PDA

View Full Version : The best and worst No 1 in open era ...


Pages : [1] 2

Bette_Midler
Dec 6th, 2006, 09:43 PM
Best ... Steffi Graf

worst ....


what do you think?

égalité
Dec 6th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Best- Monica Seles

Worst- Tracy Austin :devil:

!<blocparty>!
Dec 6th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Mauresmo.

Piotr'ek
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:02 PM
Best - JuJu

Worst - Momo


yeah I am hater , and I'm fuckin proud of that :smoke: :p

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:03 PM
I think it's imbecile question :help:

Because only imbecile could call any person who has been the sport's leader "the worst one" :rolleyes:

MisterQ
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:05 PM
After this year's results, I find it hard to pick the worst No. 1 now.

Having won 2 slams (with one additional final) and 1 WTA Championships (with 2 additional finals), I feel Mauresmo is no longer in contention for this. :cool:

Capriati has a weak resume when it comes to number of titles --- but she made 3 GS finals and won them all, so I find it hard to argue against her.

If you simply go by slams, it's Clijsters, with one. But Clijsters also has four additional GS finals and two WTA Championships.

Sharapova and Austin have similar resumes in a sense: 2 majors (no additional finals in a GS) and one WTA Championship. The problem with evaluating Austin is that her career was cut short so early. She wasn't weak by any means... she was winning against the seemingly unbeatable Evert and Navratilova quite frequently.

Rtael
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:06 PM
Why even start a thread like this?

The Daviator
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Well, the least accomplished #1 is Clijsters, I think the worst player to be ranked #1 is Mauresmo, but all are great players, and all deserved to be ranked #1, just compared to the rest, I would rank these two at the bottom...

tennisfan5
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Are you referring to the one that has achieved the most as #1, or the most talented etc...?

Darop.
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:17 PM
BEST: Serena at her best form
WORST: Momo :tape:

timafi
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:17 PM
Well, the least accomplished #1 is Clijsters, I think the worst player to be ranked #1 is Mauresmo, but all are great players, and all deserved to be ranked #1, just compared to the rest, I would rank these two at the bottom...

I'll remind you that Mauresmo won 2 Slams this year,same can't be said about Davenport who hasn't won shit in a long time but was number one:rolleyes:

Viktymise
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:20 PM
Anyone who got to number 1 in their career deserved to be there but i think Venus and Serena are the best players to be number one and ASV is prob the least impressive player to be number 1

frenchie
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:27 PM
Best: Serena

Worst: Mauresmo

Bumsby
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:29 PM
:scratch: why is #1 Mauresmo worse than #1 Clijsters? :confused:

LindsayRulz
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:30 PM
I don't know who is the best but I think Mauresmo is the worst.

DaNieLa RoCkZ
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:30 PM
Best: Serena..
Worst: Mauresmo, pretty much anyone can beat her on a good day which isnt a good thing to say about a number 1

!<blocparty>!
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:30 PM
I'll remind you that Mauresmo won 2 Slams this year,same can't be said about Davenport who hasn't won shit in a long time but was number one:rolleyes:

Oh please. If you asked any other top 10 player which number one they would want to play (while they were at their best)... pretty much everyone would pick Amelie. Even when she was number one, she wasn't FEARED, and never carried that aura on invincibility many of the other greats possessed in their heyday. Go back to when Lindsay was number one in 1999/2000... she was pretty much unbeatable for MONTHS at a time.

Marcus1979
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:31 PM
I remember there were claims in 2000-2001 that Hingis was not a legitimate #1 as she never won slams in those years. When I saw this thread title was expecting Hingis bashing. :lol:

gumoll
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:31 PM
best: Graf for sure!!!

worst: :shrug:

Sharapova :devil:

LH2HBH
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:34 PM
Funny how everyone thinks Mauresmo is so unworthy although she has spent more time than #1 as Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova and Jennifer Capriati COMBINED.

HenryMag.
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:35 PM
Best: Monica Seles

Wost: Maria Sharapova

FERLKE
Dec 6th, 2006, 10:42 PM
BEST: Seles

WORST: Sharapova

WhatTheDeuce
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:09 PM
Best: Tossup between Seles and Serena
Worst: Tossup between Mauresmo and Clijsters

The Daviator
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:09 PM
I'll remind you that Mauresmo won 2 Slams this year,same can't be said about Davenport who hasn't won shit in a long time but was number one:rolleyes:

Yeah, but if you look beyond 2006 :p it's clear who has had the better career, I'm not dissing Momo, but of all the #1s, I would say she's the worst, she's still a great player, but compared to the others, she's marginally below their level, sorry :)

QUEENLINDSAY
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:21 PM
Best: Monica
Worts: Maria

Dementieva_Dude
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:29 PM
Best: Monica or Serena when they are "on"
Worst: Mauresmo. Great player, but I still think most players still go on court thinking they have a chance to beat her...

master40
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:31 PM
Best: Serena
Worst: Mauresmo

RJWCapriati
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:35 PM
Best: Seles

Worst: Mauresmo

All women that have achieved the number 1 ranking have deserved their spots by winning and playing many matches throughout the year.:) :worship:

Wayn77
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:48 PM
favourite: Mauresmo

least favourite: Davenport

morningglory
Dec 6th, 2006, 11:59 PM
ummm Amelie 2 slams... Kim 1 slam
I mean come on... :o :tape:
If there such a thing as a "worst" #1 (being #1 is synonimous to being the best, no?) then certainly Amelie wouldn't be the worst of the best

pooh14
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:07 AM
I do not think there is such thing as 'wost' no1.
maybe the least feared no1...or least invicible no1...

anyway i think amelie deserve the spot alright, she won 2 slams. every no1 deserve the spot

Steffica Greles
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:13 AM
Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena - those are the players who stand above the rest.

Austin
Sanchez-Vicario
Hingis
Davenport
Capriati
Venus Williams
Clijsters
Henin
Mauresmo
Sharapova

If all those players from the above grouping played round robin (at their peaks) on all four surfaces, I think either Austin, Sanchez-Vicario or Hingis would have come bottom.

Hingis would have swept aside Sanchez-Vicario, but I believe Aranxta would have frustrated players like Sharapova and Davenport more than effectively. Nobody knows regarding Austin as she was a decade before the others, but she was very diminutive compared with all of the other players.

go hingis
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:24 AM
Martina Hingis is the best

The worst I would say Venus, only because she's not consistent and apart from Maria has had the shortest stay on top.

sweetpeas
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:56 AM
No doubt the best SERENA ******* WILLIAMS.

blumaroo
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:58 AM
Best: Serena and Graf in terms of game, aura and stats.
Worst: Mauresmo/Sanchez-Vicario

Andy.
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Best: Serena
Worst: Mauresmo

bello
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:12 AM
WORSE: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario

bello
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:13 AM
Best: Serena and Graf in terms of game, aura and stats.
Worst: Mauresmo/Sanchez-Vicario

Add Seles in the best category and youre spot on!

-jenks-
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:18 AM
Best: Seles

Worst: Momo, I mean she got bageled 3 times in one tournament! :tape:

ZeroSOFInfinity
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:35 AM
Worst: Momo, I mean she got bageled 3 times in one tournament! :tape:

Yeah... but I would not consider someone who won 2 GS in a year to be the worst No.1 in the world... a better word would be "Inconsistant".

Guess the worst No.1 would be those who got that spot without winning a Slam beforehand and when she was #1... whoever that is... :tape:

LUIS9
Dec 7th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Well, the least accomplished #1 is Clijsters, I think the worst player to be ranked #1 is Mauresmo, but all are great players, and all deserved to be ranked #1, just compared to the rest, I would rank these two at the bottom...

Ditto. Both Clijsters and Mauresmo despite these are formidable athletes just behind the Wiliams in terms of athletic ability when all are playing at their best, Perhaps Henin is better at offense than these two and just slightly behind the Williams at that. Defense Wise I think Clijsters and Henin fight off quite strongly as to who is the best defender. Mauresmo is a pretty good defender and Venus comes next in line, she's every bit as good a defender as the Belgians they're just more consistent at it.

Lulu.
Dec 7th, 2006, 03:41 AM
Best: Serena
Worst: Mauresmo

Brooklyn90
Dec 7th, 2006, 03:51 AM
Funny how everyone thinks Mauresmo is so unworthy although she has spent more time than #1 as Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova and Jennifer Capriati COMBINED.

:worship: :worship:

Brooklyn90
Dec 7th, 2006, 03:52 AM
Best: Serena Williams
Worst: Maria Sharapova

timafi
Dec 7th, 2006, 04:28 AM
Best: Serena
Worst: Mauresmo

Sharapova was number 1 for 5 weeks:tape: :tape: try staying there for 8 straight months please:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

timafi
Dec 7th, 2006, 04:31 AM
Best: Seles

Worst: Momo, I mean she got bageled 3 times in one tournament! :tape:

at least she's winning you can't even get passed Henin:tape: :tape:

patricktav2003
Dec 7th, 2006, 04:59 AM
maybe the least is venus! cause she was on top only on 2 surfaces!?!?!? maybe!! Mommo is a all around player!!

Hardiansf
Dec 7th, 2006, 05:15 AM
BEST: Serena, Seles, Navratilova, and Graf
WORST: Capriati, Mauresmo, Sanchez-Vicario, and Sharapova

miss_molik
Dec 7th, 2006, 05:20 AM
Best: Steffi
Worst: Clijsters

FaceyFacem
Dec 7th, 2006, 05:58 AM
this is just a thread to start fights, huh?
i'm not above the fighting :devil:
arantxa doesn't deserve to be near the bottom whatsoever, she played in an era with graf and seles, potentially the best 2 ever, and she was incredibly consistent in her results
i'm gonna say jennifer because while she won the 3 slams, she won during the early williams years, end hingis years where there was no dominant threat and she could sneak through, not to mention hingis should've won the aussie 02 and kim should've won the french 01

sorry, everyone is deserving and at times i've been a big fan of all the ladies (esp. arantxa, kim, and martina) and i've been against a bunch of them too :)

p.s. the worst #1 is probably really: Julie Halard-Decugis

Andy.
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:21 AM
Sharapova was number 1 for 5 weeks:tape: :tape: try staying there for 8 straight months please:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It has nothing to do with the time for me its about their aura and as a number 1 Amelie was not feared and is still mentally fragile and beatable by lesser players i dont see her is a player that other fear and i dont think she will ever dominate.

MistyGrey
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:30 AM
Best Graf
Worst Mauresmo/Sharapova

timafi
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:37 AM
Best Graf
Worst Mauresmo/Sharapova

at least Mauresmo has done that: twice:devil: ,can Pierce say that?:tape: :tape:

MistyGrey
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:44 AM
at least Mauresmo has done that: twice:devil: ,can Pierce say that?:tape: :tape:

Why bring Mary into it? because I think Mauresmo is the worst number one along with Sharapova? OK tell me who is worse than Amelie and Maria? Kim? No way she was way too dominant in 2003,2005. ASV? nope, she had 4 straight GS finals in 94-95. Leaves Maria and Amelie, unfortunately.

Stamp Paid
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:26 AM
Serena > Graf?

Please.

fufuqifuqishahah
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:27 AM
Best- Monica Seles

Worst- Tracy Austin :devil:

:haha:

WIMBLY2004
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:49 AM
Achievement wise

Best - Steffi Graf
Worst - Kim Clijsters

J.Ferrer
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:11 AM
best Steffi Graf
worst T. Austin

dawid
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:23 AM
Best: Graff, Navratilova, Hingis or S.Williams - All of them has predominated contest WTA Tour
Worst: Mauresmo

die_wahrheit
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:37 AM
Best: Graf
Worst: Capriati.
The US-Italian won nearly nothing on tour.
I can't ever remember wether the italian bull was no 1 or not.
I think, it was. Because 3 Grand Slam-titles, that's the way to no 1.
Ok, 1 Olympic Gold Medal, that was in another era.
But 14 titles in the 10 year career? that's not much.

The first title was won by a little girl.
The last titles were won by a bull.

FrenchY52
Dec 7th, 2006, 09:30 AM
Best = Seles
Worst = Sharapova

[.Raisin.]
Dec 7th, 2006, 10:40 AM
Best: Seles, if I'm not too biased. :angel:
Worst - Sharapova :o

:inlove:
Dec 7th, 2006, 10:45 AM
Best: Graf/Evert/Navratilova
Worst: Sharapova/Mauresmo

alfajeffster
Dec 7th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Best ... Steffi Graf

worst ....


what do you think?

