PDA

View Full Version : Which slam has the most fluke winners in the open era?


DA FOREHAND
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:05 PM
My vote would go to ...damn thought this would be easy, but it's got to be a toss up between A.O. and the French.

Majoli, Myskina, (French)

DA FOREHAND
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:06 PM
My vote would go to ...damn thought this would be easy, but it's got to be a toss up between A.O. and the French.

Majoli, Myskina, (French)


This is not to say the players didn't play great tennis to either make the final, and or win, but.....

Shoulderpova
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:06 PM
:retard:

SJW
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:10 PM
i think you can win maybe one or two matches by luck but not 7

Julia1968
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:32 PM
There is no such thing as a "fluke" win at any Grand Slam tournament.

hablo
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:35 PM
i think you can win maybe one or two matches by luck but not 7

:yeah: A seven winning match streak being a fluke is a bit of a stretch indeed!!!

_LuCaS_
Apr 26th, 2005, 06:39 PM
:haha: :cuckoo:

DA FOREHAND
Apr 26th, 2005, 07:11 PM
you all are taking this all too literally...fluke as in very unexpected, and or most probably will never happen again .

DAMN! :rolleyes:


Like Jelena Dokic or Alex Stevenson making Wimbledon semis. :tape: :rolleyes:

hablo
Apr 26th, 2005, 07:13 PM
you all are taking this all too literally...fluke as in very unexpected, and or most probably will never happen again .

DAMN!

:lol: then change the title of the thread ;) !!!

using the word "unexpected" would make it more interesting or pertinent!!!!

DA FOREHAND
Apr 26th, 2005, 07:15 PM
:lol: then change the title of the thread ;) !!!

using the word "unexpected" would make it more interesting or pertinent!!!!
not worth it....some of you all need to loosen up...have a salad or something! :(

hablo
Apr 26th, 2005, 07:35 PM
not worth it....some of you all need to loosen up...have a salad or something! :(

if you say so! :p :lol:

tennislover
Apr 26th, 2005, 08:46 PM
FO

men: Courier :tape: Chang :tape: :tape: Bruguera :tape: :tape: :tape: Muster :tape: :tape: :tape: :tape:

women: :tape:

Spunky83
Apr 26th, 2005, 08:55 PM
DA FOREHAND is spreading his wisdom again...I feel sooooo fortunate!

Brooks.
Apr 26th, 2005, 08:57 PM
probably the french open has had the most surprising winners........i mean i can remember everyone saying last year that myskina was going to be the first seeded player to lose (and she almost did to molik in rd. 1)!

SelesFan70
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:00 PM
I'd have to say the French, for sure! That Martina Hingis NEVER won it is a fluke of its own! :sad:

Lemonskin.
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:01 PM
All Slam winners are flukes ;)

daffodil
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:02 PM
The French Open has the most fluke winners. Definitely Nancy Richey, Mima Jausovec, Virginia Ruzici, Iva Majoli.

La Reine
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:26 PM
The FO has the most unpredictable winners because the surface almost levels the players and makes it more of anybody's match/title. There are certainly favorites, but to win the French Open it takes more than just power or luck or any one thing.

faboozadoo15
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:29 PM
instead of "flukes" would it be better to call them "unexpected winners"?

Calimero377
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:44 PM
I'd have to say the French, for sure! ....


Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

faboozadoo15
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.
it can't be a fluke if you win the tournament 3 times in a row... :rolleyes:

sartrista7
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:50 PM
The FO has the most unpredictable winners because the surface almost levels the players and makes it more of anybody's match/title. There are certainly favorites, but to win the French Open it takes more than just power or luck or any one thing.

I agree, which is why I think it's a mistake to call unexpected RG winners 'flukes' when the levelling of the field actually makes it MORE difficult to win, imo.

At Wimbledon, half the tour can't get to grips with grass at all - most seeds are guaranteed at least a couple of matches where they may as well be playing a cardboard cut-out of their opponent. Whereas at RG, there are certainly more proficient dirt-ballers waiting to trip seeds up. Which is more of a challenge, then?

Thing is... if it's so easy to win RG that 'players like Majoli and Myskina' can do it... what does that say about Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport and Venus Williams? Because they haven't been able to, yet. Iva and Nastya actually deserve MORE respect for accomplishing this, not less.

