PDA

View Full Version : Hingis of AO 2002 played best tennis of her career


G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:50 PM
There is alot of silly debate going here that Hingis was past her prime, not PEAK, injured, etc. her last couple years on tour. Hingis fans usually use this as an excuse to explain Hingis' losses and her reason of leaving the game.

If they truly believe this, or anyone else for that matter, they clearly have not seen the 2002 Austrailian Open. Hingis played the best tennis of her career at this tourney or close to it. Her anticipation was immaculate, she moved well, returned well, and hell, even SERVED well. She dropped just 13 games in her first 5 matches!

In the semis she faced a resurgent Monica Seles and the stats for Hingis were 32 winners, 5 ACES, 12 UE's. These are incredible stats. Hingis rarely hit more than 25 winners in a match and she sure as HELL didn't hit aces. Hingis also ONLy hit 12 UE's. Hingis never hit that many UE's but this number is astonishing considering that Hingis never had this low number (no top player BTW) in a TOUGH 3 set win...

She continued this form against "comeback" capriati and played impeccably against Capriati to race off to a 6-4, 4-0 lead before she let the heat catch up to her.

So, i think MOST would agree w/ me that this "nonsense" of Hingis never being the same again after certain matches would disregard this if they watch the 2002 OZ Open, or even the 2001 OZ Open (even though she ATTACKED much more and was BETTER in the 2002 OZ.)

matthieu_tennis
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:13 PM
that match against seles was so good. She play amazing in the second set, she outplayed seles with amazing shots. iwas sure she won the finals. the temperature was very hot 46 degres i think. Finally caprati won. Plus she had 4 match point

matthieu_tennis
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:13 PM
caprati save match point with winner on the line 8 )

jenny161185
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:18 PM
Capriati saved the match points with amazing gutsy play , but Hingis at that tournament was amazing,ppl r saying her forehand is so weak etc but look at that match she was attacking with it down the line and coming into the net after. Remember She also beat Kim in the Adidas international semis(who then went on to beat Serena that year for first time. Miss you Martina!

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:22 PM
There is alot of silly debate going here that Hingis was past her prime, not PEAK, injured, etc. her last couple years on tour. Hingis fans usually use this as an excuse to explain Hingis' losses and her reason of leaving the game.As a participant in the 'silly debate', I'm a bit stunned at myself for forgetting about Martina level of play in the tournament. Thanks for the reminder. That final was when I really found myself actually liking Hingis. And why I have so little respect for the attitude that she retired because she didn't want to face other players, rather than because of injury.

The girl played her body into the ground in that final. I know what it's like to compete in hundred degree heat when everything cramps up and your body is consuming it's own muscles for fuel. To imply cowardice in anybody who could play through that is a reflection on the accuser, not Hingis.

matthieu_tennis
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:30 PM
hingid and capriati its not the same body. Plus you weight is high less chance you have to have cramps

deja_entendu
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:34 PM
Hingis always played phenomenal tennis in Australia, and 02 was no better or worse than her previous five Australian seasons.

deja_entendu
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:40 PM
And to base Hingis' level of play primarily on a match against Monica Seles is rather pointless, because except for a few losses which were the product of exceptionally poor play, Hingis owned Monica from every aspect of the court.

senorgato
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:50 PM
yes, Hingis was still playing extremely well even up to her "retirement". I've always said that and always will. BUT....I think Hingis was playing better tennis in 1997 and 1998 when she played fearless, aggressive tennis. In those years, she had no hesitation to approach the net, even at unopportune times. In the year preceding her leaving, she only went to the net when she had basically already hit a winner. She played with fear. And her mental and physical lapses became expected.

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:51 PM
And to base Hingis' level of play primarily on a match against Monica Seles is rather pointless, because except for a few losses which were the product of exceptionally poor play, Hingis owned Monica from every aspect of the court.Justine Henin-Hardenne owns Venus Williams 'except for a few losses which were the product of exceptionally poor play'. Be serious.

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:53 PM
yes, Hingis was still playing extremely well even up to her "retirement". I've always said that and always will. BUT....I think Hingis was playing better tennis in 1997 and 1998 when she played fearless, aggressive tennis. In those years, she had no hesitation to approach the net, even at unopportune times. In the year preceding her leaving, she only went to the net when she had basically already hit a winner. She played with fear. And her mental and physical lapses became expected.

If you believe this you didn't watch Hingis in 2002 OZ or 2001 OZ for that matter

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:13 AM
Make your screen REALLY wide.

2000 .................... 1999 .................... 1998..................... 1997.....................
GS ...................... GS Aus Open ............. GS Aus Open.............. GS Aus Open..............
GS ...................... GS ...................... GS ...................... GS Wimbledon.............
GS ...................... GS ...................... GS ...................... GS US Open...............
.. ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... .. ......................
TC Chase Champs.......... TC ...................... TC Chase Champs.......... TC ......................
.. ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... .. ......................
T1 Toray Pan Pacific .... T1 Toray Pan Pacific..... T1 Indian Wells.......... T1 Toray Pan Pacific ....
T1 Miami................. T1 Hilton Head........... T1 Rome.................. T1 Miami
T1 Canadian Open......... T1 Berlin................ T1 ...................... T1 Hilton Head
T1 Zurich................ T1 Canadian Open......... T1 ...................... T1 ......................
T1 Moscow................ ......................... T1 ...................... T1 ......................
.. ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... .. ......................
T2 Hamburg............... T2 San Diego............. T2 Hamburg............... T2 Sydney ...............
T2 Filderstadt........... T2 Filderstadt........... .. ...................... T2 Paris.................
T3 ís-Hertogenbosch...... .. ...................... .. ...................... T2 Stanford..............
.. ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... T2 San Diego.............
.. ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... T2 Filderstadt...........
.. ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... T2 Philadelphia..........
.. ...................... .. ...................... .. ...................... .. ......................
T3 ís-Hertogenbosch...... .. ...................... .. ...................... .. ......................

Putting aside 2002 and 2001, here Hingis' wins from 1997 to 2000. 1997 is obviously a dream year, but in 2000, HIngis win five Tier I's and the Season Ending Championships. There's no massive fall-off in results there.

Hingis' problem is that she didn't get BETTER, not that she got worse.