In the "open" era? Considering that "era" began in 1968, we have to look a little deeper and remember the great champions that have accomplished great things before the current crop of players. Between 1969 and 1973 the great Australian Margaret Court won an astounding 11 majors, including the Grand Slam in 1970, and during that run won 6 consecutive titles at the big 4. Only Navratilova and Graf have come close to this record, and Margaret has both of them beat if we "open" up the era to include Margaret's entire 1960-1975 career at the top. She won more singles titles than any man or woman in the history of tennis (yes, about a dozen more than Navratilova, kids), and won every single title of importance everywhere there was a title to win on the planet at least once, and many of them multiple times.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a223/alfajeffster/Margaretinflight2.jpg


Worst? The only worst I care to comment on is The Worst of the Jefferson Airplane. It's a nice collection and worth the listen...

hwanmig
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:18 PM
So many people dissing Momo, its OK she can still add slams to her resume unlike some other has beens(Californian girls:o).

Kunal
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:41 PM
worst would be harsh.....but masha number one didnt fly for me

sapir1434
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:42 PM
I don't get it. Why is a 2 slams champion the worst number 1 for you? Amelie saved her place for some long monthes.

Kai
Dec 7th, 2006, 12:48 PM
Best: Graf
Worst: Sharapova

pooh14
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:09 PM
i am not a momo fan at all (neither do i hate her), but i still do not know what does she have to do more to confince people that she is a very good player. before this year, yes fine, she has not won a slam, so there is a reason, but she now, she has won 2 slams, 1 YEC and have been no1 for many months.

momo is definitely not the greatest player, not even one of the greatest player, however she is a very good player who deserve the no1 ranking.

Andy.
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:17 PM
Look in terms of achievement its probably Masha as the weakest right now but that will change, but in terms of how they were percieved by other players Amelie was not a good number 1 in that regard. What is mean is she didnt have an aura and has no intimidation factor going into matches players dont fear her.

jazzfuzion
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:26 PM
best navratilova worst no one

Princeza
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:45 PM
best hingis, worst none, there's a reason why they all are or were n.1

cypher_88
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:50 PM
best: Graf/Evert
"worst": Mauresmo

natacha1
Dec 7th, 2006, 01:59 PM
best : graf

worst: momo/ sharapova

rjd1111
Dec 7th, 2006, 02:06 PM
Martina Hingis is the best

The worst I would say Venus, only because she's not consistent and apart from Maria has had the shortest stay on top.


Venus has 5 Slams. The only reason her stay at #1 was so short was
because of Serena's Slam Run. Imagine what Vee's career would look
like had Serena not been around. That Serena Slam would have been a
Venus Slam cause no one else was beating either of them in Slams at that
time. And she would have been #1 over a year At least.

vswfan
Dec 7th, 2006, 02:07 PM
best: Steffi/Serena
worst: Kim

!<blocparty>!
Dec 7th, 2006, 02:08 PM
i am not a momo fan at all (neither do i hate her), but i still do not know what does she have to do more to confince people that she is a very good player. before this year, yes fine, she has not won a slam, so there is a reason, but she now, she has won 2 slams, 1 YEC and have been no1 for many months.

momo is definitely not the greatest player, not even one of the greatest player, however she is a very good player who deserve the no1 ranking.

Who is saying Mauresmo isn't a very good player? :scratch:

I love how her fan in here are only able to come up with weeks spent at number one (during one of the worst periods since 1997) as a reason she should be considered "better" than Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova and Jennifer Capriati. :lol:

TeamUSA#1
Dec 7th, 2006, 02:30 PM
this is just a thread to start fights, huh?
i'm not above the fighting :devil:
arantxa doesn't deserve to be near the bottom whatsoever, she played in an era with graf and seles, potentially the best 2 ever, and she was incredibly consistent in her results
i'm gonna say jennifer because while she won the 3 slams, she won during the early williams years, end hingis years where there was no dominant threat and she could sneak through, not to mention hingis should've won the aussie 02 and kim should've won the french 01

sorry, everyone is deserving and at times i've been a big fan of all the ladies (esp. arantxa, kim, and martina) and i've been against a bunch of them too :)

p.s. the worst #1 is probably really: Julie Halard-Decugis

Are you fucking HIGH???

Venus won her slams during the same years that Jen did, as well as Serena was coming into her own. Not mention that Davenport, Seles, Clijsters, Momo, Hingis, and Henin were all around and doing very well (Strongest field tin the WTA era has been the years of 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). The fact that she won 3 slams during that time speaks volumes to her strength as #1

Aus 2001 Jen beat the #4 (Seles), #2 (Davenport) and #1 Hingis to grab her slam

Aus 2002 Jen beat the #8 (Momo) the #4 (Clijsters) and the #2 (Hingis) to win her slam

FO 2001 Jen beat the #7 (Serena), the # 2 (Hingis) and the # 12 (Clijsters) to win her slam

not to mention beatin Graf for Olymic Gold in 1992

I love Clijsters, but with only 1 slam she is the weakest #1.

The best have been
Graf/Navratoliva
Evert
Seles
Serena... in that order

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 7th, 2006, 03:03 PM
Best of all time: Steffi Graf by a long long way.

Uranus
Dec 7th, 2006, 04:10 PM
In terms of level of play
Best: Steffi, even if I think Serena could have done even better if she was totally focused on tennis.
Worst: Mauresmo! Before breaking through in slams she was an average top 10 player, then thanks to Justine's retirement all her mental problems in slams (slams SF especially) went away and now she only does very well in those tournaments. Not much improvement except for that.

mboyle
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:05 PM
It is really interesting. Almost everyone says Momo or Sharapova is the "worst" no. 1. Sharapova is 19, so that is not even a fair comparison. Second, two slams are more than one.

Clijsters is unquestionably the "worst" no. 1. She was never even arguably the best player. Justine was always better and you always knew Justine would win the important match. Kim beat ONE top ten player to win her grand slam. She's a great player, but she has not had the head to be no. 1.

Steffica Greles
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:21 PM
It is really interesting. Almost everyone says Momo or Sharapova is the "worst" no. 1. Sharapova is 19, so that is not even a fair comparison. Second, two slams are more than one.

Clijsters is unquestionably the "worst" no. 1. She was never even arguably the best player. Justine was always better and you always knew Justine would win the important match. Kim beat ONE top ten player to win her grand slam. She's a great player, but she has not had the head to be no. 1.

But it all depends on what we're talking about here. Are we talking about the number one with the least impressive resume, or the number one who was the least prodigious as a player?

Clijsters, at her peak, would have swept aside peak Hingis, Sanchez-Vicario, probably Austin, in my opinion Evert, Davenport and Sharapova on slower surfaces, Mauresmo (which underlines what a bad year she had this year, going 0-3 down to a player who she often bagelled) and Capriati. She would also have been a match for Graf and Seles from the baseline on any surface. We already know she stretched Serena and Venus.

Clijsters is quite high in the pecking order, in my opinion, having seen all of the number ones play at their peaks (Evert and Navratilova on video) aside from Tracy Austin.

In terms of the least impressive resume, you are correct that Clijsters is one the least accomplished of those who have reached the number one ranking.

Viktymise
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:25 PM
Venus has 5 Slams. The only reason her stay at #1 was so short was
because of Serena's Slam Run. Imagine what Vee's career would look
like had Serena not been around. That Serena Slam would have been a
Venus Slam cause no one else was beating either of them in Slams at that
time. And she would have been #1 over a year At least.

Exactly anyone saying Venus is the worst is :o

Kart
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:28 PM
I wonder how many posters in here can actually claim to have seen all the no.1s of the open era in action.

iamhe
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:28 PM
Best: Graf, Navratilova

Worst: Mauresmo, Clijsters, Sharapova (up to the present, but shes still very yong,so...)

Steffica Greles
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:43 PM
I wonder how many posters in here can actually claim to have seen all the no.1s of the open era in action.

Exactly, Kart. Which is why I alluded to it.

I've seen clips of Tracy Austin scurrying around the baseline against Chris Evert in the 1979 U.S Open final, but nothing more. Reminded me a little of Hingis. Was more talented than Evert in terms of placement and feel, from what I could see, although more waif-like, which was ultimately her downfall.

JCF
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:15 PM
dunno about best, i find that hard to judge.

worst is clijsters for achievements, but i believe she is a much better player than Sharapova or Mauresmo when at the top of her game.

MatchpointPRT
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:18 PM
best- Martina Hingis
worst- Amelie Mauresmo

The Dawntreader
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:26 PM
I would say when momo became number 1 in 2004, on what, the basis of a quarter-final loss to Dementieva, because JHH had lost in the rnd of 16 and Davenport in the semis:rolleyes:

That was the worst number 1 then, but she fully deserved it in 06 for the time she had it IMO:)

Graf/Serena probably the best open Era number 1's. Or maybe Nav or SEles? Hard to pick:confused:

Uranus
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:28 PM
Speaking of slams won, Clijsters is behind the others, but I think she has one of the best games when she's at her peak. And when she was dominating she could keep this level for a very long time, she was extremely consistent. She beat every single player in straight sets quite easily, while she had some problems with Justine. The only reason she was not able to beat her was because of her mental issues, I think. They often met in GS finals which are very special matches, especially for someone who hadn't won any. Someone said she wasn't dominating, but there was Justine also at her peak. In comparison, there was no "real" no.1 in 2004-2005, all players didn't really deserve it, it was really close between them. Also some of the most recent GS winners won them because there was not as much competition as it should have been. I think Kim only had the worst mental off all the number ones. But her game was way better than a lot of them :)
I have the impression you're all keeping in mind this season, which was quite a bad one for her. Moreover she got really injured twice, who knows what she could have done without it ;)

Steffica Greles
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Speaking of slams won, Clijsters is behind the others, but I think she has one of the best games when she's at her peak. And when she was dominating she could keep this level for a very long time, she was extremely consistent. She beat every single player in straight sets quite easily, while she had some problems with Justine. The only reason she was not able to beat her was because of her mental issues, I think. They often met in GS finals which are very special matches, especially for someone who hadn't won any. Someone said she wasn't dominating, but there was Justine also at her peak. In comparison, there was no "real" no.1 in 2004-2005, all players didn't really deserve it, it was really close between them. Also some of the most recent GS winners won them because there was not as much competition as it should have been. I think Kim only had the worst mental off all the number ones. But her game was way better than a lot of them :)


Right. And she was way ahead in the head-to-heads with Justine for a long time. It was only in the majors that she failed to make much of an impression.

And, bearing in mind that Kim arrived when arguably the two greatest players ever to play the game were in charge (Venus and Serena), and then, at her peak, was forced to miss 9 months with injury, injuries which continued to dog her this year, Kim has done very well indeed. She's dealt with injuries far better than most top players have done.

Nicolás89
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:47 PM
is unfair to say a number one player is better than the other, you can say that one has a better carrer or more achievements but not who is worst, they are all number one for one reason and one reason only because they are better than everyone else period.

i dont like when a thread says "who is better player x or player y" either.

Nicolás89
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:48 PM
for me who has achivement less when they were number one is maria sharapova no slams no titles i believe.

spencercarlos
Dec 7th, 2006, 07:59 PM
for me who has achivement less when they were number one is maria sharapova no slams no titles i believe.
Maria had wimbledon and the Masters when she was number one in the early 2005 season.
I tend to agree with you plus you can´t judge based on "i think" peak X beats peak Y when its proven by stats that peak X achieved way less than Peak Y when they were both at the top of the womens game.

spencercarlos
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:00 PM
Right. And she was way ahead in the head-to-heads with Justine for a long time. It was only in the majors that she failed to make much of an impression.

And, bearing in mind that Kim arrived when arguably the two greatest players ever to play the game were in charge (Venus and Serena), and then, at her peak, was forced to miss 9 months with injury, injuries which continued to dog her this year, Kim has done very well indeed. She's dealt with injuries far better than most top players have done.
Honestly nobody cares if Clijsters has a winning head to head over Henin at the Shertogenbosh event, what people and history will remmember the most is that Henin owned Clijsters mostly at the grand slam events.

Slampova
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:01 PM
All the players who have reached the top have deserved it. Maria was the best though :p

The Daviator
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:02 PM
Maria had wimbledon and the Masters when she was number one in the early 2005 season.
I tend to agree with you plus you can´t judge based on "i think" peak X beats peak Y when its proven by stats that peak X achieved way less than Peak Y when they were both at the top of the womens game.

Maria reached #1 in August '05, after she lost her Wimby crown ;)

Fire_Fox
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:03 PM
Best - Navratilova
Worst - Clijsters (She was 1st without Slam`s winnings)

Steffica Greles
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:16 PM
Honestly nobody cares if Clijsters has a winning head to head over Henin at the Shertogenbosh event, what people and history will remmember the most is that Henin owned Clijsters mostly at the grand slam events.

You're right about that.

But a match is still a match: a ball being hit to and fro across the net between two players each trying to better the other. The tournament's history, the crowd, the money involved -- they are all extraneous.

History will remember their grandslam meetings. My basic point, which unsurprisingly seemed to elude your good self, was that Clijsters has done enough in their head-to-heads and in her wider career to prove that she can match up to Henin. Her failure to win any of their most important matches is something Kim herself will always ponder.