Like most have said, I don't believe there's any such thing as a fluke Slam winner, though the closest thing is Thomas Johansson :tape:

Jakeev
Apr 26th, 2005, 09:57 PM
Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

My gosh your insanity never ends.....prozac I hear works.......

brunof
Apr 26th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Did you know there is such thing as Gill Flukes in aquarium fish? They creep me out, but I acknowledge their presence.

http://www.fishdoc2.com/img19.gif

But slam flukes? :confused:

Marcus1979
Apr 26th, 2005, 10:41 PM
Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

Explain how u can fluke winning Roland Garros for 3 straight years :confused:

Stamp Paid
Apr 26th, 2005, 10:54 PM
Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

rotf. The madness escalates....

Philbo
Apr 26th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

Someone really needs a bullet.

fammmmedspin
Apr 26th, 2005, 11:31 PM
I agree, which is why I think it's a mistake to call unexpected RG winners 'flukes' when the levelling of the field actually makes it MORE difficult to win, imo.

At Wimbledon, half the tour can't get to grips with grass at all - most seeds are guaranteed at least a couple of matches where they may as well be playing a cardboard cut-out of their opponent. Whereas at RG, there are certainly more proficient dirt-ballers waiting to trip seeds up. Which is more of a challenge, then?

Thing is... if it's so easy to win RG that 'players like Majoli and Myskina' can do it... what does that say about Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport and Venus Williams? Because they haven't been able to, yet. Iva and Nastya actually deserve MORE respect for accomplishing this, not less.

Like most have said, I don't believe there's any such thing as a fluke Slam winner, though the closest thing is Thomas Johansson :tape:

Precisely. The fluke arguement works better the other way around. The FO (and AO) tend to allow the best on the day to win thats why so many different people with varying styles (Pierce to ASV through Graf to Serena to Evert) not called Momo or Hingis can win the FO. Wimbledon tends to be won by players who can play well on grass who tend to be the exceptions - Navratilova, Graf, Williamses, Sharapovas ....

daffodil
Apr 26th, 2005, 11:47 PM
Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

Yeah, Calimero, you're right. Two of the best clay courters the tennis world has ever seen...Flukes, I'll tell you. I mean, it's stupid that Arantxa and Monica won 3 French Opens each...It's a fluke that they have combined for 10 FO finals, too.

Was Graf getting slaughtered at this time??

selking
Apr 26th, 2005, 11:57 PM
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

take out 90 thorugh 92 and add in 99

R&J
Apr 27th, 2005, 12:06 AM
Yes, in last 20 years we had at least 7 fluke winners there.
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2004.

So your saying Monica winning the French 3 times in a row is a fluke? :rolleyes:

-Sonic-
Apr 27th, 2005, 12:17 AM
How is he not banned lol....

daffodil
Apr 27th, 2005, 12:19 AM
So your saying Monica winning the French 3 times in a row is a fluke? :rolleyes:

He says a lot of things. Most of the time, though, he doesn't think first. Maybe that's why he stabbed Monica.

Aretha Franklin
Apr 27th, 2005, 12:47 AM
i struggle to decide which is worse: the logic of calimerowhatever's posts or the fact that people reply to him asking him to justify it.

it's really surprising that nobody gets that you are giving him what he wants ie attention for being an arsehole and more chances to keep being a prick.

i guess you could say any slam graf won after seles got stabbed besides wimbledon. it was pretty flukey that stefffi's insane fan actually got the knife in monica's back.

Jakeev
Apr 27th, 2005, 01:04 AM
i struggle to decide which is worse: the logic of calimerowhatever's posts or the fact that people reply to him asking him to justify it.

it's really surprising that nobody gets that you are giving him what he wants ie attention for being an arsehole and more chances to keep being a prick.

i guess you could say any slam graf won after seles got stabbed besides wimbledon. it was pretty flukey that stefffi's insane fan actually got the knife in monica's back.

Honey that dingbat is just in the long line of farces we have seen on this board. Just like everyone else, people will get bored of him and he will go away like the rest of them.

But hell, for the meantime, it's fun making him look the boob he really is.:lol:

Doggy
Apr 27th, 2005, 01:14 AM
He says a lot of things. Most of the time, though, he doesn't think first. Maybe that's why he stabbed Monica.