In a lot of ways, she had the same problems as Venus. Venus was a better player in 2002 than 2001. But her sister was MORE better.

switz
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:18 AM
yeah i was at that match. simply amazing quality of shots rally after rally. seriously seles was playing so well in that match and had the better of most games but hingis just kept finding ways to win points when she was out of them. she was also so much aggressive than normal as well and she needed to be because monica was clobbering any ball even centimetres short of perfect length.

i've always maintain that Seles would have won that final easily because even though she was less fit than Hingis she didn't have any head issues and she had the ability to finish points and i doubt she would have let Capriati back in.

Also remember though that Hingis time out from around RG to late in the US hardcourt season and when she came back her form was about 30 percent below where it was then - i think she lost to Dokic, a lesser ranked Myskina, Seles routinely, and easily to Dementieva. She could have given it a better go perhaps but i always believed those matches showed there was something wrong with her physically at least at that time.

mboyle
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:56 AM
As a participant in the 'silly debate', I'm a bit stunned at myself for forgetting about Martina level of play in the tournament. Thanks for the reminder. That final was when I really found myself actually liking Hingis. And why I have so little respect for the attitude that she retired because she didn't want to face other players, rather than because of injury.

The girl played her body into the ground in that final. I know what it's like to compete in hundred degree heat when everything cramps us and your body is consuming it's own muscles for fuel. To imply cowardice in anybody who could play through that is a reflection on the accuser, not Hingis.

That was about the most beautiful post I have ever read on this board:sad: (happy tears;) )...

mboyle
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:00 AM
Yeah, Martina put her entire future on the line in that match against Capriati, I think...Oh I remember Pam saying, "and look, all of the reporters are turning their cameras towards Hingis now.She hasn't won a slam in three years. The joy on her face is going to be priceless..." And then, Martina hit a forehand long, and Capriati never looked back:sad: (that was in the breaker.)

deja_entendu
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:16 AM
Justine Henin-Hardenne owns Venus Williams 'except for a few losses which were the product of exceptionally poor play'. Be serious.

Read between the lines, Volcana. You're more intelligent than this!

Hingis had fifteen wins against Monica Seles. Seles had five wins against Martina Hingis. What were the two worst parts of Hingis' career? Summer of 01 and summer of 02. Seles beat Martina three times during these stretches. And another victory at the French Open, where Hingis was a mental midget. There are four of the five victories Monica had over Martina which seemed to be as much of a result of fortunate timing as they were of good tennis.

And I know you are being sarcastic about JHH and Venus Williams, but it fits the mold pretty well -- although JHH does anything but own Venus, all of Venus' wins came against a pre-champ Henin. Again the result of fortunate timing? You decide that one, Venus fan, but don't be condescending and tell me to be serious when what I wrote was grounded in solid evidence :confused:

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:46 AM
don't be condescending and tell me to be serious when what I wrote was grounded in solid evidence :confused:I have it on reliable authority that the condescension is genetic.

As for Hingis-Seles, the head-to-head is what it is.
1996 OAKLAND CARPET (I) F ......... M.HINGIS 6-2 6-0
1997 MIAMI HARD (O) F ............. M.HINGIS 6-2 6-1
1997 HILTON HEAD CLAY (O) F ....... M.HINGIS 3-6 6-3 7-6
1997 FRENCH OPEN CLAY (O) S ....... M.HINGIS 6-7 7-5 6-4
1997 SAN DIEGO HARD (O) F ......... M.HINGIS 7-6 6-4
1998 FRENCH OPEN CLAY (O) S ....... M. SELES 6-3 6-2
1998 DU MAURIER OPEN HARD (O) S ... M. SELES 4-6 6-3
1998 US OPEN HARD (O) Q ........... M.HINGIS 6-4 6-4
1999 AUS OPEN HARD (O) S .......... M.HINGIS 6-2 6-4
1999 DU MAURIER OPEN HARD (O) F ... M.HINGIS 6-4 6-4
2000 INDIAN WELLS HARD (O) Q ...... M.HINGIS 6-3 6-1
2000 ERICSSON OPEN HARD (O) S ..... M.HINGIS 6-0 6-0
2000 US OPEN HARD (O) Q ........... M.HINGIS 6-0 7-5
2000 CHASE CHAMPS CARP (I) F ...... M.HINGIS 6-7 6-4 6-4
2001 SAN DIEGO HARD (O) S ......... M. SELES 6-3 6-4
2001 LOS ANGELES HARD (O) S ....... M. SELES 6-3 1-6 6-4
2002 AUSTRALIAN OPEN HARD (O) S ... M.HINGIS 4-6 6-1 6-4
2002 PAN PACIFIC CARPET (I) F ..... M.HINGIS 7-6 4-6 6-3
2002 INDIAN WELLS HARD (O) S ...... M.HINGIS 6-3 6-2
2002 US OPEN HARD (O) R16 ......... M. SELES 6-4 6-2
I could just as easily cherry pick Hingis wins for periods when Monica was coming back from injury, or out of shape.

"Fall '98 to Fall '00 were two years when Monica had constant nagging injuries." "Monica couldn't train fully." So those sevong Hingis wins don't count, right?

A 75% winning percentage against any opponent is more than solid. Trying to push it to Seles was non-competitive is absurd. And that's what 'owned' means. Non-competitive.

faboozadoo15
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:54 AM
yeah i was at that match. simply amazing quality of shots rally after rally. seriously seles was playing so well in that match and had the better of most games but hingis just kept finding ways to win points when she was out of them. she was also so much aggressive than normal as well and she needed to be because monica was clobbering any ball even centimetres short of perfect length.

i've always maintain that Seles would have won that final easily because even though she was less fit than Hingis she didn't have any head issues and she had the ability to finish points and i doubt she would have let Capriati back in.

Also remember though that Hingis time out from around RG to late in the US hardcourt season and when she came back her form was about 30 percent below where it was then - i think she lost to Dokic, a lesser ranked Myskina, Seles routinely, and easily to Dementieva. She could have given it a better go perhaps but i always believed those matches showed there was something wrong with her physically at least at that time.
i agree. i'm a seles fan and a hignis fan, and i thought that match just had so many amazing points. monica was painting the lines, and hingis just kept at it and coming up with amazing plays on the ball from all over the court. it was a heartbreaking loss for seles of course because people would likie her chances better against jennifer than martina's.

re: seles v hingis-- monica beat her in martina's prime while well past hers. i really think that says a lot. watch the 98 french semi's or a 2001 hardcourt match between the 2 women if you have any questions as to whether monica was good enough to compete with martina.

matthieu_tennis
Jul 11th, 2005, 02:22 AM
lol it was on clay

maccardel
Jul 11th, 2005, 02:39 AM
i agree. i'm a seles fan and a hignis fan, and i thought that match just had so many amazing points. monica was painting the lines, and hingis just kept at it and coming up with amazing plays on the ball from all over the court. it was a heartbreaking loss for seles of course because people would likie her chances better against jennifer than martina's.

re: seles v hingis-- monica beat her in martina's prime while well past hers. i really think that says a lot. watch the 98 french semi's or a 2001 hardcourt match between the 2 women if you have any questions as to whether monica was good enough to compete with martina.

