />5100 = 2100 + 3004 Serena Williams - (300 points/Tournament. Add Seven tounaments.)<br />3944 = 0000 + 3944 Martina Hingis<br />2937 = 0172 + 2765 Amelie Mauresmo (172 points/Tournament. Add One tournament.)<br />2801 = 0495 + 2306 Monica Seles (165 points/Tournament. Add Thee tournament.)

Martina's ranking is the result of playing well, not playing a lot.

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Volcana ]</p>

thefreedesigner
Dec 13th, 2001, 03:24 PM
[quote] She made the finals or better in 3 GS tournamens... <hr></blockquote>

Did she? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

thefreedesigner
Dec 13th, 2001, 03:29 PM
... I don't mean to sound 'glib', but based on the talent she showed us in 1997 particularly, she's underachieving.

Meghann Shaughnessy would probably kill her grandmother for the year that Martina had in 2001, MS and MH are in 2 completely different worlds when it comes to talent with a raquet.

saki
Dec 13th, 2001, 03:37 PM
It's not her results that make people say that she's doing badly. Clijsters & Henin have done worse overall in both slams and other tournaments but are being touted as the best up and coming players. And therein lies the crucial point - Clijsters & Henin are up and coming players, Hingis is on her way down and has been since 1999.

Yes, she has indeed done well in Slams, but she hasn't done well against particular players. She can't seem to beat Venus, Serena, Jen, Lindsay any more.

Infiniti2001
Dec 13th, 2001, 03:54 PM
For someone who is constantly being touted as the most talented player on the tour, HECK YEAH!!!<br />Talent isn't a theory; it's on-court results, and "WE" all know that "this" talent hasn't been on display in quite some time....

Martina Hingis was the #1 player is the world, so I expected her to play as such... Getting to the ¼s or semis of every tournament was just not good enough by her own standards. She is the most talented player yet she hasn't gotten past a top 10 player in who knows how long...<br /> <br />It doesn't make sense to think that things will change anytime soon, considering she hasn't been able to win when she was expected... <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Infiniti2001 ]</p>

Gandalf
Dec 13th, 2001, 04:05 PM
Sorry, but by her standards she had a horrible year.

Since the AO, her only important victory was against Mauresmo in Charleston; she lost to Seles for the first time since 1998, to SV for the first time since 1996, lost in the 1rd of Wimbledon (and this time was different to 1999). She sticked to the number 1 because she was almost unbeatable from US'00 'till February, and gained a lot of points in that period.

Surely most people would be happy with her year, but I don't think Martina is. And as a matter of fact, this is the way she has to be to feel motivated to work.

Kart
Dec 13th, 2001, 04:19 PM
Grand slams are four tournaments out of 18 that she played, what about the rest ?

Yes she had a bad year - she won ten titles in 2000, including tier ones.

This year she had losses to Clijsters, Capriati, Seles, Mauresmo and several other players you would have thought she ought to have beaten (of course, in Monica's case I am not complaining <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ).

She lost the no.1 ranking.

By her previous years, she had a bad year and those are really the only standards we can judge her by - otherwise the rest of the tour outside the top ten must have had a TERRIBLE year !!!

TSequoia01
Dec 13th, 2001, 04:20 PM
Yes she had a bad year. But I wish she has a good recovery and becomes competitive once again. She adds a certain flavor to the wta that would really be missed if she were not. Even though she had a bad year for a #1 player, it may not be bad for a #5 player. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Volcana
Dec 13th, 2001, 04:39 PM
That's my point exactly. Sure by her OWN standards she had a poor year. But by OBJECTIVE standards, she had a pretty good one. Certainly better than the people she's ranked ahead of. In any year where two players split the Slams, how good a year can the other players have? (introduciiinnnggg.. Lindsay Davenport!)

If she in the semis 3 out of 4 Slams for the next couple years, she'll win a few.

And I'm not sure you can accurately say a 21 year old is already 'on her way down'. Certainly there's no objective reason to assume Martina won't improve, while the competion will.

<br />thefreedesigner - That should have been '3 GS SEMI-finals ....' of course <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Volcana
Dec 13th, 2001, 04:40 PM
And to answer my original question, so far Martina has had a great 2002! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Crazy Canuck
Dec 13th, 2001, 04:49 PM
"She can't seem to beat Venus, Serena, Jen, Lindsay any more."

Granted in the latter half of the year, she didn't beat any of these players.<br />But overall her head to heads this year against the, were not too shabby.<br />1-1 against Venus, 2-1 against Serena, and 1-1 again Lindsay (I'm not actualyl sure about that one).

The only one she couldn't beat this year was Jenn.

Rollo
Dec 13th, 2001, 06:26 PM
Count me in with thefreedsigner(loved the "grandmother bit Fred <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> , sk, and Gandulf. For a regular grunt Martina's year was great, for one of the best ever it was a disaster.