OMG :haha: :haha: EWWWW, Camillero is Gunther! How disgusting! (vomits all over Steffi's weave)

Junex
Apr 27th, 2005, 01:18 AM
FO

men: Courier :tape: Chang :tape: :tape: Bruguera :tape: :tape: :tape: Muster :tape: :tape: :tape: :tape:

women: :tape:



Muster is undoubtedly one of the best claycourters in the history. He may have won just one FO but his pedigree vouches that he is more than capable of winning more, he just was faced with a better opponent during those losses he had....sad....

Prizeidiot
Apr 27th, 2005, 07:10 AM
I'm not sure if you'd call it a fluke, but the French Open is the hardest slam for a great player to win, and therefore the easiest for a lesser player to win. There are many surprise winners there because so much of it is luck. If a top player draws many clay court specialists, then it gives someone with a kinder draw the chance to outlast them.

Winston's Human
Apr 27th, 2005, 04:31 PM
The French Open has the most fluke winners. Definitely Nancy Richey, Mima Jausovec, Virginia Ruzici, Iva Majoli.

Nancy Richey winning the French Open was not really a fluke as she was one of the top clay court players in the 1960s and early 1970s. I believe she won the US Clay Court Championships six years in a row. More fluky, was Nancy Richey winning the Australian Open on grass.

I think the Australian Open has probably had more fluke winners -- particularly during its down period in the late 1970s.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 27th, 2005, 05:19 PM
Someone really needs a bullet.


And you call gunter parche a madman....u should be banned for that...but i guess as long as you didn't say anything about the moderators fav. you're a. o.k. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Veenut
Apr 27th, 2005, 06:54 PM
He says a lot of things. Most of the time, though, he doesn't think first. Maybe that's why he stabbed Monica.

You are not the only one who wonders if this guy could be Gunter because his obsession with Steffi is in the same realm. Plus he passionately defends Gunter constantly. I'm sure Steffi herself would be very scared of him also, lucky for her she lives in the US where stalkers and attempted murderers go to jail or mental institutions when convicted.

daffodil
Apr 27th, 2005, 07:03 PM
You are not the only one who wonders if this guy could be Gunter because his obsession with Steffi is in the same realm. Plus he passionately defends Gunter constantly. I'm sure Steffi herself would be very scared of him also, lucky for her she lives in the US where stalkers and attempted murderers go to jail or mental institutions when convicted.

Yeah. Supporting a madman is bad enough.

Calimero377
Apr 27th, 2005, 07:03 PM
You are not the only one who wonders if this guy could be Gunter because his obsession with Steffi is in the same realm. Plus he passionately defends Gunter constantly. I'm sure Steffi herself would be very scared of him also, lucky for her she lives in the US where stalkers and attempted murderers go to jail or mental institutions when convicted.


Wow, O.J. Simpson went to jail ... ?

Philbo
Apr 27th, 2005, 10:16 PM
And you call gunter parche a madman....u should be banned for that...but i guess as long as you didn't say anything about the moderators fav. you're a. o.k. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

waaa waaa waaa

Keep crying loser.

mboyle
Apr 28th, 2005, 12:04 AM
There is no such thing as a "fluke" win at any Grand Slam tournament.

Chris O'Neil was a complete fluke win. The others are explainable, but Chris O'Neil was ranked in the 120s and never won another title, and still finished that season out of the top 70 (her highest ranking ever.) Iva got lazy, Myskina was top ten (and will at least be a solid top twenty player for most of her career,) and there haven't been too many other flukes.

andrewbroad
Apr 28th, 2005, 12:05 AM
There was nothing flukey about Iva Majoli's French Open victory! :fiery:

The bottom line is that Iva wore Hingis down with wonderful spreading rallies, and blew her away with clean winners all over the court. Hingis couldn't cope with Iva's ability to change the pace and direction, nor with Iva's command of length and angles. Iva would have beaten anyone on that day! :D

--
Dr. Andrew Broad
http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/ (http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/)
http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/ (http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/)
http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/majoli/ (http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/majoli/)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ivamajoli/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ivamajoli/)

mboyle
Apr 28th, 2005, 12:06 AM
Wow, O.J. Simpson went to jail ... ?