Uranus
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Best - Navratilova
Worst - Clijsters (She was 1st without Slam`s winnings)

So was Mauresmo :rolleyes:

FaceyFacem
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:19 PM
I wonder how many posters in here can actually claim to have seen all the no.1s of the open era in action.

i agree, i've seen tapes of chris and tracy, and seen all the rest, but i'm going only on what i've seen

No Name Face
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:20 PM
Best - Serena (peak)
Worst - Sharapova (horrible records against Mauresmo, Justine, and Clijsters)

Steffica Greles
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:27 PM
Maria reached #1 in August '05, after she lost her Wimby crown ;)

What?

You mean SpencerCarlos' infinite knowledge of the game is in question? You're lying. You're a pathetic, disgusting SpencerCarlos hater now get off this board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;)

saki
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:32 PM
I don't think Kim has a mental problem against Justine. I think Justine had a mental problem against Kim and rid herself of it at RG '03. Thereafter, particularly in 2006, Kim doesn't try as hard against Justine but that's because (except on hardcourt where they are 50:50) she knows that Justine is the better player. If you watch Kim's wins over Justine prior to 2003, Justine outplays Kim, but crumbles at the important points. Kim sometimes does this against Justine now but mostly is just outplayed.

hingisGOAT
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:39 PM
best -- martina nav. best player ever.

worst -- venus williams. only 'dominated' the game for three months in 2000 and 2001. got her ass thoroughly kicked in the first half and indoor end of both seasons. and by the time she reached #1 (in 2002), there was already a far superior player on the tour... her little sister.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Best -- Martina Navratilova... 167 singles titles



Worst --- In terms of talent I`d say Maria Sharapova

Sara81
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:54 PM
What a stupid thread ... I mean the worst number one? Honestly .. don't these girls deserve some credit? :rolleyes:
Anyway, I'm very proud of both Kim & Justine's accomplishments :kiss:

Nicolás89
Dec 7th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Maria had wimbledon and the Masters when she was number one in the early 2005 season.

i meant between the dates she was number one

maria doesnt won anything within that dates
clijsters doesnt won any slam when she was number one either
mauresmo just won wimbedon, no other title:tape:

laurie
Dec 7th, 2006, 09:07 PM
What a stupid thread ... I mean the worst number one? Honestly .. don't these girls deserve some credit? :rolleyes:
Anyway, I'm very proud of both Kim & Justine's accomplishments :kiss:

I agree there's no point to this thread other than to bash players people don't like.

Anyone who gets to number 1 deserves to be number 1.

Except Sharapova!!:devil:

Just kidding:D

hablo
Dec 7th, 2006, 10:01 PM
best : graf
worst : sharapova

I still answered even though I didn't like the logic of a worst no.1 :o

LegionArgentina
Dec 8th, 2006, 02:34 AM
Best: Graf/Seles/Navratilova

Worst: Marcelo Rios/Maria Sharapova

hingisGOAT
Dec 8th, 2006, 07:48 AM
Your username truly implies a lot about your character.

how so? :wavey:

moby
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:19 AM
I don't think Kim has a mental problem against Justine. I think Justine had a mental problem against Kim and rid herself of it at RG '03. Thereafter, particularly in 2006, Kim doesn't try as hard against Justine but that's because (except on hardcourt where they are 50:50) she knows that Justine is the better player. If you watch Kim's wins over Justine prior to 2003, Justine outplays Kim, but crumbles at the important points. Kim sometimes does this against Justine now but mostly is just outplayed.Berlin 03 was the turning point in their H2H. Justine saved 3 consecutive matchpoints in that match, and two of them were with aces. Discounting their non-WTA encounters, she was 2-7 against Kim prior to that match, and 8-3 (one of the losses was a retirement from a winning position) thereafter.

Justine underwent a huge improvement from late 02 to mid 03 - mentally, physically and technically. Kim has not shown that she can match up to Justine since.

Poova
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:25 AM
No number one is "worst", but Amelie is certainly the weakest. Got bagelled far too many times, which is pretty embarrassing for a Number One. :o

alfajeffster
Dec 8th, 2006, 12:26 PM
I wonder how many posters in here can actually claim to have seen all the no.1s of the open era in action.

Good question! And if you couch that with having seen all of them live, I don't think anyone here can lay that claim (please, someone step up and give details, I'm really interested). I've seen Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Tracy Austin, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Martina Hingis, Venus and Serena Williams, Jennifer Capriati (was she ever no.1?), Lindsay Davenport, Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo and Maria Sharapova live, but not Margaret Court, Evonne Goolagong or Justine Henin-Hardenne. I'm sure I'll get to see Justine some time soon, but Madge and Gooley are a lost cause, unfortunately.

saki
Dec 8th, 2006, 12:48 PM
Berlin 03 was the turning point in their H2H. Justine saved 3 consecutive matchpoints in that match, and two of them were with aces. Discounting their non-WTA encounters, she was 2-7 against Kim prior to that match, and 8-3 (one of the losses was a retirement from a winning position) thereafter.

Justine underwent a huge improvement from late 02 to mid 03 - mentally, physically and technically. Kim has not shown that she can match up to Justine since.

I think of RG '03 as being the breakthrough, personally, because I think Justine's collapse against Kim in their RG SF '01 cast a shadow over Justine. I think she needed to rid herself of those ghosts at RG itself. I see the argument for Berlin, also, though!

laurie
Dec 8th, 2006, 01:32 PM
Good question! And if you couch that with having seen all of them live, I don't think anyone here can lay that claim (please, someone step up and give details, I'm really interested). I've seen Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Tracy Austin, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Martina Hingis, Venus and Serena Williams, Jennifer Capriati (was she ever no.1?), Lindsay Davenport, Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo and Maria Sharapova live, but not Margaret Court, Evonne Goolagong or Justine Henin-Hardenne. I'm sure I'll get to see Justine some time soon, but Madge and Gooley are a lost cause, unfortunately.

Uhmm. I've seen Graf, Seles, Mauresmo, Henin Hardenne, Venus, Clijsters, Hingis, Capriati. The only players I saw who were actually number 1 at the time were Mauresmo this year at Wimbledon and Hingis in 1997 at Wimbledon.

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 01:39 PM
What?

You mean SpencerCarlos' infinite knowledge of the game is in question? You're lying. You're a pathetic, disgusting SpencerCarlos hater now get off this board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;)
To be honest i don´t follow the WTA numbers for a couple of years now, and i forgot that Maria was close to number one before roland garros last year, and in fact thought that she gained it in the first half of the season and not after Wimbledon.

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 01:41 PM
I think of RG '03 as being the breakthrough, personally, because I think Justine's collapse against Kim in their RG SF '01 cast a shadow over Justine. I think she needed to rid herself of those ghosts at RG itself. I see the argument for Berlin, also, though!
6-2 4-2 break points for 5-2 and playing great tennis only to collapse, yeah i have that match, and i remmember rooting for Justine on the day :p
Yeah that match gave Henin the status of a choker and she indeed choked some matches and sets right after that one.

martinahfan
Dec 8th, 2006, 01:58 PM
better : martina hingis
worst : maria sharapova

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 01:58 PM
You're right about that.

But a match is still a match: a ball being hit to and fro across the net between two players each trying to better the other. The tournament's history, the crowd, the money involved -- they are all extraneous.

History will remember their grandslam meetings. My basic point, which unsurprisingly seemed to elude your good self, was that Clijsters has done enough in their head-to-heads and in her wider career to prove that she can match up to Henin. Her failure to win any of their most important matches is something Kim herself will always ponder.
Clijsters basically did great again Henin before Henin made her biggest move and started to win GS and the Clijsters vs Henin record since Berlin 2003 is 3-8 and 0-5 in Grand Slam events during this period, and 4 of those GS meetings were straight sets defeats.
Has Kim shown she can go toe to toe with Henin after Berlin 2003? Hmm i don´t think so.

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 02:06 PM
Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena - those are the players who stand above the rest.

Austin
Sanchez-Vicario
Hingis
Davenport
Capriati
Venus Williams
Clijsters
Henin
Mauresmo
Sharapova

If all those players from the above grouping played round robin (at their peaks) on all four surfaces, I think either Austin, Sanchez-Vicario or Hingis would have come bottom.

Hingis would have swept aside Sanchez-Vicario, but I believe Aranxta would have frustrated players like Sharapova and Davenport more than effectively. Nobody knows regarding Austin as she was a decade before the others, but she was very diminutive compared with all of the other players.
Despite everything you see to forget the fact that Hingis swept the floor with Seles.
Leaving acomplisments aside once again it is ridiculous when you make such comments about Martina making the bottom of these worst number ones players list, when it´s Martina one of the players with the most wins again each of those players combined that have been number one from her era, starting from Graf to Henin.

new-york
Dec 8th, 2006, 02:10 PM
worst -- venus williams. only 'dominated' the game for three months in 2000 and 2001. got her ass thoroughly kicked in the first half and indoor end of both seasons. and by the time she reached #1 (in 2002), there was already a far superior player on the tour... her little sister.

:shrug:

Andy T
Dec 8th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Despite everything you see to forget the fact that Hingis swept the floor with Seles.
Leaving acomplisments aside once again it is ridiculous when you make such comments about Martina making the bottom of these worst number ones players list, when it´s Martina one of the players with the most wins again each of those players combined that have been number one from her era, starting from Graf to Henin.

I agree. For her record Jan 97-Jun 98, I'd add Hingis to the list of players who dominated as #1 (from 75 onwards) along with Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles and Serena Williams. When any of these players lost during their dominant periods, it was news, even on their weakest surface. The others either lost too frequently while #1 or weren't at the top long enough.

As for Justine, I think it's too early to say. If J2H bags Australia and defends RG this year, making 6 consecutive finals +YEC, I think she has a strong case to be included also.

Lindsay deserves a mention for the span between her spells at #1, even though she was never head and shoulders above the rest and was never seen as (please note "seen as" - it is key) a truly all-surface #1.

Andy T
Dec 8th, 2006, 03:29 PM
For those who can't remember Tracy Austin, I can say that, imo, she was always a dubious #1. This was because one or other of her two main rivals - Evert & Navratilova had strong claims to the top spot while Tracy was #1. Rather like Venus, she had a couple of periods lasting several months when she was undoubtedly the in-form player but never really broke free from the pack and stayed there long enough to establish any kind of dominance. She was a bit like Lady Jane Grey, the Nine Days Queen

Arantxa, as RG and US champ, deserved to be ranked number one (albeit in the shadow of the absent Monica) but she never won a tournament as world #1.

Mina Vagante
Dec 8th, 2006, 03:41 PM
best: serena (obviously)

worse: momo

!<blocparty>!
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:06 PM
best: serena (obviously)


Why is it obvious?

Why are people saying Serena is the best number one of the OPEN ERA. She played unsustainable tennis for two years and hasn't come close to that level since.

tennisfan5
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Despite everything you see to forget the fact that Hingis swept the floor with Seles.

They never played when Monica was a dominant #1 and in her prime, and when Monica was finally in decent shape ('98, '01), she beat her.

Apoleb
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Best: Graf
Worst: Mauresmo. Even at #1, I felt she was still kinda the underdog on a lot of occasions. :o

Fire_Fox
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:16 PM
So was Mauresmo :rolleyes:

But Mauresmo then won YEC & later 2 SLAMS & was the first all 2006 year!!!

Fire_Fox
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:25 PM
Why don`t you like Mauresmo? :confused:
Because she is not so beautiful & public???

Nicolás89
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:34 PM
But Mauresmo then won YEC & later 2 SLAMS & was the first all 2006 year!!!

but as a number one she just won wimbledon i dont know what she won in 2004though:wavey:

Xian
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:37 PM
Best: Graf and Seles
Worst: Clijsters and Mauresmo

Fire_Fox
Dec 8th, 2006, 04:59 PM
but as a number one she just won wimbledon i dont know what she won in 2004though:wavey:

Ok! That`s your opinion.
I`m not her fan, but it would be better to say that you simply don`t like her!:)

Talula
Dec 8th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Best: a lot to choose from: Seles at her peak; Graf at her peak.

Worst: Graf while Seles was out; Hingis when she was losing Slams but holding onto the No 1 because of the number of Tournaments she played.

plantman
Dec 8th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Best is a tie between JuJu and Hingis
Worst is Sharapova

hablo
Dec 8th, 2006, 06:13 PM
but as a number one she just won wimbledon i dont know what she won in 2004though:wavey:

Oh for sure, we all know that it isn't a big accomplishment at all, to win Wimbledon while entering the tournie ranked as the World #1 ; gosh I loooooooooooooove your mediocrity Momo :drool: :lol:

Barrie_Dude
Dec 8th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Best: Billie Jean King

Steffica Greles
Dec 8th, 2006, 06:34 PM
Despite everything you see to forget the fact that Hingis swept the floor with Seles.
Leaving acomplisments aside once again it is ridiculous when you make such comments about Martina making the bottom of these worst number ones players list, when it´s Martina one of the players with the most wins again each of those players combined that have been number one from her era, starting from Graf to Henin.