Well I think everyone is entitle to a loss sometime, and if you understand that you will also understand that sometimes the loss may come against someone you have always beaten.

abcdlove
Jul 11th, 2005, 02:42 AM
i totally forgot about this match
thank god it's one of the matches i recorded back then.
i always miss out on the good ones (i.e the qf agasint serena the prev year.)

also. i couldn't agree more with volcana's first comment.

Venus Forever
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:04 AM
Read between the lines, Volcana. You're more intelligent than this!

Hingis had fifteen wins against Monica Seles. Seles had five wins against Martina Hingis. What were the two worst parts of Hingis' career? Summer of 01 and summer of 02. Seles beat Martina three times during these stretches. And another victory at the French Open, where Hingis was a mental midget. There are four of the five victories Monica had over Martina which seemed to be as much of a result of fortunate timing as they were of good tennis.

And I know you are being sarcastic about JHH and Venus Williams, but it fits the mold pretty well -- although JHH does anything but own Venus, all of Venus' wins came against a pre-champ Henin. Again the result of fortunate timing? You decide that one, Venus fan, but don't be condescending and tell me to be serious when what I wrote was grounded in solid evidence :confused:
Was is that Martina was below her usual greatness, or was it because Monica was simply playing great tennis those summers??

Let's not forget that within that time span, Monica was playing GREAT tennis. She beat Serena for the first time, she beat Venus for the first time, she beat Davenport for the first time in years, and beat Hingis several times.

Again, I ask, was it because Hingis' level slipped, or because Monica actually raised her level within that timespan??

Robbie.
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:27 AM
Justine Henin-Hardenne owns Venus Williams 'except for a few losses which were the product of exceptionally poor play'. Be serious.

This is a pretty asinine analogy.

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

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

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

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

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

matthieu_tennis
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:37 AM
when you win everything in young age its very tough to keep the motivation. i Think the 2001 Ao loss against capriati was to big for her. She was sure she should win that match. In the first set she made ton of error 0-4. 2002 same thing against same players but this time she was leading all the way.Suddendly her mental fell down. i think all the deceptions makes her less confidences and the injuries come after.
Like mauresmo

Timariot
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:41 AM
Hingis' form at the start of '02 was excellent, particularly at the Australian Open where she was back to somewhere near her old fearless self, but to rely on that to say that her form was not in long term decline is pretty ridiculous. Does Venus winning Wimbledon suddenly erase the fact that her form in the past 18 months has been well below par? Of course it doesn't, and why would it for Hingis? What A0 2002 should highlight is that a confident Hingis had more than enough game to take apart the power babes on any given day. What the final should highlight if previous experiences didnt, was that Hingis was mentally incapable of winning GS by that stage.

Hingis' form at AO 2002 was quite good (much better than it had been most of the 2001) but not on par what she had earlier. She was slower and her forehand had badly detoriated. As for Seles match, IIRC Monica had a fever after Williams match which sapped her strength. After Pan Pacific however, Hingis' form dropped like a rock.

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:42 AM
Hingis' form at AO 2002 was quite good (much better than it had been most of the 2001) but not on par what she had earlier. She was slower and her forehand had badly detoriated. As for Seles match, IIRC Monica had a fever after Williams match which sapped her strength. After Pan Pacific however, Hingis' form dropped like a rock.

Hingis' forehand at the 2002 AO had NOT deteriorated...Were you even watching the same tourney?

barmaid
Jul 11th, 2005, 04:09 AM
Hingis' forehand at the 2002 AO had NOT deteriorated...Were you even watching the same tourney?

Hingis's loss at AO 2002 will always baffle people:confused: ...Martina herself has admitted "I just couldn't put it away".....so we've got several reasons for this loss...mental weakness....no "killer" instinct left in poor Martina, the dreaded "heat"...but the heat didn't affect her when she was leading 4-0....but nobody has mentioned that Marti and Anna K. had played a 3 set doubles match the day before..I know Martina lamented the fact that it had to go to 3 sets when Anna couldn't convert her serve...so that had to be energy draining:eek: Martina is not a big-boned powerful built girl like Jennifer so when she needed extra reserves to continue to compete....she didn't have any....:sad: should have, could have, would have!:worship:

barmaid:wavey:

deja_entendu
Jul 11th, 2005, 05:12 AM
This is a pretty asinine analogy.

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely one of the best Hingis posts I've ever read, you said it much more gracefully than I ever could! :bowdown:

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2005, 05:43 AM
This is a pretty asinine analogy.The person I was responding to recognized it was sarcasm. had I been responding to you, I'd have been less subtle. (If that's possible.)

Moving right along.....

Hingis' form at the start of '02 was excellent, particularly at the Australian Open where she was back to somewhere near her old fearless self, but to rely on that to say that her form was not in long term decline is pretty ridiculous. Does Venus winning Wimbledon suddenly erase the fact that her form in the past 18 months has been well below par? Of course it doesn't, and why would it for Hingis?Because the two situations aren't at all analogous. Or, to put it in your terms, that 'is a pretty asinine analogy'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 11th, 2005, 05:53 AM
It's almost as if Hingis was destined to win AO '02. She was the best player in that whole tournament. Watching her play was as if she had found a new muse to motivate her to be the best again. That loss in the final I believe is what killed her for good.

deja_entendu
Jul 11th, 2005, 05:57 AM
Hingis won 5 Tier I's and Tour Championships in 2000, 4 Tier I's and a slam in '99, 2 Tier I's, the tour championships and a slam in '98. That's the results of the form you're calling 'in long decline'.


Actually, Volcana, Robbie didn't say that Hingis' form in 1999 and 2000 were in long decline... he said post-Australia 2001 and 2002.