OJ Simpson wasn't proven guilty. There weren't 30,000 eye witnesses like with Monica's case.

mboyle
Apr 28th, 2005, 12:07 AM
Hingis was off her game, clearly.

VRee_Willario
Apr 28th, 2005, 03:04 PM
Hingis was off her game, clearly.
Agreed, she had struggled all tournament with the injury, needing three three-set victories to reach the final, losing a set 6-0 to Paulus in the 3rd round, in the second round had a tought three setter. In the semis she won 6-7 7-5 6-4 against Monica. She was tired and off her game. You can see it if you watch the tape. World number one can't lose 4-6 2-6. if plays even decent.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 28th, 2005, 03:08 PM
Agreed, she had struggled all tournament with the injury, needing three three-set victories to reach the final, losing a set 6-0 to Paulus in the 3rd round, in the second round had a tought three setter. In the semis she won 6-7 7-5 6-4 against Monica. She was tired and off her game. You can see it if you watch the tape. World number one can't lose 4-6 2-6. if plays even decent.


really? Graf lost to Pierce 94 F.O.

Seles lost to Graf 92 Wimbledon

Majoli kicked ass in the final!

VRee_Willario
Apr 28th, 2005, 03:16 PM
really? Graf lost to Pierce 94 F.O.

Seles lost to Graf 92 Wimbledon

Majoli kicked ass in the final!
I said if they play even decent. Did they play well? no.
Hingis was horribly passive and slow, just sending the ball back

spencercarlos
Apr 28th, 2005, 03:38 PM
really? Graf lost to Pierce 94 F.O.

Seles lost to Graf 92 Wimbledon

Majoli kicked ass in the final!
I agree its ridicoulous to state that the number one player canīt be beaten like that.
I have many many examples.
Majoli played inspired perfect tennis and that day she would have beaten anybody. Almost everything she hit was a winner.

moby
Apr 28th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Martina wasn't really well prepared for the clay season though. She fell off a horse in mid April and hurt herself.

VRee_Willario
Apr 28th, 2005, 04:03 PM
I agree its ridicoulous to state that the number one player canīt be beaten like that.
I have many many examples.
Majoli played inspired perfect tennis and that day she would have beaten anybody. Almost everything she hit was a winner.
"Almost everything she hit was a winner" was because Hingis had just fallen off ahorse and struggled with an injury, had played tough matches whole tournament. She hit sloppy shots which were easy to put away for winners. Truly uninspired tennis from Martina while Majoli played well. I said that world number one won't lose badly if plays well :rolleyes: . Martina also had almost three times as many errors as winners.

!<blocparty>!
Apr 28th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Kuzzy's USO. Lindsay was bitchslappin' her into the final :sad:

Pamela Shriver
Apr 28th, 2005, 04:22 PM
All of Chrissie's slams were flukes. Actually all her wins were too.

SelesFan70
Apr 28th, 2005, 04:31 PM
All of Chrissie's slams were flukes. Actually all her wins were too.

:p And all those passing shots and lobs she fluked by you... :lol: I lova ya, Pam! I really wanted you to win Wimbledon, but you always were in Martina's half every year it seemed. :hug:

DA FOREHAND
Apr 28th, 2005, 05:39 PM
"Almost everything she hit was a winner" was because Hingis had just fallen off ahorse and struggled with an injury, had played tough matches whole tournament. She hit sloppy shots which were easy to put away for winners. Truly uninspired tennis from Martina while Majoli played well. I said that world number one won't lose badly if plays well :rolleyes: . Martina also had almost three times as many errors as winners.
Majoli had tough matches too, in fact, she had to have a rib worked back into place to complete her qf, and or Semi. :wavey: :rolleyes:

Veenut
Apr 28th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Wow, O.J. Simpson went to jail ... ?