I'm a big believer in the power of a single match to turn around a season or even a career. The Hingis-Venus match at the US Open was a glorious <br />display of tennis. Despite losing, I felt that Hingis had turned a corner. Fit, confident, tearing up the fall. Beating both Williams sisters in Australia was heady stuff, she must have thought she was back on track until the final. After that, all the air went out of the balloon. The Hingis I saw lose to at the French and the US Open was going through the motions. Australia, her best slam, is big chance for her to turn it around again.

apoet29
Dec 13th, 2001, 06:44 PM
I have to agree with most posters here. Hingis, by her standards, had a horrible year this year. She did not win a tier 1 event, lost in the first round of Wimbledon to a clay court player, lost to players she normally dominated. Martina started the year so brilliantly. I think her loss to Capriati at the OZ, after winning the Hopman Cup beating Seles, the Sydney International beating S. Williams and Davenport and then brilliantly defeating both Williams sisters in the OZ on the way to the final, had to devastate her.

If you are looking @ Martina's 01 stats in terms of an up and coming player (Clijsters, Henin, Dokic) or a journeywoman (Maleeva, Farina-Elia) on the tour, then yes, she had a great year. But you are talking about a player who has been no. 1 for almost three years and who has defeated the top players to win 5 grand slams and won almost every tier 1 event on the tour. If you compare the Martina of this year to the Martina of 97 or even the Martina of 01, then by those standards, Hingis had a terrible year. Hopefully, she will heal from her injury and make a great comeback.

QueenV
Dec 13th, 2001, 06:49 PM
Becca, I think she's 1-2 against Lindsay. I'm not sure myself about that one either, lol. But I know she beat her in Sydney then had two losses in Tokyo and when she sprained her ankle. Unfortunately we don't know if she actually would have won, but it's counted as a loss nonetheless.

Anyway considering that she was #1 player in the world, didn't win a tournament since February, didn't win a GS, and hasn't defeated a top ten player since the beginning of the year. Yeah I'd say she had a bad year. But only a bad year. I don't think one bad year out of 6 or 7 is an implication that she's going down. We'll have to wait until next year to see how she does. If her year in 2002 is similiar to 2001 then I might have my doubt about her future, but until then she should still be respected as a dangerous top player.

Rollo
Dec 13th, 2001, 06:58 PM
Only a fool would say Martina's down and out for good. She's still so young.

Jamy
Dec 13th, 2001, 07:15 PM
In the past 4 years, Martina has ONLY lost her <br /># 1 title to Lindsay twice (for a very short period)and once to Jennifer. She's a loves competition, she will soon be #1 where she belongs.

GoDominiqu
Dec 13th, 2001, 07:19 PM
Sorry, but this is a stupid question.<br />Objectively, she had a good year. I mean, in your definition. Only 3 women in the world were better than her, but Martina was better than 3.000.000.000 other women on the world. That's really good. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <br />Even if you only take the top 100, she is by far among the best.<br />And even if you just take the top 10, she is in the better half. That is called ranking. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <br />But I agree with everyone that she had a horrible year. OBJECTIVELY compared to her performance in previous years, she played worse this year.

Infiniti2001
Dec 13th, 2001, 07:21 PM
[quote] In the past 4 years, Martina has ONLY lost her <br /># 1 title to Lindsay twice (for a very short period)and once to Jennifer. She's a loves competition, she will soon be #1 where she belongs. <hr></blockquote>

You got a point there, but you fail to realize that the competition is no longer what it was then.... Do the math, she's 1000 points or so behind Lindsay and while they have close to an equal amount to defend- who is playing better? Oh well time wil tell <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Infiniti2001 ]</p>

Jamy
Dec 13th, 2001, 07:31 PM
True. But lets remember that she was competing against the top three 4 years ago. She did then, she can do it now.

disposablehero
Dec 13th, 2001, 11:00 PM
By her own standards she has done very poorly. 2000 was a worse year for her than the 3 before, and the first where she didn't win a Slam. 2000 was light-years better than 2001. In 2000 she made 1 Slam Final and lost to the eventual winner the other 3 times. In 2001, she made 1 Slam Final and lost to the eventual winner 1 of the other 3 times. No titles after February is really all you need to know.

disposablehero
Dec 13th, 2001, 11:07 PM
By he way, when factoring in points per tournament, you must always calculate Slams seperate from others. Otherwise, people wonder what tournament Serena Williams did not play where she would have matched her 818 US Open points. It is just much easier to make points in Slams than in regular tournaments.

apoet29
Dec 13th, 2001, 11:26 PM
[quote]Originally posted by disposablehero:<br /><strong>By her own standards she has done very poorly. 2000 was a worse year for her than the 3 before, and the first where she didn't win a Slam. 2000 was light-years better than 2001. In 2000 she made 1 Slam Final and lost to the eventual winner the other 3 times. In 2001, she made 1 Slam Final and lost to the eventual winner 1 of the other 3 times. No titles after February is really all you need to know.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Great points disposablehero. It should also be noted that in 00 Martina won three tier 1 events(Ericsson defeating Lindsay, Canadian defeating Serena and Kremlin defeating Kournikova) and the Chase in singles and doubles. She won titles that year on every surface and had consistent results all year. This year, she seemed to fall apart after the Australian. I hope this coming season will be better for her because Hingis really is very talented.

Sam L
Dec 14th, 2001, 07:42 AM
"Martina's ranking is the result of playing well, not playing a lot."

I agree, Volcana! <img src="graemlins/kiss.gif" border="0" alt="[Kiss]" />

Dawn Marie
Dec 14th, 2001, 08:04 AM
Objectivley she had a good year, by Martina's standards she had a terrible year. She'll be back but I dont think it will be in 2002.