Robbie.
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:01 AM
Because the two situations aren't at all analogous. Or, to put it in your terms, that 'is a pretty asinine analogy'

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

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

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

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

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

I'm talking about Hingis at AO 2002 and Venus At Wimbledon '05. Not Hingis at AO '01.

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

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

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

tennisIlove09
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:30 AM
This is a pretty asinine analogy.

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

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

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

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

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

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:
AMAZING post.

I always, always believed that the AO 01 changed Hingis' career forever. To battle past Serena in the epic, and then crush Venus...she must have felt that it was her time. Then she lost. However, I really believe the Venus match is what changed it. She had just battled through Serena. The last two times she played Venus, there were three epic sets of tennis, Venus coming out. She had to be expecting more of the same. Instead, Hingsi played amazing and Venus was all over the place, and HIngis won easily. I think that gave her the confidence, and almost TOO MUCH belief that she would then crush Capriati...who she had never lost to at the time, and had only dropped ONE set against her. I think the Venus semi is the match that in the end chagned her career. Because after the AO, she was out of sorts...as Robbie's post stated.

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:32 AM
The person I was responding to recognized it was sarcasm. had I been responding to you, I'd have been less subtle. (If that's possible.)

Moving right along.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OWNED

tennisIlove09
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:40 AM
It all comes down to, did Hingis' sudden inability to win slams come about because she played worse, or her opponents played better. Well, there's no doubt her main opponents played better, against her and the rest of the tour.

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

And, if you look at the record...it's kinda weird

Majors since the 99 Aussie (Hingis' last major)

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

So 9 out of 13 times, she lost to the eventual winner. The only "bad" losses there were to Dokic (who was a qualifer at the time) and Ruano-Pascual (who may have played the match of her life...but if I remember correctly, didnt Hingis claim a back problem?)

GoDominique
Jul 11th, 2005, 08:21 AM
Nonsense.

She was in decline. She was a lot more passive, serve was worse, unforced errors at crucial moments, etc.
She almost choked against Monica, and she did choke against Jen who was nowhere near her 2001 form.

Robbie.
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:15 PM
It all comes down to, did Hingis' sudden inability to win slams come about because she played worse, or her opponents played better. Well, there's no doubt her main opponents played better, against her and the rest of the tour.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam L
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:16 PM
Maybe tennis-wise, yes but she looked REALLY slow to me. :confused:

I remember her at the AO2002 very well.

Sam L
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:17 PM
OWNED
:haha:

Timariot
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:56 PM
Hingis' forehand at the 2002 AO had NOT deteriorated...Were you even watching the same tourney?

I did. Did you? It was terrible. She couldn't hit a winner to safe her life. Of course, lets not forget that before winning Sydney 2002, she had not won a tournament in like 10 months (she won just 3 titles in 2001, all early in the year). This is the period you call her "peak". Righto.

Hingis played decent in AO 2002 (against somewhat weak field) because she had spent couple of months to get back in shape, physically and emotionally. But in a big picture, it was over.

Sam L
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:01 PM
2000 was her last "great" year. She got worse in 2001 and the worst in 2002, IMHO.

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

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

moby
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Robbie. :worship:

Experimentee
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Hingis was still good in her last years on tour. Her level was consistent and there were only certain players that could beat her consistently, like the Williams sisters, Davenport and Capriati. The problem was that they all improved their games and she didnt, so she was left behind. She was beating everyone else with no problems.

TonyP
Jul 11th, 2005, 02:42 PM
It's hard to dissect any player's career with accuracy, because no player's career exists in isolation. All these careers are intertwined, and all suffer from the fates as well as everything else. Was Martina in trouble from mid-2001 on? Yes, due to over play, exhaustion and eventually, injury. And then from lack of match play. Hingis' skills were such that she couldn't lay off for a long time, then pick up her racket and go out and play great tennis, as Serena seems able to do. Hingis needed to play a lot, which accounts for her loss in Pattaya to Marlene Weingartner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martina talkd about doubles and said she simply couldn't make up her mind what to do about doubles play, realizing it was sapping her energy, but liking it too much to quit, despite what happened in Australia.

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 05:44 PM
Nonsense.

She was in decline. She was a lot more passive, serve was worse, unforced errors at crucial moments, etc.
She almost choked against Monica, and she did choke against Jen who was nowhere near her 2001 form.

Like I said, you did NOT watch 2002 AO...Not Hingis' matches anyway...

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 05:46 PM
I did. Did you? It was terrible. She couldn't hit a winner to safe her life. Of course, lets not forget that before winning Sydney 2002, she had not won a tournament in like 10 months (she won just 3 titles in 2001, all early in the year). This is the period you call her "peak". Righto.

Hingis played decent in AO 2002 (against somewhat weak field) because she had spent couple of months to get back in shape, physically and emotionally. But in a big picture, it was over.

I have ALL her matches on tape from AO 2002...Her forehand looked great to me...She hit LOADS of winners...

Watch her 3rd round match against Amanda Coetzer...Even Pam Shriver said, "I have not seen Hingis be this agressive in years."

deja_entendu
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:00 PM
That match against Coetzer was great, and the AO was a good tournament for her that year, but if you think one tournament in isolation means that her level the couple of years before that was as high as it was during her peak, you obviously have some sort of agenda, and it's anyone's guess what that is.

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:12 PM
The biggest problem is that the point you raise in bold was never the issue at all.Then why did YOU put it in bold? I didn't.Her form post Aus Open 2001, is another matter. A failure to recognise the decline in her game from that point is what I am concerned with.I'm skipping all that stuff about 'power' you wrote. Other players learned the book on Hingis. Hit with as much pace as you got, corner to corner, so she can't use all that racket wizardry against you. It usually didn't work, but it was better that what had been used before.How do you explain the fact that she went from winning the tour championships, 5 tier 1ís and 3 other tournaments in 2000 to winning one tier two and one tier III beating no top ten players post AOí01?See above.How do you explain, and this is crucial, an 18-9 record against top tenners from the start of 2000 to the end of AO-2001 as opposed to a dismal 2-10 record against top tenners post AO-2001?See above. Plus a change in who was in the top ten.How do you explain a 3-6 record against Seles, ASV, Mauresmo and Dementieva in 2001, all players who showed no vast improvement, with the possible exception of Mauresmo, against the rest of the tour during that period and against whom she had had a combined 35-5 record against up until the end of 2000?