No, I didn't miss that. I was comparing players at their peak. You really are slow to follow most of the time.

I don't think anybody would rate Seles 96-03 as playing at her peak. She showed flashes of brilliance at times, but it was never sustained. I do remember a couple of matches when Seles was on fire, however, when she swept the floor with Hingis, firing return winners at will. Just as Davenport and the Williamses often did.

But you're right that Hingis had a way of playing Seles which was very effective and often made Monica look silly. I just don't think it would have worked as well against Seles of 1993.

I think that the only player I can clearly say peak Hingis would have destroyed at her own peak is Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario, who hadn't really any weapons to hurt Martina. Tracy Austin may also not have had enough for Hingis. I think Hingis would also have bettered Chris Evert (you obviously don't remember my comments when comparing these two some years ago).

However, juxtaposed with each of the other dozen or so number ones playing at their highest levels, Hingis at her peak was not in the same league. Of every ten matches, 7 would have gone against her.

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 06:57 PM
They never played when Monica was a dominant #1 and in her prime, and when Monica was finally in decent shape ('98, '01), she beat her.
Despite how much i love Monica, you should point out that also when Monica beat Hingis in 98, 2001, Martina was going throught very bad slump which in fact had her title less since Rome 98 to the Masters 98 (May to November) when the previous year she was winning almost a title each month, and in 2001 her last title came in February, really difficult to consider that Martina was playing great tennis, and not to mention her injured 2002 Usopen just before retiring.

Nicolás89
Dec 8th, 2006, 07:00 PM
Oh for sure, we all know that it isn't a big accomplishment at all, to win Wimbledon while entering the tournie ranked as the World #1 ; gosh I loooooooooooooove your mediocrity Momo :drool: :lol:


wimbledon is a big acomplishment but you missed my point, my point is that she didnt dominate as a number one you cant deny that, i never said that wimbledon is nothing is a big deal, you create your own conclusions:wavey:

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 07:06 PM
No, I didn't miss that. I was comparing players at their peak. You really are slow to follow most of the time.

I don't think anybody would rate Seles 96-03 as playing at her peak. She showed flashes of brilliance at times, but it was never sustained. I do remember a couple of matches when Seles was on fire, however, when she swept the floor with Hingis, firing return winners at will. Just as Davenport and the Williamses often did.

But you're right that Hingis had a way of playing Seles which was very effective and often made Monica look silly. I just don't think it would have worked as well against Seles of 1993.

I think that the only player I can clearly say peak Hingis would have destroyed at her own peak is Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario, who hadn't really any weapons to hurt Martina. Tracy Austin may also not have had enough for Hingis. I think Hingis would also have bettered Chris Evert (you obviously don't remember my comments when comparing these two some years ago).

However, juxtaposed with each of the other dozen or so number ones playing at their highest levels, Hingis at her peak was not in the same league. Of every ten matches, 7 would have gone against her.
Certainly 6-3 6-2, 4-6 6-3 6-2, 6-4 6-3, 6-4 6-2 and 6-3 1-6 6-4 are not what i would call whipping the floor especially when you compare it to 6-2 6-0, 6-2 6-1, 6-3 6-1, 6-0 6-0 and 6-0 7-5. :rolleyes:

As i said you just can´t expect two players be peaking and facing at the same time, you have to go with the numbers and stats that you have and they clearly show Martina winning a lot of matches against those players that have been number one at some point their carreers, and i don´t event want to calculate but im pretty sure that Martina is at least top 3 in the total amount of wins with players like Capriati, Mauresmo, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Arantxa.
Not to mention who much Martina´s peak was able to acomplish in comparisson to other player´s peak.

iWill
Dec 8th, 2006, 07:55 PM
Best: Graf and Serena

Worst: Momo or Clijsters

Reasoning: I look at it like this who was the most "dominant" at number one when i think of the number 1 player i think they should always be the first player you mention thats in contention for a title and Graf and Serena were exactly that not the Kim and Amelie werent but in many cases other lower ranked players were much more favored over them to win also Serena and Graf had to achieve more to become number one Serena with her Serena Slam and Graf with her countless number of titles as well but hey feel free to disagree with me

Steffica Greles
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:01 PM
Certainly 6-3 6-2, 4-6 6-3 6-2, 6-4 6-3, 6-4 6-2 and 6-3 1-6 6-4 are not what i would call whipping the floor especially when you compare it to 6-2 6-0, 6-2 6-1, 6-3 6-1, 6-0 6-0 and 6-0 7-5. :rolleyes:

As i said you just can´t expect two players be peaking and facing at the same time, you have to go with the numbers and stats that you have and they clearly show Martina winning a lot of matches against those players that have been number one at some point their carreers, and i don´t event want to calculate but im pretty sure that Martina is at least top 3 in the total amount of wins with players like Capriati, Mauresmo, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Arantxa.
Not to mention who much Martina´s peak was able to acomplish in comparisson to other player´s peak.

Well, the difference between me and you is that I believe that Martina only had a chance against most of the tougher opponents when they were playing below their highest level, or before they were experienced enough to even be aware of their potential.

Sure she has good a head-to-head against Venus, Serena, Davenport, Seles, Mauresmo, Capriati, Pierce, etc. But I firmly believe, from my own interpretation of matches, that when those players were at their highest levels, each match was in their hands and not Martina's. Those players always went out to the court with that belief; they often said so in pre-match conferences.

You have a different interpretation: that Hingis forced errors and prevented them from playing at their highest level. For the most part, I think that is a bogus argument. Hingis always tried her best, and credit to her. It's amazing she wasn't crushed more often. But I don't really think a player who hits 4 or 5 winners per match is ever going to impose herself on any player with a more potent arsenal.

It's all moot at the end of the day.

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:09 PM
Well, the difference between me and you is that I believe that Martina only had a chance against most of the tougher opponents when they were playing below their highest level, or before they were experienced enough to even be aware of their potential.

Sure she has good a head-to-head against Venus, Serena, Davenport, Seles, Mauresmo, Capriati, Pierce, etc. But I firmly believe, from my own interpretation of matches, that when those players were at their highest levels, each match was in their hands and not Martina's. Those players always went out to the court with that belief; they often said so in pre-match conferences.

You have a different interpretation: that Hingis forced errors and prevented them from playing at their highest level. For the most part, I think that is a bogus argument. Hingis always tried her best, and credit to her. It's amazing she wasn't crushed more often. But I don't really think a player who hits 4 or 5 winners per match is ever going to impose herself on any player with a more potent arsenal.

It's all moot at the end of the day.
Hingis at her best goes for at least she used to.

The only matches i really feel that she played some of her best tennis this year came against Zvonareva at the Australian and in Tokio against Sharapova, where Martina outnumbered Sharapova in winners.

Usopen 97 comes to mind when thinking about Martina´s playing her best against Venus and against Davenport in the semis. Australian Open 1999 Hingis also played brilliant tennis, forcing the play rather than just wait for the error.
And of course her fall 2000 and early 2001 where she beat Davenport, Venus, Serena, and so on.

Steffica Greles
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:23 PM
Usopen 97 comes to mind when thinking about Martina´s playing her best against Venus and against Davenport in the semis. Australian Open 1999 Hingis also played brilliant tennis, forcing the play rather than just wait for the error.
And of course her fall 2000 and early 2001 where she beat Davenport, Venus, Serena, and so on.

Some good examples. Hingis played some superb tennis late 2000 to early 2001. But was it sustainable? No. Hingis does not have the physique to play that type of tennis for the long term. She realised that when she decided to take her break. It was why she was claiming she needed "medical miracles" (more like "acceptance") to come back. And it also why she was so tired and forlorn against Capriati in the 2001 Australian Open final.

Also, Venus was not at her best in her AO 2001 loss (look at the score), and Serena had not yet matured and learned to harness her power and athleticism to its most devastating level. (See Indian Wells 2002 or the U.S Open of 2001 and you'll see what happened when she did. Hingis was helpless.)

spencercarlos
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:37 PM
Some good examples. Hingis played some superb tennis late 2000 to early 2001. But was it sustainable? No. Hingis does not have the physique to play that type of tennis for the long term. She realised that when she decided to take her break. It was why she was claiming she needed "medical miracles" (more like "acceptance") to come back. And it also why she was so tired and forlorn against Capriati in the 2001 Australian Open final.

Also, Venus was not at her best in her AO 2001 loss (look at the score), and Serena had not yet matured and learned to harness her power and athleticism to its most devastating level. (See Indian Wells 2002 or the U.S Open of 2001 and you'll see what happened when she did. Hingis was helpless.)

Never got to see Indian Wells 2002, but still by the Usopen 2001 Hingis was not playing that well at all as i explained you and showed numbers, in fact she should have lost to Iva Majoli rounds earlier.

Serena played an impecable match against Hingis, 100% of first serves in, in the second set, and winners left and right, no woman on earth could have stoped Serena in that day, those were in fact flashes of her 2002 season form.

Venus played a very bad match at the Australian Open 2001, i agree but both Venus and Serena had already won grand slam events by then, so where your theory of not "experienced enough to even be aware of their potential" come into play here.

Or they just decided to tank matches against Hingis lol.

Hingis has beaten power players like Venus, Serena, Davenport, Seles, Pierce many times, and also able to beat them at grand slam events after they were grand slam champions to come here and say they were not experienced enough.


Some good examples. Hingis played some superb tennis late 2000 to early 2001. But was it sustainable?
Very few people have sustained that kind of level where Martina won 6 of 8 events and reached 7 finals in that stretch just before the Australian Open. Plus Hingis played 10 straight finals from October 2000 to February 2001.
I invite you to name a player not named Graf, Seles, Evert, Navratilova that has reached that many finals straight finals, and winning at least 7 of 10 which Hingis did at some point of their carreer.

PD. In 1997 she played 10 straight finals and won 9 of 10.

hingisGOAT
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:39 PM
Some good examples. Hingis played some superb tennis late 2000 to early 2001. But was it sustainable? No. Hingis does not have the physique to play that type of tennis for the long term. She realised that when she decided to take her break. It was why she was claiming she needed "medical miracles" (more like "acceptance") to come back. And it also why she was so tired and forlorn against Capriati in the 2001 Australian Open final.

Also, Venus was not at her best in her AO 2001 loss (look at the score), and Serena had not yet matured and learned to harness her power and athleticism to its most devastating level. (See Indian Wells 2002 or the U.S Open of 2001 and you'll see what happened when she did. Hingis was helpless.)

hmm... 4/10

troll harder next time

Marcus1979
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:42 PM
I don't think Kim has a mental problem against Justine. I think Justine had a mental problem against Kim and rid herself of it at RG '03. Thereafter, particularly in 2006, Kim doesn't try as hard against Justine but that's because (except on hardcourt where they are 50:50) she knows that Justine is the better player. If you watch Kim's wins over Justine prior to 2003, Justine outplays Kim, but crumbles at the important points. Kim sometimes does this against Justine now but mostly is just outplayed.

not necessarily. I remember a match in Sydney in 2002 I think it was where Kim blew Justine off the court. It was 6-2 6-1 or something

Helen Lawson
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:47 PM
People are always bringing up Louise Fletcher, but has anyone ever really tried to sit through Kitty Foyle? Also, I personally never thought Audrey Hepburn was any kind of actress at all, but I guess there's worse on the list.

Marcus1979
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Some good examples. Hingis played some superb tennis late 2000 to early 2001. But was it sustainable? No. Hingis does not have the physique to play that type of tennis for the long term. She realised that when she decided to take her break. It was why she was claiming she needed "medical miracles" (more like "acceptance") to come back. And it also why she was so tired and forlorn against Capriati in the 2001 Australian Open final.

Also, Venus was not at her best in her AO 2001 loss (look at the score), and Serena had not yet matured and learned to harness her power and athleticism to its most devastating level. (See Indian Wells 2002 or the U.S Open of 2001 and you'll see what happened when she did. Hingis was helpless.)

:secret: The Indian Wells boycott started in 2002 I think u mean Miami ;)

thrust
Dec 8th, 2006, 10:59 PM
I still think that Seles, Graf, Serena, Venus, Justine, Lindsay at their best would have a winning H-H against Hingis, at her best.

plantman
Dec 9th, 2006, 02:37 AM
Best: Graf
Worst: Capriati.
The US-Italian won nearly nothing on tour.
I can't ever remember wether the italian bull was no 1 or not.
I think, it was. Because 3 Grand Slam-titles, that's the way to no 1.
Ok, 1 Olympic Gold Medal, that was in another era.
But 14 titles in the 10 year career? that's not much.