All the evidence provided in the O.J. case was circumstancial, therefore no one can say with 100% certainty that he was the killer. In Monica's case there is absolutely no doubt that Guther stabbed her in the back, in daylight with thousands witnessing this. What reasonable defense can you provide with this fact? :devil:

brickhousesupporter
Apr 28th, 2005, 06:13 PM
If i had to choose it would definitely be the French Open. However nice it is to win the French Open, it does not play an overall role in determining a players greatness. How many of the great players have not won the French open but are considered greats. McEnroe, Lendl, Samprass etc. How many multiple French Open winners are not considered great players Guga, Bruguera etc. In the grand scheme of this winning the french open is not that important.

manu32
Apr 28th, 2005, 06:17 PM
martinez wimbledon

Ryan
Apr 28th, 2005, 08:15 PM
If i had to choose it would definitely be the French (http://searchmiracle.com/search/search.php?qq=FRENCH) Open. However nice it is to win the French (http://searchmiracle.com/search/search.php?qq=FRENCH) Open, it does not play an overall role in determining a players greatness. How many of the great players have not won the French (http://searchmiracle.com/search/search.php?qq=FRENCH) open but are considered greats. McEnroe, Lendl, Samprass etc. How many multiple French (http://searchmiracle.com/search/search.php?qq=FRENCH) Open winners are not considered great players Guga, Bruguera etc. In the grand scheme of this winning the french (http://searchmiracle.com/search/search.php?qq=FRENCH) open is not that important.


I agree to a certain extent. However if in 10 years time Svetlana and Maria have not won anymore slams, will they be considered "greater" than Majoli? Obivously if they reach #1 etc., yes. But ultimately their extra accomplishments will make them more well known, not the fact that they won the USO or Wimby. And all the people you mentioned who didn't win RG have won LOTS of other slams. It is the same on the women's side too. Hingis, Venus, Lindsay, all are famous because they won multiple slams. If you took two of Venus' slams (1 from USO, 1 from Wimby) and put them on RG, she would still be looked at in the same way, maybe even greater for having a wider variety of GS's. So, RG in my opinion is just as important. If someone has 7 slams and no Wimbledon, would they still not be "great"?

spencercarlos
Apr 28th, 2005, 08:35 PM
"Almost everything she hit was a winner" was because Hingis had just fallen off ahorse and struggled with an injury, had played tough matches whole tournament. She hit sloppy shots which were easy to put away for winners. Truly uninspired tennis from Martina while Majoli played well. I said that world number one won't lose badly if plays well :rolleyes: . Martina also had almost three times as many errors as winners.
Yeah and Hingis beat Arantxa 6-2 6-2 in the Quarters playing crap as well. I bet you did not watch that match.
Truly a big load of crap, Iva was hitting winners all over the place (a pretty much Venus-Serena-Davenport performance like when beating Martina), and you say Martina was simply putting the ball on the other side to be hit a winner by Iva. :rolleyes:
Sure we canīt say Martina was 100% and perfect for that day, no one is while losing 6-4 6-2, but it was because of Iva.
The same can not be said on the Myskina matches last year a Rg from the QF to the title where her oponnents played crap and could not maintain the ball in play.

spencercarlos
Apr 28th, 2005, 09:45 PM
martinez wimbledon
good one :rolleyes:

LUIS9
Apr 28th, 2005, 10:11 PM
I'd have to say the French, for sure! That Martina Hingis NEVER won it is a fluke of its own! :sad:

So so true, sad isnt it?:sad:

daffodil
Apr 28th, 2005, 10:37 PM
There was nothing flukey about Iva Majoli's French Open victory! :fiery:

The bottom line is that Iva wore Hingis down with wonderful spreading rallies, and blew her away with clean winners all over the court. Hingis couldn't cope with Iva's ability to change the pace and direction, nor with Iva's command of length and angles. Iva would have beaten anyone on that day! :D

Hingis handed Iva that win, in my opinion. Hingis was the best clay-courter that year, and was obviously mentally and physically exhausted.

mboyle
Apr 28th, 2005, 11:26 PM
McEnroe, Lendl, Samprass etc. How many multiple French Open winners are not considered great players Guga, Bruguera etc. In the grand scheme of this winning the french open is not that important.

Lendl won RG but not Wimbledon. Monica didn't win Wimbledon. On the men's side, yes, RG and the clay season in general are completely irrelevant because people like Gaudio literally do not win matches on hard/grass/indoor courts, but can lift the RG trophy, and the good claycourters who can kind of win on other surfaces choke majorly in RG finals. Heck the men have had Costa and Gaudio win 2/3.!