The victory by Dementieva in Moscow, indoors on carpet. Far less variables to deal with for Dementieva, and home court advantage.
Seles lost weight
Mauresmo DID get better, and this was before her back injury turned her into a finesse player
The win by ASV was an aberration. Hingis beat her three times in 2002.Those facts, my friend, are on the record.
Until such a time as someone can explain the huge discrepancy between her 2000 results and her 2001 results in some other way than the disingenuous and highly improbable 'the tour got too powerful in 3 months' thesis the notion that Hingis was in worse form in 2001 than at anytime since 1995 is the only plausible conclusion based on the record.Fortunately, that time is already here. The tour didn't get more powerful. It got BETTER. They became better tennis players.

put aside your dogmatic dislike for the girlAfter what I've written about Hingis even in the past week you still think I have a 'dogmatic dislike' for her, then all I can say is I hope that delusion keeps you warm at night.show me what in her post AO'01 results indicates that Hingis was as good as she was.The intitial thread presents a pretty good piece of evidence.

Timariot
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM
I have ALL her matches on tape from AO 2002...Her forehand looked great to me...She hit LOADS of winners...

Watch her 3rd round match against Amanda Coetzer...Even Pam Shriver said, "I have not seen Hingis be this agressive in years."

So she beats declining Coetzer - one of her pigeons - for 6th straight time. Wohoo, big deal (it was Round 4 btw). She would have beaten her in straight sets even if she was a cripple - which she indeed did later that year.

Yeah, her forehand was so great, that's how she aggressively converted that mp against Capriati...oh wait. I watched that match, it was sad. She was almost entirely dependant from JCap making errors.

Of course, even if she had two or three good tournaments in 2002, so what? Sampras won USO that year despite being complete wash-out. And you are completely ignoring how she played after Pan Pacific (very badly) or how she played in 2001. Letsee, she lost twice to Mauresmo (who she used to dominate), twice to Seles (her pigeon), to ASV (another of her pigeons), Ruano-Pascual (!), Dementieva...yeah, that's "Hingis at her peak" in a world according to SVSK... :rolleyes:

Timariot
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:45 PM
Then why did YOU put it in bold? I didn't.I'm skipping all that stuff about 'power' you wrote. Other players learned the book on Hingis. Hit with as much pace as you got, corner to corner, so she can't use all that racket wizardry against you. It usually didn't work, but it was better that what had been used before.


Look, that's just silly, Hingis had been in Top Ten about 5 straight years by that point, and only NOW they clued in?


The victory by Dementieva in Moscow, indoors on carpet. Far less variables to deal with for Dementieva, and home court advantage.


Indoors was one of Hingis' BEST surfaces. I watched that match, Martina played terrible. She won FOUR games for chrissakes.


Mauresmo DID get better, and this was before her back injury turned her into a finesse player


New and improved Mauresmo's Slam record 2001: R4, R1, R3, QF. Not impressed, nope.


The win by ASV was an aberration. Hingis beat her three times in 2002.


Awfully lot of aberrations here, don't you think? I watched Hingis' RG semi against Capriati, and even chronic Hingis haters mentioned how awful she was in that match, and that was just one of the many. I don't understand how anyone could say in straight face that Hingis was at her peak in 2001. That's like saying that Venus was at her peak 2004, everyone else just got better...

deja_entendu
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:50 PM
:bowdown: @ Timariot (but trust me, yer trying to cure the blind, GOOD LUCK)

DA FOREHAND
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:51 PM
So she beats declining Coetzer - one of her pigeons - for 6th straight time. Wohoo, big deal (it was Round 4 btw). She would have beaten her in straight sets even if she was a cripple - which she indeed did later that year.

Yeah, her forehand was so great, that's how she aggressively converted that mp against Capriati...oh wait. I watched that match, it was sad. She was almost entirely dependant from JCap making errors.

Of course, even if she had two or three good tournaments in 2002, so what? Sampras won USO that year despite being complete wash-out. And you are completely ignoring how she played after Pan Pacific (very badly) or how she played in 2001. Letsee, she lost twice to Mauresmo (who she used to dominate), twice to Seles (her pigeon), to ASV (another of her pigeons), Ruano-Pascual (!), Dementieva...yeah, that's "Hingis at her peak" in a world according to SVSK... :rolleyes:


That wasn't the first time in her career she waited for her less consistant opponents to make errors.

Hingis played a great match in the 02 AO final but got passive when she should have taken the title instead of hoping Jennifer would miss.

Her form in 02 A.O. would have been more than enough to win a couple of slams in 04.

franny
Jul 11th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Hingis was playing aggressively as fuck during that final. She did not simply wait for Jen Cap to make errors until she got to match point. She was hitting forehand dtl winners off serves and making beautiful lobs. She was at the top of her game. Then, she got tight. At 4-0, she figured that Jen would just give her the rest of the match and even she herself says that she regretted how she played after 4-0. It's not the match points that bothered her, it's the passiveness of her play after 4-0. And I remember on one match point, she hit a good shot that Jen barely got back and short, and Hingis had a backhand put away. Instead, what does she do? She hits it back to the center of the court and the point started all over again. It was dissapointing to watch. Still, had she sustained that same level of play for the rest of the year, she could have won another slam, possibly the French. But unfortunately, she got injured and really was just not the same. I miss you martina, too much for words.

Robbie.
Jul 12th, 2005, 01:19 AM
Then why did YOU put it in bold? I didn't.

Well you said "it all comes down to". This tended to suggest it was the essence of your argument. So bold seemed appropriate. It was never the essence of mine.

I'm skipping all that stuff about 'power' you wrote. Other players learned the book on Hingis. Hit with as much pace as you got, corner to corner, so she can't use all that racket wizardry against you.

It usually didn't work, but it was better that what had been used before.See above.See above. Plus a change in who was in the top ten.

The victory by Dementieva in Moscow, indoors on carpet. Far less variables to deal with for Dementieva, and home court advantage.
Seles lost weight
Mauresmo DID get better, and this was before her back injury turned her into a finesse player
The win by ASV was an aberration. Hingis beat her three times in 2002.
Fortunately, that time is already here. The tour didn't get more powerful. It got BETTER. They became better tennis players

Just as I suspected, you have chosen the least likely explanation and provide vanishingly thin evidence to support it.