The first title was won by a little girl.
The last titles were won by a bull.

You can't remember yet you voted for J.Cap:confused:

Barrie_Dude
Dec 9th, 2006, 02:44 AM
You can't remember yet you voted for J.Cap:confused:
:worship: Jen!:worship:

plantman
Dec 9th, 2006, 02:59 AM
She's won 14 singles titles if I'm correct! Capriati that is!

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 9th, 2006, 04:41 AM
Graf is the best. Mauresmo worst.

darrinbaker00
Dec 9th, 2006, 07:33 AM
BEST NO. 1
Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Tracy Austin, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin-Hardenne, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova (in chronological order)

WORST NO. 1
None of the above (in any order)

Jeff
Dec 9th, 2006, 08:17 AM
Best: Serena
Worst: Mauresmo

Although Mauresmo was #1 and won two slams, it will still be considered somewhat of a shock or upset if she wins another slam. The better #1's, while #1 at their peak (e.g. Serena) were expected to be a major threat for a slam every time they played.

Jakeev
Dec 9th, 2006, 09:04 AM
Far as I am concerned there is no such thing as the worst number one. Frankly, that assumption is just plain stupid.

For a player to make it to number one, she had to do something special.

Granted some players have had bigger seasons than others, like Navratilova and Graf, but does that mean you take away from a Lindsay Davenport just cause perhaps she didn't win as much in a year as the two mentioned.

Anyone who makes it to number one deserves to be there.

wateva
Dec 9th, 2006, 10:45 AM
Oh for sure, we all know that it isn't a big accomplishment at all, to win Wimbledon while entering the tournie ranked as the World #1 ; gosh I loooooooooooooove your mediocrity Momo :drool: :lol:

:wavey: hi habs! u're back!
poor momo, she gets little recognition even though she won 2 grand slams.
stats wise, kim should be lower then momo.:o

bmwofoz
Dec 9th, 2006, 10:58 AM
All these players are greats of the game

Chris Evert, Great base liner
Martina Navratilova, Best serve and volley I've ever seen
Tracy Austin, Great base liner
Steffi Graf, Great court mover, great forehand with powerful serve
Monica Seles, Great base liner, ruthless brave
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Great base liner, great fighter, great doubles player
Martina Hingis, Great court mover, great all round game
Lindsay Davenport, Great base liner, great striker of the ball
Jennifer Capriati, Great base liner, great serve, great attitude
Venus Williams, Great base liner, great serve, great court coverage
Serena Williams, Great all round game
Kim Clijsters, Great base liner
Justine Henin-Hardenne, Great backhand
Amelie Mauresmo, Great base liner
Maria Sharapova Great base liner

-GenEz.Williams
Dec 9th, 2006, 11:34 AM
i think if your the number one player you deserve it thats why your number 1!
so i believe that there us no worst number 1..
best for me is steffi ,seles, serena, venus, henin

Shonami Slam
Dec 9th, 2006, 02:10 PM
i thought the question waqs reffering to best/worst player playing as #1, and then you would think it should have been easy enough to point whomever won most/least as the top ranked in the world.
but people look at it as yet another GOAT discussion, so the thread lost most of it's nterest.
but some bright people still had very nice posts.

Andy T
Dec 9th, 2006, 03:02 PM
i thought the question waqs reffering to best/worst player playing as #1, and then you would think it should have been easy enough to point whomever won most/least as the top ranked in the world.
but people look at it as yet another GOAT discussion, so the thread lost most of it's nterest.
but some bright people still had very nice posts.

I agree. The trouble is that a lot of people answer the question 'who's your favourite player' and not the one actually asked in threads like these.

Steffica Greles
Dec 9th, 2006, 05:38 PM
Hingis has beaten power players like Venus, Serena, Davenport, Seles, Pierce many times, and also able to beat them at grand slam events after they were grand slam champions to come here and say they were not experienced enough.

Very few people have sustained that kind of level where Martina won 6 of 8 events and reached 7 finals in that stretch just before the Australian Open. Plus Hingis played 10 straight finals from October 2000 to February 2001.
I invite you to name a player not named Graf, Seles, Evert, Navratilova that has reached that many finals straight finals, and winning at least 7 of 10 which Hingis did at some point of their carreer.

PD. In 1997 she played 10 straight finals and won 9 of 10.

First of all, the Williamses not being aware of their potential and having both already won grandslams are not in conflict: neither of them seemed to realise that they had the potential to contest every major final.

The realisation did finally dawn on them in 2002, and then they quickly got bored. Injured, too, but primarily bored.

You make some valuable points but ultimately they are immaterial because, as hard as you try to disagree, on my bottom line, I think, underneath you probably concur. Hingis, bringing her A game to the court, against either Graf, Seles, Davenport, Venus, Serena, Navratilova, Sharapova, Clijsters, Henin, Mauresmo or Capriati, bringing their respective A games (at their peaks), would not have emerged the winner. Each of those players possessed athleticism, muscle, aggression and endurance beyond what Hingis could withstand on days when everything fell into place for them. Hingis' own game, which is to blunt her opponents' attacks, is an irrelevance in such scenarios.

You can highlight Hingis' impressive record and I won't argue with you on that. I can't. But really anybody with any sense of reality knows that I'm right.

Talula
Dec 9th, 2006, 05:48 PM
Steffica Greles is right. Anyone with a sniff of tennis history knows it. Steffica Greles had the courtesy NOT to say it, but Hingis got lucky in a lull between players towards the end of their careers, those still wet behind the ears, and Monica who could never have been expected to be the same. It took Graf to prove the point in '99. And the Williams' thereafter.

Bette_Midler
Dec 10th, 2006, 01:54 PM
In the "open" era? Considering that "era" began in 1968, we have to look a little deeper and remember the great champions that have accomplished great things before the current crop of players. Between 1969 and 1973 the great Australian Margaret Court won an astounding 11 majors, including the Grand Slam in 1970, and during that run won 6 consecutive titles at the big 4. Only Navratilova and Graf have come close to this record, and Margaret has both of them beat if we "open" up the era to include Margaret's entire 1960-1975 career at the top. She won more singles titles than any man or woman in the history of tennis (yes, about a dozen more than Navratilova, kids), and won every single title of importance everywhere there was a title to win on the planet at least once, and many of them multiple times.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a223/alfajeffster/Margaretinflight2.jpg


Worst? The only worst I care to comment on is The Worst of the Jefferson Airplane. It's a nice collection and worth the listen...

:worship:

1star
Dec 14th, 2006, 05:40 AM
Well, [B]the least accomplished #1 is Clijsters...This is true if she retires this year or so

ASV_FAN
Dec 14th, 2006, 05:00 PM
I can't believe people are debating the "worst" no.1 it seems such an odd thing want to decide! Is it determined by the quality of an entire career of any player who held the no.1 ranking? In that case you'd have to say Tracey Austin I suppose, but I'd quite happily be branded the "worst" no.1 at tennis, it still leaves you ahead of the remaining thousands lol.

MinnyGophers
Dec 14th, 2006, 06:16 PM
Best: Serena
Worst: Mauresmo

Although Mauresmo was #1 and won two slams, it will still be considered somewhat of a shock or upset if she wins another slam. The better #1's, while #1 at their peak (e.g. Serena) were expected to be a major threat for a slam every time they played.


I love how a player who consistently reaches the semifinals at every slams ( well except RG but you can discount that one out) and reached the finals of three majors this year is not considered a major threat at slams.

Come up with a better reason.

TonyP
Dec 14th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Yes, Hingis got lucky -- for 209 weeks.

(Can't imagine why she is wasting that kind of luck on tennis. She should be at the gaming tables in Monte Carlo or Las Vegas.)

Steffica Greles
Dec 14th, 2006, 07:15 PM
Yes, Hingis got lucky -- for 209 weeks.

(Can't imagine why she is wasting that kind of luck on tennis. She should be at the gaming tables in Monte Carlo or Las Vegas.)

Hingis never got lucky :)

She worked very hard for the number one ranking -- too hard. By 2002 her body had given way from her arduous struggle to maintain a false ranking over players who often defeated her in final rounds.

Hingis was last number one in late 2001. By that time, everybody knew that she had not been the true world's best player for at least two years, maybe three. So weeks at the top mean very little to me.

hingisGOAT
Dec 14th, 2006, 07:22 PM
:weirdo:

FERLKE
Dec 14th, 2006, 07:23 PM
By 2002 her body had given way from her arduous struggle to maintain a false ranking over players who often defeated her in final rounds.
Hingis was last number one in late 2001. By that time, everybody knew that she had not been the true world's best player for at least two years, maybe three.

I totally agree

mike/topgun
Dec 14th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Steffica Greles
Hingis was last number one in late 2001. By that time, everybody knew that she had not been the true world's best player for at least two years, maybe three. So weeks at the top mean very little to me.
It was obvious in 1999 after the memorable final in Paris and the shocking loss to Dokic that Martina is no longer the world's best player. She was consequently loosing all the big matches to Davenport, Williamses, Capriati...But the level of play was getting higher and higher during that period of time, so even watching her being beaten was a good sign.

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 12:59 PM
One could even pin her demise back to as early as the autumn indoor circuit of 1997, when she first began to look fallible, but that was probably fatigue from a long year, mixed with lack of motivation.

I would actually say the descent began in early 1998, with those two losses to Venus Williams, a crushing at the hands of Davenport in Tokyo (2-6 2-6) and her first loss to Seles, who was thumping the ball as hard as she ever did at the French Open. Later, at the U.S Open, she was overwhelmed by Davenport in the final.

It was clear, even by that stage, that players with more weapons were able to hit Hingis off the court; those with greater athleticism were able to chase down Hingis' angles and drop shots and reflect her frustration tactics back on to her. Graf employed this tactic perfectly at the 1999 French Open. Hingis' use of the court was absolutely exquisite in that match, and she played some of her best tennis. But she was thoroughly impotent, unable to hit sufficient winners against a woman who could cover every angle. It was that fact which was the root of Hingis' frustration, resulting in her explosion.

By mid-1999, it was patently obvious that Hingis was no longer the best player in the world, whatever the rankings showed. Her loss to Serena in the final of the U.S Open underlined that. The Williams sisters and Davenport had known for over a year by then that if they brought their best games to the court, Hingis was at their mercy. From January 2000, she no longer held a grandslam title, despite competing in all of them. And yet she was no.1 in the world for almost another two full seasons. So Hingis' total weeks at the top may show consistency, but they certainly are not indicative of potency or dominance, and that is why I give such statistics little weight when calculating who was the best, or the worst, no.1 in the world.

martinahfan
Dec 15th, 2006, 01:39 PM
for me martina hingis is best number 1

amelie mauresmo is the worst

TonyP
Dec 15th, 2006, 02:08 PM
One last time, there is no such thing as a false ranking in tennis. The rankings are not based on whim or on subjective criteria, they are based on an accumulation of points that every player has the same chance at.

Its a scientific system. You may not like the system, but it operates the same for everyone.

Davenport was ranked number one in the world at year end four times, yet only won a slam in one of those years, and nobody runs around saying she was not the "true" number one.

Hingis was a slam winner in two of the three years she was ranked number one and the third year won nine tournaments, including the year end championships.

When she held the number one ranking, she deserved it, or else nobody really deserves it, nobody that is, unless they happen to be one of your favorites.

champion88
Dec 15th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Best: Serena Williams
Worst: Amélie Mauresmo

Dexter
Dec 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM
Best - Graf.
Worst - Mauresmo.

:)

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 03:53 PM
One last time, there is no such thing as a false ranking in tennis. The rankings are not based on whim or on subjective criteria, they are based on an accumulation of points that every player has the same chance at.

Its a scientific system. You may not like the system, but it operates the same for everyone.

Davenport was ranked number one in the world at year end four times, yet only won a slam in one of those years, and nobody runs around saying she was not the "true" number one.

Hingis was a slam winner in two of the three years she was ranked number one and the third year won nine tournaments, including the year end championships.

When she held the number one ranking, she deserved it, or else nobody really deserves it, nobody that is, unless they happen to be one of your favorites.

I don't really have favourites for a start, or at least haven't had for many years.

Hingis deserved the number one spot for her efforts, as I've already suggested. But a ranking is only a number, as all the players who have excelled above the others (Graf, Seles, Navratilova, Venus, Serena) have acknowledged throughout history; Hingis, after 1997, was not such a player. She was not the best in the world. It was because she knew that she was not the best in the world that her ranking became so important to her ego. So she ground down her little bones attempting to protect her ego and live in denial. When both her mind and body were struck by the realisation, she missed the next 3-4 years.

As Venus once told us when lamenting a line call, waving her finger around at the audience: you know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Gooner
Dec 15th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Best: Steffi Graf

Worst: Kim Clijsters

TonyP
Dec 15th, 2006, 04:17 PM
A ranking is only a number?