DA FOREHAND
Apr 29th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Lendl won RG but not Wimbledon. Monica didn't win Wimbledon. On the men's side, yes, RG and the clay season in general are completely irrelevant because people like Gaudio literally do not win matches on hard/grass/indoor courts, but can lift the RG trophy, and the good claycourters who can kind of win on other surfaces choke majorly in RG finals. Heck the men have had Costa and Gaudio win 2/3.!


yet for some strange reason when all -time rankings come out...Lendl is somewhere south of McEnroe? Lendl has more slams far more weeks #1, yet still behind Mac?

Martinez winning Wimbledon was def. a once in a lifetime event...

Ryan
Apr 29th, 2005, 03:47 PM
yet for some strange reason when all -time rankings come out...Lendl is somewhere south of McEnroe? Lendl has more slams far more weeks #1, yet still behind Mac?

Martinez winning Wimbledon was def. a once in a lifetime event...


Because McEnroe is such a loudmouthed jackass. Not because he won Wimbledon. And if it is, who cares? Every tennis player would like to win the French Open anyway.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 29th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Because McEnroe is such a loudmouthed jackass. Not because he won Wimbledon. And if it is, who cares? Every tennis player would like to win the French Open anyway.
I totally agree!

manu32
Apr 29th, 2005, 05:46 PM
ao:margaret court.....she was alone during a lot of years.....look at the finalists???.

sartrista7
Apr 29th, 2005, 07:06 PM
If i had to choose it would definitely be the French Open. However nice it is to win the French Open, it does not play an overall role in determining a players greatness. How many of the great players have not won the French open but are considered greats. McEnroe, Lendl, Samprass etc. How many multiple French Open winners are not considered great players Guga, Bruguera etc. In the grand scheme of this winning the french open is not that important.

'Considered greats'...by whom? The English-speaking tennis media? :lol: Obviously people with biases towards players from the US, Australia and the UK will not put too much stock into RG. Apart from a select few, their players haven't been able to cope with its nuances over the past couple of decades. Of course they'll seek to minimise it.

VRee_Willario
May 28th, 2005, 08:47 PM
Yeah and Hingis beat Arantxa 6-2 6-2 in the Quarters playing crap as well. I bet you did not watch that match.
Truly a big load of crap, Iva was hitting winners all over the place (a pretty much Venus-Serena-Davenport performance like when beating Martina), and you say Martina was simply putting the ball on the other side to be hit a winner by Iva. :rolleyes:
Sure we canīt say Martina was 100% and perfect for that day, no one is while losing 6-4 6-2, but it was because of Iva.
The same can not be said on the Myskina matches last year a Rg from the QF to the title where her oponnents played crap and could not maintain the ball in play.
Yeah, Iva was hitting winners all over the court. But when I watch the match I se that Martina was really struggling with her movement and injury was still clearly bothering her. She sometimes just watched the ball go by her, even If she could've got it. She had little time to rehab, the match with Monica was really tough. And when you're injured, it's of course even tougher. And I've seen the Arantxa match, Martina played well, but Arantxa had about 55 errors, It was a nice easy match for Martina. Tired Martina ran into an inspired Iva. That's why she lost. Of course Martina can handle the cgange of pace and all, she was said top be one of the world's talented players all time. They both had tough matches in the Tournament but Martina had struggled early and was injured, that's why she was tiired in the final and Iva wasn't. I bet the 50% Martina was rollerblading and biking and having fun the day before the final, while fully-fit Iva was resting and focusing on the match, That's why Martina lost!!!!!!!

jimbo mack
May 28th, 2005, 10:03 PM
iva outplayed martina, was simply better and martina just couldnt handle her that day

end of discussion

tenn_ace
May 28th, 2005, 10:20 PM
Majoli, Myskina, (French)


I'd probably agree if you add The Designer...

matthias
May 28th, 2005, 10:40 PM
FO

men: Courier :tape: Chang :tape: :tape: Bruguera :tape: :tape: :tape: Muster :tape: :tape: :tape: :tape:

women: :tape:

:confused:

Brugera won the FO twice - so why are you laughing?
Muster had a incredible winning strike on clay in the year as he won the FO
Courier won the FO twice too, or? i really donīt know how he did it, but he did it.

so i would agree with Chang, but the 3 others havenīt been flukes