Bascially you are saying the tour got so much better in a matter of months that a woman who managed a 67 % win record with 18 wins against top ten players in one year, could manage only a 17 % record with only two wins against the elite the next year; that she went from winning 10 titles in 12 months to 2. Don't you see how unlikely this is?

Btw, the only 'new' top tenner among Hingis' top ten defeats was Capriati. Her other 8 top ten defeats were at the hands of old timers.

Robbie.
Jul 12th, 2005, 01:21 AM
Her form in 02 A.O. would have been more than enough to win a couple of slams in 04.

:worship:

Robbie.
Jul 12th, 2005, 01:22 AM
Look, that's just silly, Hingis had been in Top Ten about 5 straight years by that point, and only NOW they clued in?



Indoors was one of Hingis' BEST surfaces. I watched that match, Martina played terrible. She won FOUR games for chrissakes.



New and improved Mauresmo's Slam record 2001: R4, R1, R3, QF. Not impressed, nope.



Awfully lot of aberrations here, don't you think? I watched Hingis' RG semi against Capriati, and even chronic Hingis haters mentioned how awful she was in that match, and that was just one of the many. I don't understand how anyone could say in straight face that Hingis was at her peak in 2001. That's like saying that Venus was at her peak 2004, everyone else just got better...

:yeah:

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:45 AM
Awfully lot of aberrations here, don't you think?Only one, but my count.that she went from winning 10 titles in 12 months to 2. Don't you see how unlikely this is?Well, no. Players do go from great success to inexplicable failure very quickly.

See hantuchova and Dokic.

Dokic's actually a pretty good example. Her game didn't change for the one that brought her to #4 in the world. But once the tour figured her out, she dropped quickly. Or look at Venus. To my eyes, she was clearly a better player in 2002 than 2001 or 2000. But she won less.

Robbie.
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:58 AM
Well, no. Players do go from great success to inexplicable failure very quickly.

See hantuchova and Dokic.

Dokic's actually a pretty good example. Her game didn't change for the one that brought her to #4 in the world. But once the tour figured her out, she dropped quickly.

So Dokic's level hasn't gone down since 01-2002? :tape:

I'd like to know how you work out which is a loss of form and which is 'the tour figuring someone out'

Were Venus' bad results in the past 18 months, because 'the tour had figured her out'? If so, what was she doing DIFFERENTLY than she was when she dominating in 2000-2003 at Wimbledon '05 that put her on top of the world again?

I think you are drawing a long bow. When a player's results drop off DRASTICALLY in a short space of time you can pretty safely assume that they are slumping. Despite all the rhetoric, the tour just doesn't move on THAT quickly. On the other hand when a player's results gradually fall off as Hingis' did from 1997 to 2000, the logical conclusion is that the tour - or more correctly 2,3 or 4 players - gradually caught up to them. It's the same with your Venus example. One player figured her out in 2002. The rest of the tour didn't. However when she was losing a lot of matches over the last 18 months to player's not in her league it was clear that her form was slumping.

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2005, 04:37 AM
So Dokic's level hasn't gone down since 01-2002? :tape:

I'd like to know how you work out which is a loss of form and which is 'the tour figuring someone out'

Were Venus' bad results in the past 18 months, because 'the tour had figured her out'? If so, what was she doing DIFFERENTLY than she was when she dominating in 2000-2003 at Wimbledon '05 that put her on top of the world again?

I think you are drawing a long bow. When a player's results drop off DRASTICALLY in a short space of time you can pretty safely assume that they are slumping. Despite all the rhetoric, the tour just doesn't move on THAT quickly. On the other hand when a player's results gradually fall off as Hingis' did from 1997 to 2000, the logical conclusion is that the tour - or more correctly 2,3 or 4 players - gradually caught up to them. It's the same with your Venus example. One player figured her out in 2002. The rest of the tour didn't. However when she was losing a lot of matches over the last 18 months to player's not in her league it was clear that her form was slumping.I think we've arrived at an impasse. The available evidence can support one conclusion or the other. So far, I'm not persuaded by your arguements, you're not persuaded by mine.

I'd like to read what Hingis herself has to say on the subject, truthfully.

TonyP
Jul 12th, 2005, 04:56 AM
Hingis won 9 titles in 2000, the most of any player on tour. She won 20 more matches than any player on tour. She finished the year ranked number one. Its hard to make a case that the tour was passing her by

DA FOREHAND
Jul 13th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Hingis won 9 titles in 2000, the most of any player on tour. She won 20 more matches than any player on tour. She finished the year ranked number one. Its hard to make a case that the tour was passing her by


She played so many tournaments just to hold onto her #1 ranking, although she was clearly no longer the best player on tour. That excessive playing caught up to her in the form of injuries and burnout

It's too bad because although she didn't win anymore slams she more than proved herself capable of beating the big guns when rested and fit.

hingis-seles
Jul 13th, 2005, 03:42 PM
Martina was never the same great player after the 2001 Australian Open. Up until then, she was right there with the rest of the top girls, trading blows with them. Let's not forget, she embarassed Venus Williams 6-1, 6-1 at a time when Venus was the reigning Wimbledon and US Open champion and had won her last 19 GS singles matches.

Everyone forgets how gruelling and near-perfect Hingis' 2001 Australian summer was. She won the Hopman Cup for Switzerland with Roger Federer, then won Sydney the next week defeating Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, Conchita Martinez and Lindsay Davenport in succession (only dropping a set to Davenport). She also entered the doubles event with Seles, defeating Williams/Williams and Morariu/Davenport (who would contest the AO final in 2 weeks). After that came the two weeks in Melbourne. She defeated the House of Williams before falling to JenPot. Made it to the doubles semis with Monica as well, before stumbling against the House of Williams. That's a lot of tennis for just one month. She reaches the Tokyo final the next week, losing to Lindsay. She wins Dubai and Doha over Testud and Tauziat level competition. After that, she goes title-less.

Yes, she played well in 2002 at the Australian Open, but it's a far cry from her best tennis. At the 2002 Australian Open, she played scrubs in her first five matches before putting away Monica (a brilliantly played match from her; despite a scare in the third set from 5-1 to 5-4) and then losing to Jen. Hingis at her best would never lose the title.

Timariot
Jul 13th, 2005, 03:51 PM
I think we've arrived at an impasse. The available evidence can support one conclusion or the other.


I'd really like to see ONE PIECE of evidence which supposedly supports your claim that Hingis was at her prime post-AO. She lost to ASV in straight sets, to friggin ASV who she had beat 15 straight times, not losing a set last 9 times. And not only just that, but player who won 9 titles previous year failed to win any (heck, only once managing to make past semifinals) after February?