No, its only an important number. Its why when the announcer at a tennis match introduces a player, they often cite their ranking, if it is high enough. Its why journalists cite a player's ranking.

And its why just about every recognized expert in this sport refers to Hingis as the former world number one.

And fyi, most of the fans feel that way, too. That's why the Hingis come back swamped every other event this year in women's tennis on the WTA's own poll.


And I think that makes some of those who despise her even more angry at her. See, she had something some other players do not have, an actual personality, and that's another reason she was so missed when her injuries took her out of the sport.

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 04:39 PM
I wouldn't dispute that Hingis has a great personality and that she was sorely missed. But that's not what we're debating.

This part was most interesting:

A ranking is only a number?

No, its only an important number. Its why when the announcer at a tennis match introduces a player, they often cite their ranking, if it is high enough. Its why journalists cite a player's ranking.

And its why just about every recognized expert in this sport refers to Hingis as the former world number one.


That's very true. To the press and many other people, a ranking is very important.

But would a player who knows they are the best, or who has proven so, really need that prestige to feed their ego? No. It is extraneous to what happens on the court.

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 04:42 PM
she was so missed when her injuries took her out of the sport.

Oh those. The injuries she needed, in her words, "medical miracles" to recover from just 12 months before she started training again?

We all know that far more than injuries kept Hingis away from the tour. It was a process of acceptance for her, as well.

TonyP
Dec 15th, 2006, 04:48 PM
NO, what we're debating is the number ones.

If you reject the ranking system, if you reject the idea that the rankings accurately reflect accomplishments of a player during a given period of time, what are you doing in this debate in the first place?

Don't go by rankings, then, just say I don't believe in them and use some other criteria to gage success or failure.

The tour chooses to go by rankings and its hard to say they are not fair. In 2000, for instance, HIngis won 77 matches, 20 more than any other player on tour. She also won more tournaments than any other player, and they included big tournaments, Miami, Montreal, Zurich and the Year End Championship.

In doing so, she accumulated more points than any other player that year. And along the way, she beat Davenport, Serena Williams and Seles to name an obvious few. That's what she did to earn the number one ranking that year.

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 05:06 PM
If you reject the ranking system, if you reject the idea that the rankings accurately reflect accomplishments of a player during a given period of time, what are you doing in this debate in the first place?

Because, whether I reject the ranking system or not, and I most certainly do, although I recognise their use in seeding and promoting players in the media, Martina Hingis was number one in the world. We're talking about players who reached number one, and picking who was "worst". As I wrote earlier, that depends on whether you measure by statistics, or subjectively by which player, at their best, was least formidable. Of the 16 (?) number ones, I believe that Hingis, at her peak, would only have bested Evert, Austin and Sanchez-Vicario at their respective peaks.

Don't go by rankings, then, just say I don't believe in them and use some other criteria to gage success or failure.


I do. I use my own eyes, most of all, and people are entitled to disagree. And I've seen all 16 number ones play at around about their peak times.

Statistically, the answer is relatively easy, even if I do reject the ranking criteria -- Clijsters. But, at her height, she was far more formidable than many of the past number ones at their peak, including Hingis. That's not going by statistics. That's going by whom I believe would have defeated whom.

TonyP
Dec 15th, 2006, 05:10 PM
One more point.

The idea that a player who knew she was the best wouldn't need to be number one is a strange idea.

Does an actress who knows she is really the best need an Oscar?

Does a soldier need a medal?

Do kids need that gold star they get for not missing any class days?

Most normal human beings like some sort of recognition for their efforts and I doubt that either Steffi Graf or Monica Seles is immune to that.

I have personally talked to a lot of these people.

I was present in Los Angeles in 2003 when they had that parade of former number ones before the finals of the year end championship at Staples Center. I talked to many of them, including Tracy Austin, who didn't obviously hold the number one ranking for long, but she said it meant a lot to her at the time to be one of the (I forget if then it was 13 or 14 women) who had been ranked number one.

Ironically, just about the only people not there were the Williams sisters, then in some kind of strange dispute with the WTA and unfortunately, they could not be bothered to show up, even though both were in town.

But we've heard Serena say that people thought she was number one even when she wasn't, so it must mean something to her (and she has about as big an ego as you will find anywhere in sports.)


The fact is, all number ones are type A personalities and most of them have big egos. Think Navratilova didn't? Think Chrissy didn"t? Think KIng didn't?"

Believe me, I have been around all of them and they all do.

spencercarlos
Dec 15th, 2006, 05:18 PM
At least you are accepting her injured status, anyone who watched her losing to Seles for example at the Usopen 2002 when Seles was not playing well herself either, should have noticed that Martina was not moving nearly as well and she normally does.

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 05:48 PM
At least you are accepting her injured status, anyone who watched her losing to Seles for example at the Usopen 2002 when Seles was not playing well herself either, should have noticed that Martina was not moving nearly as well and she normally does.

That's true. Hingis should have just taken 2002 off and returned in 2003. But she was bored in 2002 when she injured - she said so herself. So she came back visibly undertoned and less fit compared to her former image.

And then in January 2003 she decided she was terminally injured. The reality was that she was worn out from competing with greater athletes and having to work twice as hard as they did just to keep abreast -- and still being unable to win grandslams. Losing to a flabby Capriati in Melbourne 2002 must have been a crushing blow, especially having held match point, and even more so given that it was she, and not a visibly out-of-shape Capriati, who wilted under the heat.

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 06:04 PM
One more point.

The idea that a player who knew she was the best wouldn't need to be number one is a strange idea.

Does an actress who knows she is really the best need an Oscar?

Does a soldier need a medal?

Do kids need that gold star they get for not missing any class days?

Most normal human beings like some sort of recognition for their efforts and I doubt that either Steffi Graf or Monica Seles is immune to that.

I have personally talked to a lot of these people.

I was present in Los Angeles in 2003 when they had that parade of former number ones before the finals of the year end championship at Staples Center. I talked to many of them, including Tracy Austin, who didn't obviously hold the number one ranking for long, but she said it meant a lot to her at the time to be one of the (I forget if then it was 13 or 14 women) who had been ranked number one.



What on earth are you talking about?

Of course players enjoy being number one. Of course they like it. But there's a difference between seeing it as a bonus which will come with titles, and striving for it regardless of titles. The latter entails playing too often in pursuit of prestige where something else -- the title count -- is lacking. In Hingis' case, major titles were lacking and what mattered. I've seen countless players suffer mental and physical burnout, either temporarily, as Hingis did, or permanently, because they chased ranking points. Maybe Tracy Austin is not the best person to comment. It's a vicious cycle to get into.

As for the other analogies you made, I'm afraid I can't really respond to them because to me they make no sense in the context of the point you are trying to make.

hingisGOAT
Dec 15th, 2006, 06:06 PM
not surprisingly, a thread about the all-time greats of the game turns into a heated discussion about one player: martina hingis ;)

steffica, what is it about hingis that causes you to post so obsessively about her? is it her smile? her charm? her blistering backhand? :wavey:

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 06:20 PM
steffica, what is it about hingis that causes you to post so obsessively about her? is it her smile? her charm? her blistering backhand? :wavey:

Though she possesses all of those qualities in abundance, although I'm not sure "blistering" is the word you were looking for to describe what is nonetheless a great shot, those are not the reasons for my interest.

I think I just hate hype. It really jars with me. It enables people to become something completely far flung from reality in other people's minds. We all succumb to some extent, but at least I try to stop myself. Maybe that's related to my point about the rankings being for nothing more than prestige and media promotion. They're not indicative of who is the best player, and aren't even intended for that reason any longer.

Hingis is hyped. She always has been. If Hingis was not hyped in the way that she is, I would be able to admire her for all of her obvious talents as I do, say, Patty Schnyder. Not that I'm equating Hingis' ability to Schnyder's, because she's a more effective player.

I think people really fail to see the reality of her career. And that's what motivates me to keep this up. As well as the fact that closed-minded people don't want to hear it, which is all the more reason to write my thoughts.

:)

darrinbaker00
Dec 15th, 2006, 06:29 PM
Though she possesses all of those qualities in abundance, although I'm not sure "blistering" is the word you were looking for to describe what is nonetheless a great shot, those are not the reasons for my interest.

I think I just hate hype. It really jars with me. It enables people to become something completely far flung from reality in other people's minds. We all succumb to some extent, but at least I try to stop myself. Maybe that's related to my point about the rankings being for nothing more than prestige and media promotion. They're not indicative of who is the best player, and aren't even intended for that reason any longer.

Hingis is hyped. She always has been. If Hingis was not hyped in the way that she is, I would be able to admire her for all of her obvious talents as I do, say, Patty Schnyder. Not that I'm equating Hingis' ability to Schnyder's, because she's a more effective player.

I think people really fail to see the reality of her career. And that's what motivates me to keep this up. As well as the fact that closed-minded people don't want to hear it, which is all the more reason to write my thoughts.

:)
You're absolutely right, Steffica. I mean, all Hingis has done so far in her career is win 78 titles (including 13 majors), pocket $19.5 million in prize money, and spend 209 weeks as #1. All hype.

schris
Dec 15th, 2006, 06:34 PM
the best : Steffi Graf :)
the worst: hmm Clijsters? :sad:

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 06:35 PM
You're absolutely right, Steffica. I mean, all Hingis has done so far in her career is win 78 titles (including 13 majors), pocket $19.5 million in prize money, and spend 209 weeks as #1. All hype.

Which really says something about how much she has been hyped :)

TonyP
Dec 15th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Yes, Hingis was hyped.

Let's see. She won the French Open juniors title at age 12.

She was the youngest player in the history of Wimbledon to win an adult title there.

She was the youngest player in the open era to win a slam.

She was the youngest player in the 20th century to win the Wimbledon singles title.

she was the youngest number one in singles in history.

She is one of only four women in history to win a calendar year grand slam in doubles.

She is one of only a handful of players to ever be ranked number one in both singles and doubles at the same time.

She is missing only one singles and one doubles title to have won every major title on the WTA tour.

And it obviously ain't over yet!

But I have to agree. Hingis is mostly just hype. That is obviously how, after three full years away from the sport, she got back to number seven in the world in just one season (and without any protected ranking, either.).

Too bad more of us can't see through the facade, though, and realize that all these alleged accomplishments don't mean anything at all.

Steffica Greles
Dec 15th, 2006, 07:51 PM
Yes, Hingis was hyped.

Let's see. She won the French Open juniors title at age 12.

She was the youngest player in the history of Wimbledon to win an adult title there.

She was the youngest player in the open era to win a slam.

She was the youngest player in the 20th century to win the Wimbledon singles title.

she was the youngest number one in singles in history.

She is one of only four women in history to win a calendar year grand slam in doubles.

She is one of only a handful of players to ever be ranked number one in both singles and doubles at the same time.

She is missing only one singles and one doubles title to have won every major title on the WTA tour.

And it obviously ain't over yet!

But I have to agree. Hingis is mostly just hype. That is obviously how, after three full years away from the sport, she got back to number seven in the world in just one season (and without any protected ranking, either.).

Too bad more of us can't see through the facade, though, and realize that all these alleged accomplishments don't mean anything at all.

Well people talk about her "skills" when her serve is benign, her forehand is nothing more than a stroke as opposed to a shot and her backhand does not fire as many winners as it could. Her volleys are decent, but her problem has always been that her first volley does not do sufficient damage; as usual, she lacks the confidence to put the ball away until she is presented with an easy shot. Against quick opponents who can chase her first volleys, she often gets bombarded at the net or passed.

And people were seriously talking about Hingis becoming the greatest player ever at one time.

To get back to no.7 in the rankings she has done well, although we all know that if Venus and Serena were bothering, or if Davenport had been able to compete, she would have been no.10.

Hingis has not won a slam since January 1999. She left the tour late in 2002, or in April 2002 as a top player. During those three and a half years, she did not win another slam. We've already discussed the irrelevance of weeks at the top.

People are hyping her because she has won five slams when three of those were nine years ago. None of them were during the three and a half year period before she left the tour. By late 2002, she was already proven to be past her most effective. And yet people are talking about her now as if she left the tour in early 1999 and has returned to regain her crown.

darrinbaker00
Dec 15th, 2006, 08:12 PM
Well people talk about her "skills" when her serve is benign, her forehand is nothing more than a stroke as opposed to a shot and her backhand does not fire as many winners as it could. Her volleys are decent, but her problem has always been that her first volley does not do sufficient damage; as usual, she lacks the confidence to put the ball away until she is presented with an easy shot. Against quick opponents who can chase her first volleys, she often gets bombarded at the net or passed.

And people were seriously talking about Hingis becoming the greatest player ever at one time.

To get back to no.7 in the rankings she has done well, although we all know that if Venus and Serena were bothering, or if Davenport had been able to compete, she would have been no.10.

Hingis has not won a slam since January 1999. She left the tour late in 2002, or in April 2002 as a top player. During those three and a half years, she did not win another slam. We've already discussed the irrelevance of weeks at the top.

People are hyping her because she has won five slams when three of those were nine years ago. None of them were during the three and a half year period before she left the tour. By late 2002, she was already proven to be past her most effective. And yet people are talking about her now as if she left the tour in early 1999 and has returned to regain her crown.
No, YOU have discussed the irrelevance of weeks at the top. Actually, everything you have discussed is your opinion, not fact. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

Helen Lawson
Dec 15th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Here's something more interesting.

Jame Gumb kidnaps Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, and Chris Evert, throws them into three separate wells. Who gets out first (alive) and how/why?

King of Prussia
Dec 15th, 2006, 08:40 PM
The idea of imaginary matches between former 1 at their peaks is highly subjective.

Seles is overrated, and that's coming from someone who followed her over a decade. In the 91-93 period, she brought women's tennis to a new level and the other players didn't have an answer. No doubt she was great, but it's a question of being ahead of her time more than anything else. Except for her fitness, Seles basically played the same level of tennis since 95. And she won only 1 (weak) slam. Unfortunately, it's impossible to have any kind of rational talk about Seles, people are too emotional over the issue.

Hingis is a special case. Her junior career was so exceptional (winning the French at 12, nuff' said), it's no surprise people expected her to become a Federer. After 97, I thought she would. However, she didn't like to train and her game, instead of improving, went down. But in term of talent and potential, she is superior to Capriati, Clijsters, Davenport, ... and yes, Seles.

Hingis was TOYING with Seles. I saw most of the matches. Seles had to be at her absolute best to hope to beat her. I don't see what would have been THAT different with the 91-93 Seles. She would have been vulnerable against Hingis in that period too.

TonyP
Dec 15th, 2006, 08:42 PM
"Well people talk about her "skills" when her serve is benign, her forehand is nothing more than a stroke as opposed to a shot and her backhand does not fire as many winners as it could. Her volleys are decent, but her problem has always been that her first volley does not do sufficient damage; as usual, she lacks the confidence to put the ball away until she is presented with an easy shot. Against quick opponents who can chase her first volleys, she often gets bombarded at the net or passed."

I print out a whole laundry list of personal achievements and you change directions, taking apart Martina's individual strokes as proof of her lack of "skills."

Just exactly how any player could win 5 slams and a total of 42 singles titles and have such a poor game is quite amazing.

Take her first volley. Obviously weak. So the fact that she has won 37 doubles titles, ten of them slams, means she always picks great partners.

And don't complain doubles is different, because HIngis comes to net in doubles, just like she does in singles, except a lot more often, whether it is off her serve or her return.

But anyway, she hits weak volleyes and is often passed.

That's how she managed to win three Australian Open doubles titles three years in a row with three different partners, the only time in history that has ever happened.

Take almost any woman out there and ask them, of the players who came up in the 90s and this decade, if they had their pick of any doubles partner they wanted, who would they pick? I kind of think, if they knew she was serious about doubles and committed to playing it, Hingis would get more votes than any other player out there. Why?

Because there is no current player with nine slam doubles titles and a mixed doubles title under her belt. One of the Bryan Brothers, I think it was Bob, tried to get Hingis for a mixed partner in Australia, but got there about ten minutes after she'd agreed to play with Bhupati. Bryan said too bad, because getting Hingis as your partner is almost an automatic title.

TonyP
Dec 15th, 2006, 08:43 PM
"Well people talk about her "skills" when her serve is benign, her forehand is nothing more than a stroke as opposed to a shot and her backhand does not fire as many winners as it could. Her volleys are decent, but her problem has always been that her first volley does not do sufficient damage; as usual, she lacks the confidence to put the ball away until she is presented with an easy shot. Against quick opponents who can chase her first volleys, she often gets bombarded at the net or passed."

I print out a whole laundry list of personal achievements and you change directions, taking apart Martina's individual strokes as proof of her lack of "skills."

Just exactly how any player could win 5 slams and a total of 42 singles titles and have such a poor game is quite amazing.

Take her first volley. Obviously weak. So the fact that she has won 37 doubles titles, ten of them slams, means she always picks great partners.

And don't complain doubles is different, because HIngis comes to net in doubles, just like she does in singles, except a lot more often, whether it is off her serve or her return.

But anyway, she hits weak volleyes and is often passed.

That's how she managed to win three Australian Open doubles titles three years in a row with three different partners, the only time in history that has ever happened.

Take almost any woman out there and ask them, of the players who came up in the 90s and this decade, if they had their pick of any doubles partner they wanted, who would they pick? I kind of think, if they knew she was serious about doubles and committed to playing it, Hingis would get more votes than any other player out there. Why?

Because there is no current player with nine slam doubles titles and a mixed doubles title under her belt. One of the Bryan Brothers, I think it was Bob, tried to get Hingis for a mixed partner in Australia, but got there about ten minutes after she'd agreed to play with Bhupati. Bryan said too bad, because getting Hingis as your partner is almost an automatic title.

freeandlonely
Dec 15th, 2006, 09:08 PM
BEST: Justine henin-hardenne
WORST: Jenifer Capriati

Steffica Greles
Dec 16th, 2006, 12:05 AM
No, YOU have discussed the irrelevance of weeks at the top. Actually, everything you have discussed is your opinion, not fact. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

So that's your opinion, but you don't think you're correct?

:scratch:

Are you reading from a book of vacuous comments, or did you write it?

Of course I realise that everything I write is my opinion. If you know what the word "subjective" means, I've already described my views as that. And of course I believe I'm right. Don't you?

Fool.

lynch79
Dec 16th, 2006, 12:12 AM
All these threads are just "waking the witch"...you know what I mean guys.;)

Tenis Srbija
Dec 16th, 2006, 12:15 AM
BEST: Monika Seleš :worship:

WORST: Amelie Mauresmo :o

Steffica Greles
Dec 16th, 2006, 12:23 AM
I print out a whole laundry list of personal achievements and you change directions, taking apart Martina's individual strokes as proof of her lack of "skills."

Just exactly how any player could win 5 slams and a total of 42 singles titles and have such a poor game is quite amazing.

Take her first volley. Obviously weak. So the fact that she has won 37 doubles titles, ten of them slams, means she always picks great partners.



I am not interested in your laundry list because I knew it anyway. I have told you why I believe that her achievements are not important, because we are both judging from different criteria.

You are looking at statistics. I am imagining all the 16 number ones at their best, as if they were in a round robin format, and pondering where Hingis would be after a year. She'd be below 12th. If we're looking at statistics, it's an easy question to answer, but a boring one. Clijsters, maybe Sharapova, or possibly even Capriati.

I have seen Hingis swept away by a cascade of winners enough times to know that, for all her dexterity, she is completely vulnerable because of the way she plays. The other girls know that beating her is a simple formula: thumping the ball deep, hard, accurately, and covering the court quickly helps unless they're as devastating as Lindsay Davenport was at her best.

The clear strategy involves taking risks, and even the very best players are only successful from time to time. But the law of averages says that if Hingis faces 4 or even 3 consecutive players putting that ostensibly simple formula into practice, at least one of them will implement it perfectly. And that is why she has not won a slam in 8 years and I doubt she ever will again.

For the record, I hope I'm wrong. It would be good for the game, especially if she won a slam in the proper field. But that's pie in the sky.

Tenis Srbija
Dec 16th, 2006, 12:30 AM
You two.... :o :o :o

Steffica Greles
Dec 16th, 2006, 12:44 AM
The idea of imaginary matches between former 1 at their peaks is highly subjective.

Seles is overrated, and that's coming from someone who followed her over a decade. In the 91-93 period, she brought women's tennis to a new level and the other players didn't have an answer. No doubt she was great, but it's a question of being ahead of her time more than anything else. Except for her fitness, Seles basically played the same level of tennis since 95. And she won only 1 (weak) slam. Unfortunately, it's impossible to have any kind of rational talk about Seles, people are too emotional over the issue.

Hingis is a special case. Her junior career was so exceptional (winning the French at 12, nuff' said), it's no surprise people expected her to become a Federer. After 97, I thought she would. However, she didn't like to train and her game, instead of improving, went down. But in term of talent and potential, she is superior to Capriati, Clijsters, Davenport, ... and yes, Seles.

Hingis was TOYING with Seles. I saw most of the matches. Seles had to be at her absolute best to hope to beat her. I don't see what would have been THAT different with the 91-93 Seles. She would have been vulnerable against Hingis in that period too.

See this is an intelligent post. You make your case well.

I just remember that when Hingis was 16, I felt players hadn't yet worked out how to play her. Sometimes it takes a while. It's true that in 1998, Hingis was not meeting the challenge of Venus and Lindsay by stepping up her training. But thereafter she was one of the most disciplined, motivated players on the tour -- probably THE most. Her fitness was never in doubt, but her athletic potential was greatly limited. I could intensively train for a year and I'd still be no Raphael Nadal. Not much of her demise was in her own hands. Hingis did all that she could.

It is true that her game became less aggressive after 1997, but at the same time people say Hingis was a "tactical genius". Do people not spot the discrepancy here? If Hingis had the skills necessary to dictate matches once again, then why has she never done so? I would argue that Hingis knew that she had no choice.

Why do players stand yards behind the baseline at any rate? They do so in order to have time to line up their shots and to coordinate. The more aggressive and powerful the opponent, the more difficult it is to hold the baseline. Against formidable power and accuracy, not to mention dynamite serves, Hingis was more often forced to retreat to a safer position from which she could counter-attack, which in 2000-early 2001 she learned to do very well, although it was never going to be enough to win grandslams.

So Hingis did not make a conscious choice to be less aggressive from 1998 onwards. As I've said already, why would she have changed a successful formula? She was drifting with the winds of change rather than steering.

I think you make good points about Hingis and Seles, and I have thought the same at times. Why was Seles of 1998 necessarily a worse player than in 1993? Is it just a fallacy?

But that is another debate in itself. Hingis knew how to expose Seles' weaknesses far better than any other player ever did. However, Seles did show that, at her absolute best, she was capable of defeating Hingis in straight sets on several occasions. Some will argue Hingis was not at her best, but if she knew what to do against Seles, as she clearly did in all of those matches when she made her appear slow, one-dimesional and cumbersome, then why was she unable to do it on those occasions? Hingis rarely ever plays badly because not enough in her game can go wrong.

But I do see your point there.

bmwofoz
Dec 16th, 2006, 01:12 AM
I think when comparing Seles of 1993 with Seles of 1998, I think the big different was Two fold,
1) The players on the tour were becoming psychically bigger.
2) Seles wasn't as aggressive with her shot making

Hingis while fully deserving of No 1 ranking, due to style of game became victim to the relentless power hitting, not because she couldn't match it, but because it was so relentless.

Lets take 2001 Australian Open, Hingis beat both Williams sisters before meeting Capriati on a hot scorching Melbourne day, she needed that match to be over within Two,

bmwofoz
Dec 16th, 2006, 01:21 AM
BEST: Justine henin-hardenne
WORST: Jenifer Capriati

2001 Australian Open Champ
2001 French Open Champ
2002 Australian Open

made the Semi Finals at all 4 Grand slams on multiple occasions
won tournaments on every surface
Beat Navratrlova (best serve & volley ever) at Wimbledon
Gold medal
Was in or around the top 10 for over 10 years

darrinbaker00
Dec 16th, 2006, 01:23 AM
Are you reading from a book of vacuous comments, or did you write it?
As a matter of fact, I did write it. Would you like an autographed copy? ;)

Nicolás89
Dec 16th, 2006, 01:30 AM
2001 Australian Open Champ
2001 French Open Champ
2002 Australian Open

made the Semi Finals at all 4 Grand slams on multiple occasions
won tournaments on every surface
Beat Navratrlova (best serve & volley ever) at Wimbledon
Gold medal
Was in or around the top 10 for over 10 years

she is great
but i think the question is the best and the worst player "as" a number one, capriati won the australian open in 2002, one semi at Roland garros, and a final in charleston and miami as a number one i believe, sharapova was the weakest player as a number one though:wavey:

spencercarlos
Dec 16th, 2006, 01:50 AM
Well people talk about her "skills" when her serve is benign, her forehand is nothing more than a stroke as opposed to a shot and her backhand does not fire as many winners as it could. Her volleys are decent, but her problem has always been that her first volley does not do sufficient damage; as usual, she lacks the confidence to put the ball away until she is presented with an easy shot. Against quick opponents who can chase her first volleys, she often gets bombarded at the net or passed.