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2005, 03:58 PM
Hingis won 9 titles in 2000, the most of any player on tour. She won 20 more matches than any player on tour. She finished the year ranked number one. Its hard to make a case that the tour was passing her byShe played so many tournaments just to hold onto her #1 ranking, although she was clearly no longer the best player on tour. That excessive playing caught up to her in the form of injuries and burnout
FOREHAND - I know that's conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it ever held up. And it certainly doesn't hold up as far as 2000 is concerned. Hingis played 19 tournaments + the Tour Championships in 2000. Far below the tour average for tournaments played. Here's her schedule for 2000.

T2 SYDNEY
GS AUSTRALIAN OPEN
T1 PAN PACIFIC

T2 SCOTTSDALE
T1 INDIAN WELLS
T1 MIAMI

T2 HAMBURG
T1 BERLIN
GS FRENCH OPEN

T3 'S-HERTOGENBOSCH
GS WIMBLEDON

T2 SAN DIEGO
T2 LOS ANGELES
T1 TORONTO
GS US OPEN

T2 FILDERSTADT
T1 ZURICH
T1 MOSCOW
T2 PHILADELPHIA
TC CHASE CHAMPIONSHIPS

Where's she playing, 'just to hold up her ranking'? 's Hertogenbosch instead of Eastbourne?

Now look at the current top twenty, and how many tournament they play in twelve months. (The players in red have missed significant chunks of the year with injuries.)

08 HENIN-HARDENNE
09 CLIJSTERS
13 WILLIAMS, S
16 MOLIK
16 WILLIAMS, V
16 IVANOVIC
17 BOVINA
17 DAVENPORT
19 MAURESMO
19 PIERCE
20 SHARAPOVA
20 KUZNETSOVA
21 DEMENTIEVA
22 MYSKINA
23 SCHNYDER
23 LIKHOVTSEVA
25 ZVONAREVA
26 DECHY
27 PETROVA
29 JANKOVIC

Hingis never played an excessive number of tournaments.

1997 - 17
1998 - 18
1999 - 20
2000 - 20
2001 - 18* (Scheduled 20. Missed a tournament and no TC)
2002 - 12* (Scheduled 19. Missed Rome, RG, WB and 2 Californias with injury)

Volcana
Jul 13th, 2005, 04:03 PM
I'd really like to see ONE PIECE of evidence which supposedly supports your claim that Hingis was at her prime post-AO. She lost to ASV in straight sets, to friggin ASV who she had beat 15 straight times, not losing a set last 9 times. And not only just that, but player who won 9 titles previous year failed to win any (heck, only once managing to make past semifinals) after February?Since you're referring to losing to ASV, you mean OZ '01 (she beat ASV three times in '02). My ONE PIECE of evidence is the OZ '02 final. She played wonderfully. Jenn was better. Or try her semi vs Monica that same tournament. If you think she played crappy tennis either of those matches, then you do. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, we just disagree. She ran into Capriati in the best condition of Capriati's life.

If you want to argue that Hingis at her best couldn't possibly lose to Capriati at her best, go ahead. But that's a hard target.

Hingis at her best would never lose the title.That's not a defensible position. Even all-time great players (which Hingis isn't, but my 'all-time great list' only has eight female players) playing their very best DO lose matches.

Andre Agassi played a near perfect match vs Pete Sampras in the 2001 US Open QFs. And lost 6-7, 7-6 7-6 7-6.

I saw Agassi play Federer once where Agassi literally did not make a mistake. Not ONE. And he lost in straight sets.

I'm sure Gunther Parche Calimero377 would be more than happy to recount the 1992 French Open final for you.:)

G1Player2
Jul 13th, 2005, 07:14 PM
^lol

Timariot
Jul 13th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Since you're referring to losing to ASV, you mean OZ '01 (she beat ASV three times in '02). My ONE PIECE of evidence is the OZ '02 final. She played wonderfully. Jenn was better. Or try her semi vs Monica that same tournament.


We were talking about 01, not 02. Please try to get at least to correct year.

But yeah, I agree that Hingis played quite well in those first 2-3 tournaments of 2002. But you know why people still talk about Hingis playing well there? Because it was such a stark contrast how she played in 2001. Elite players sometimes play good matches even when they're not at their prime anymore. Are you seriously trying to claim that Sampras was on his prime on 2001-2002, just because he won US Open '02?

Seriously, did you WATCH any Hingis match in 2001, post Pan Pacific? She was losing matches left and right, to players she used to easily beat or at minimum, match well.


If you think she played crappy tennis either of those matches, then you do. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, we just disagree. She ran into Capriati in the best condition of Capriati's life.

If you want to argue that Hingis at her best couldn't possibly lose to Capriati at her best, go ahead. But that's a hard target.


Neither Hingis or Capriati were at their best at that tournament. Hingis, whilst in good form, was already past her prime, slow on foot and mentally fragile. Capriati played much better previous year; 2002 she was defending champion, and Capriati always plays badly when exceptions mount on. Capriati played terribly in that final until she had almost no hope but she was saved by outrageous choking by Hingis.

Capriati, once she got in shape, was difficult opponent for Hingis, because she could run down most Hingis' shots, and her defensive drives are deep and consistent, unlike most other power players who are inconsistent.

DA FOREHAND
Jul 14th, 2005, 11:36 AM
FOREHAND - I know that's conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it ever held up. And it certainly doesn't hold up as far as 2000 is concerned. Hingis played 19 tournaments + the Tour Championships in 2000. Far below the tour average for tournaments played. Here's her schedule for 2000.

T2 SYDNEY
GS AUSTRALIAN OPEN
T1 PAN PACIFIC

T2 SCOTTSDALE
T1 INDIAN WELLS
T1 MIAMI

T2 HAMBURG
T1 BERLIN
GS FRENCH OPEN

T3 'S-HERTOGENBOSCH
GS WIMBLEDON

T2 SAN DIEGO
T2 LOS ANGELES
T1 TORONTO
GS US OPEN

T2 FILDERSTADT
T1 ZURICH
T1 MOSCOW
T2 PHILADELPHIA
TC CHASE CHAMPIONSHIPS

Where's she playing, 'just to hold up her ranking'? 's Hertogenbosch instead of Eastbourne?

Now look at the current top twenty, and how many tournament they play in twelve months. (The players in red have missed significant chunks of the year with injuries.)

08 HENIN-HARDENNE
09 CLIJSTERS
13 WILLIAMS, S
16 MOLIK
16 WILLIAMS, V
16 IVANOVIC
17 BOVINA
17 DAVENPORT
19 MAURESMO
19 PIERCE
20 SHARAPOVA
20 KUZNETSOVA
21 DEMENTIEVA
22 MYSKINA
23 SCHNYDER
23 LIKHOVTSEVA
25 ZVONAREVA
26 DECHY
27 PETROVA
29 JANKOVIC

Hingis never played an excessive number of tournaments.

1997 - 17
1998 - 18
1999 - 20
2000 - 20
2001 - 18* (Scheduled 20. Missed a tournament and no TC)
2002 - 12* (Scheduled 19. Missed Rome, RG, WB and 2 Californias with injury)






All well and dandy but year after year of excessive tournament play def. lead to her demise...The same can be said for Kim and Justine, now both of them are scaling back thier commitments in favor of thier health.

hingis-seles
Jul 14th, 2005, 11:51 AM
That's not a defensible position. Even all-time great players (which Hingis isn't, but my 'all-time great list' only has eight female players) playing their very best DO lose matches.

Andre Agassi played a near perfect match vs Pete Sampras in the 2001 US Open QFs. And lost 6-7, 7-6 7-6 7-6.

I saw Agassi play Federer once where Agassi literally did not make a mistake. Not ONE. And he lost in straight sets.

I'm sure Gunther Parche Calimero377 would be more than happy to recount the 1992 French Open final for you.:)

Hingis isn't an all-time great on my list either. I agree that the very best DO lose matches playing their best. However, this wasn't one of those situations. Firstly, Hingis was not playing her best nor was she facing a field of players who were playing their best or anywhere close to it. Jennifer struggled to put away Eleni Danillidou and Rita Grande in the early rounds and was simply not playing at the level she had been in 2001. Martina played well, but again her form was also not close to what it had been in 2001. She struggled mightily to defeat Kim Clijsters in Sydney and then took advantage of a weakened bottom half (thanks to Serena's withdrawl and Venus' loss) to advance to the finals. 6-2, 6-3 over Serra-Zanetti in the quarterfinals of a GS?! That was a sloppy match from her. Monica was playing mighty well and pushed Martina to the brink; unforunately, Monica couldn't sustain her level of sustained aggression and it was her errors that gave way, as well as some improved serving from Hingis in that match. However, if you note, Martina led that match 4-6, 6-1, 5-1 and had a mini-choke before recovering to win 4-6, 6-1, 6-4. My point was not that Hingis would never have lost a match while playing her best, but that despite not playing her best, she was one point from the title 4 times. At her best, considering who she played and their form at the 2002 AO, she would not have lost the tournament.

Volcana
Jul 14th, 2005, 12:55 PM
All well and dandy but year after year of excessive tournament play def. lead to her demise...The same can be said for Kim and Justine, now both of them are scaling back thier commitments in favor of thier health.Which years exactly did she play an 'excessive' amount? Or, go the other way. HOW MUCH is 'excessive'? 17 - 20 tournaments a year?!?!?However, if you note, Martina led that match 4-6, 6-1, 5-1 and had a mini-choke before recovering to win 4-6, 6-1, 6-4.Losing one service game to one of the best returners in history isn't a 'mini-choke'.
At her best, considering who she played and their form at the 2002 AO, she would not have lost the tournament.I simply don't consider that a logical conclusion. I understand you arguements. I don't agree with some of them, But even if I did they don't support that conclusion. Your arguement, ultimately, is circular.

1) Hingis didn't win because she wasn't in her best form.
2) How do we know Hingis wasn't in her best form?
3) She didn't win.

Winning and losing isn't proof of her form.
Her form isn't the sole determinant of winning and losing.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:22 PM
http://www.parlonsfoot.com/images/user/thumb-campbellHingis.jpg

Sol Campbell and Martina Hingis.Unlikely as it sounds, big Sol is rumoured to be dating the former tennis queen. Having been introduced by Campbell's former Tottenham team-mate Ramon Vega at a charity function, the Arsenal and England defender was later seen 'talking intimately' to Hingis in a coffee bar. According to one tabloid, the pair have been on several dates. A friend is quoted as saying: 'It's early days, but Sol has really fallen for Martina. They are taking things slowly, but have become inseparable. They have really hit it off and have a lot in common.' Campbell is not the first sportsman that the Swiss miss has dated. She previously went out with Spanish golfer Sergio GarcŪa.

hingis-seles
Jul 14th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Losing one service game to one of the best returners in history isn't a 'mini-choke'.

It isn't but if you look at the way Hingis won that final game and that final point, it was very telling. Monica smacked a winner on the baseline to save the first matchpoint. On the second matchpoint, Hingis spun a second serve in and Monica got a deep hit back which Hingis pushed back into play. Monica then hit her reply wide to which Hingis threw her hands in the air and screamed in relief. Melanie was on the verge of tears when that match ended. Martina very nearly lost that match. It could very well have been the choke we'd be discussing right now rather than the one in the final.

I simply don't consider that a logical conclusion. I understand you arguements. I don't agree with some of them, But even if I did they don't support that conclusion. Your arguement, ultimately, is circular.

1) Hingis didn't win because she wasn't in her best form.
2) How do we know Hingis wasn't in her best form?
3) She didn't win.

Winning and losing isn't proof of her form.
Her form isn't the sole determinant of winning and losing.

I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to say, so I'll repeat myself, and try to be more clear(You'll have to excuse me; English is my second language. I apologize in advance for any mistakes I may make).

I have always believed Martina was in her best form during the 2001 Australian summer season (Hopman Cup, Sydney, Australian Open). As I mentioned earlier, she beat everyone (Lindsay, Serena [twice], Venus, Kim, Monica, Conchita) except Jennifer (who she led 5-0 in h2h at the time). She did everything right and then to lose the final like that; must have eaten away at her. Compare that to her 2002 Australian summer. She won Sydney again defeating Kim in the semis and Meghann Shaughnessy in the final. At the Australian Open, she beat Coetzer, Serra-Zanetti and Seles before the choke against Jennifer. I just don't see the Hingis of Australian summer 2001 losing to the Jennifer of Australian summer 2002.