Steffica, do you really make an effort, im really impressed, but honestly im more impressed with the full B.S words you are using to describe such a natural player like Martina Hingis, you are describing probably a player that never won a grand slam and was barely in the top 20 :lol:

Her second serve is ridiculous, no one says its not, but her first serve was not as bad, she could even serve some aces here and there still not a weapon but sometimes surprising her oponnents, (see Tokio 2002 where she aced Monica a lot of times for example).

Her forehand of course was never a kill shot, but very well placed, with nice topspin (not a moonball like Arantxa or Conchita would throw sometimes), and basically a shot that she could hit well on the run, great balance. Not even to mention her half volleys off her forehand (which seems very natural and even tennis experts compare it to Agassi´s ability to hit those shots).

Her backhand was a real weapon, at her best she would just hit her down the line shot and change direction of the ball like no one else could, her peers in 96 and during her prime always talked about her great ability to do that.

Her volley being decent? :tape: Im not sure if i should answer you about this part, :lol: so funny. Im pretty sure that such a weak serve and forehand and decent volleyer would not been able to comeback from three and half years retirement from professional tennis and grab a Mixed Doubles Grand Slam at her first try :lol: yeah pfff and decent. :tape:

And volleys related to singles, in fact Hingis wins a lof of points when she gets up there at the net, for sure she needs a good approach shot, but when she gets there she wins the point there more often than not. I can imagine that girls hitting so hard these days would make it very difficult to be a sucessful net rushing player today, and Hingis is not a net rushing one either so..


And people were seriously talking about Hingis becoming the greatest player ever at one time.

A lot of people thought that way between 1997 and 1998 after the Australian Open, you should remmember someone named Billie Jean King saying she thought Hingis was the best player of all of times during that time, yeah she went ahead from the time, still yet then Hingis showed amazing mental toughness, abillity to hit from the back against the hard hitters, ability to defend, ability to play well at the net, yeah despite you hate to hear this Martina is a very complete player. Even in 1997 Hingis came with some out of nowhere serves of 106 MPH which at the time were pretty good serves.

Hingis has not won a slam since January 1999. She left the tour late in 2002, or in April 2002 as a top player.
She was a top 5 player in april 2002, but when she cameback injured in the summer of that year she was not playing even top 15 tennis, either phisically and mentally. Seles got a very cheap win at the Usopen 2002 among others.

During those three and a half years, she did not win another slam. We've already discussed the irrelevance of weeks at the top.
She did not win a grand slam yet she reached four more grand slam finals and during that time, and could beat the players that were winning grand slams during that time from Steffi, Serena, Venus, Lindsay, Jennifer,etc so she still was competitive out there, it was not like Martina dissapeared, and yet during those three and half year span she was number one for the most part, until October 2001 when she lost her number one ranking.
Probably for you is irrelevant, for Hingis it was not, in fact she would always talk about the ranking in interviews, she was passionate about it, yeah, probably she took that as her main goal instead of winning majors, but once again that was up to her.
Having those amazing numbers as the number one player were not that bad at all, she won a lot of money as well because of that so, again that was her decision.

People are hyping her because she has won five slams when three of those were nine years ago. None of them were during the three and a half year period before she left the tour. By late 2002, she was already proven to be past her most effective. And yet people are talking about her now as if she left the tour in early 1999 and has returned to regain her crown.
First no one is hyping her, not at least to the extent to think she will be able to win more grand slams or to think that she is a real bet to win a slam now. :rolleyes:

she has won five slams when three of those were nine years ago. None of them were during the three and a half year period before she left the tour.
So? Davenport did not win another one for six years, Venus went dry for almost 4 years... and these players by your reasoning are light years ahead of the poor´s stroke player Hingis :lol:

And yet people are talking about her now as if she left the tour in early 1999 and has returned to regain her crown.
Again i would be very surprised if Hingis can win another grand slam, and of course she will be lucky to reach the top 5 again, i just don´t see her playing the ranking game again. :kiss:

To end this thing, you just don´t like Martina Hingis, i don´t like Justine Henin for a fact and that won´t make me say things that are not true about her qualities as a player like you are doing for Martina. Period :wavey:

spencercarlos
Dec 16th, 2006, 02:07 AM
See this is an intelligent post. You make your case well.

I just remember that when Hingis was 16, I felt players hadn't yet worked out how to play her. Sometimes it takes a while. It's true that in 1998, Hingis was not meeting the challenge of Venus and Lindsay by stepping up her training.
Ok this sounds pretty ridiculous it is not like Hingis turned pro in 97 and dominated the tour right away, and no one knew how to play her :sad:, for your information she turned pro in 94 and she was playing the tour and a lot of players had seen her and beat her.
Players from Graf, Arantxa, Conchita, Lindsay, Jana, Huber, Zvereva, Habsudova, Sabatini, Pierce (0-6 0-6), Coetzer, Majoli, Ai, etc were beating Martina from 94 to 96, 2 years to get to know well Martina and in fact Martina was losing more often than not against these players during that time.
Although i agree and probably you read her when she said about not training that much after 1997 when she dominated the tour.

spencercarlos
Dec 16th, 2006, 02:17 AM
But that is another debate in itself. Hingis knew how to expose Seles' weaknesses far better than any other player ever did. However, Seles did show that, at her absolute best, she was capable of defeating Hingis in straight sets on several occasions. Some will argue Hingis was not at her best, but if she knew what to do against Seles, as she clearly did in all of those matches when she made her appear slow, one-dimesional and cumbersome, then why was she unable to do it on those occasions? Hingis rarely ever plays badly because not enough in her game can go wrong.

But I do see your point there.
This has been discussed before still Hingis was not at her best then and her overall results during the straight sets loss to Seles´s span show(not only Seles matches).
Still hard to make argue about Monica straight setting Hingis when Hingis won 10 of the 15 matches she won againt Monica in straight sets, with very painful to watch trashings included.

spencercarlos
Dec 16th, 2006, 02:32 AM
It is true that her game became less aggressive after 1997, but at the same time people say Hingis was a "tactical genius". Do people not spot the discrepancy here? If Hingis had the skills necessary to dictate matches once again, then why has she never done so? I would argue that Hingis knew that she had no choice.

Why do players stand yards behind the baseline at any rate? They do so in order to have time to line up their shots and to coordinate. The more aggressive and powerful the opponent, the more difficult it is to hold the baseline. Against formidable power and accuracy, not to mention dynamite serves, Hingis was more often forced to retreat to a safer position from which she could counter-attack, which in 2000-early 2001 she learned to do very well, although it was never going to be enough to win grandslams.

So Hingis did not make a conscious choice to be less aggressive from 1998 onwards. As I've said already, why would she have changed a successful formula? She was drifting with the winds of change rather than steering.

I can see your point here, i can understand you, still you can´t make an all court player, play like a hard hitting player, because that is not their nature.
Also Hingis in a hard hitting struggle she would eventually lose easier than playing a varied style because she would end up hitting the ball harder for her pace but in a easier pace and height for the big hitters. A very different story is she would play more of a varied top spin, higher balls, but deep, inmaculate defense and capitalize in every oportunity to finish the point off at the net.
Still players like Amanda, Conchita and Arantxa are not poor strategist players because they never learn to play like a power player, their nature never allowed them to do that.
On the same way which is hard to blame Mary, Lindsay or Monica post stabbing because they never were great while defending, especially when you compare it with their hitting ability.

brayster87
Dec 16th, 2006, 05:23 AM
Best: Lindsay

Worst: Mauresmo

hingisGOAT
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:31 AM
spencercarlos :bowdown: way to shut down that nasty troll :armed:

faboozadoo15
Dec 16th, 2006, 10:21 AM
Nobody had the fear factor going like Seles when she was #1.

Sharapova/Clijsters/Mauresmo haven't had it yet. Mauresmo could. Sharapovas needs to get back to #1 first. She was looking SCARY good at the end of this year, but with just that 1 loss to Justine it's all seemed to have gone down the drain.

faboozadoo15
Dec 16th, 2006, 10:30 AM
I just read that someone thinks Monica Seles is overrated. If that's any indication of where this thread is headed, I'm out.

spencercarlos
Dec 16th, 2006, 03:18 PM
The idea of imaginary matches between former 1 at their peaks is highly subjective.

Seles is overrated, and that's coming from someone who followed her over a decade. In the 91-93 period, she brought women's tennis to a new level and the other players didn't have an answer. No doubt she was great, but it's a question of being ahead of her time more than anything else. Except for her fitness, Seles basically played the same level of tennis since 95. And she won only 1 (weak) slam. Unfortunately, it's impossible to have any kind of rational talk about Seles, people are too emotional over the issue.

Hingis is a special case. Her junior career was so exceptional (winning the French at 12, nuff' said), it's no surprise people expected her to become a Federer. After 97, I thought she would. However, she didn't like to train and her game, instead of improving, went down. But in term of talent and potential, she is superior to Capriati, Clijsters, Davenport, ... and yes, Seles.

Hingis was TOYING with Seles. I saw most of the matches. Seles had to be at her absolute best to hope to beat her. I don't see what would have been THAT different with the 91-93 Seles. She would have been vulnerable against Hingis in that period too.
To deny that Monica post stabbing was not the same player either mentally, tecnically and phisically wise to the Seles of 91-93 is just as ridiculous as implying Hamburg 93 had no consequences in womens tennis.
Still i agree Hingis had the game to trouble Hingis because of her great ability to change the direction of the ball and those drop shots should have definetly worked against Seles back then, but definetly not to the extent of beating her 10 times in straight sets like it happened post stabbing.

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 03:48 PM
To deny that Monica post stabbing was not the same player either mentally, tecnically and phisically wise to the Seles of 91-93 is just as ridiculous as implying Hamburg 93 had no consequences in womens tennis.
Still i agree Hingis had the game to trouble Hingis because of her great ability to change the direction of the ball and those drop shots should have definetly worked against Seles back then, but definetly not to the extent of beating her 10 times in straight sets like it happened post stabbing.

Actually, I think she was pretty much exactly the same player. Have you seen her Canadian Open and US Open matches in 95? Mentally, solid as a rock. Some suggested her game was even slighly better, with an improved serve. Physically she wasn't as fit as before, but even without the stabbing, her father would have been sick, so her problem with food would have been there too I think.

I guess this is going off-topic, but I think the stabbing created 2 problematic issues:
- Clearly she was robbed an undetermined number of Slams, titles, etc. So she can be underrated in that aspect.
- At the same time, she's overrated by a group of people who are convinced she was on her way to become the greatest, when in fact that claim is questionable, due to her lack of success since her comeback. Of course we're back to the point "was she the same since her comeback?", then the debate goes in circle.

But anyway, to stay on-topic, I think there is an argument to make that peak Hingis could be superior to peak Seles. But this is really highly speculative.

spencercarlos
Dec 16th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Actually, I think she was pretty much exactly the same player. Have you seen her Canadian Open and US Open matches in 95? Mentally, solid as a rock. Some suggested her game was even slighly better, with an improved serve. Physically she wasn't as fit as before, but even without the stabbing, her father would have been sick, so her problem with food would have been there too I think.

I guess this is going off-topic, but I think the stabbing created 2 problematic issues:
- Clearly she was robbed an undetermined number of Slams, titles, etc. So she can be underrated in that aspect.
- At the same time, she's overrated by a group of people who are convinced she was on her way to become the greatest, when in fact that claim is questionable, due to her lack of success since her comeback. Of course we're back to the point "was she the same since her comeback?", then the debate goes in circle.

But anyway, to stay on-topic, I think there is an argument to make that peak Hingis could be superior to peak Seles. But this is really highly speculative.
Oh please don´t be ridiculous, yeah she was going through a very emotional moment during her comeback but tennis wise she was not as consistent as she was in the past, she would not hit those killing angles and in fact she cameback hitting much more flatter strokes tecnically wise and that was different from before, she would hit with more topspin more control in her groundies still hitting the ball really hard. And that´s only tecnically wise.
Fitness wise she became really slower, Monica was the kind of player that could frustrate Graf not only with her power but also with her inmense consistency and ability to return her big shots back. See 1993 Australian Open final for example and watch Monica run many balls down and frustrate Steffi into errors, something that post stabbing just dissapeared (1998 Roland Garros the only exception).
And Mentally wise Monica could never be the same in the early 90ties when in trouble Monica would just display that never die attitude, something that enabled her to be toughest while down and out, go for her shots even more and have a great percentage of those in. After the stabbing she looked more satisfied, trying her best but could never really produce and show that mental toughness she had pre stabbing.

And BTW Peak Hingis will never be better than Peak Seles, mainly because Peak Seles won 8 grand slams out of 11, and 3 straght YECs nevertheless, the only one having a case of peak Hingis being better than peak Seles is just you and your mind :rolleyes:

TonyP
Dec 16th, 2006, 04:14 PM
And for Monica to be considered the greatest ever, she would have had to win Wimbledon, just as for Martina to be considered the greatest ever, she will have to win Roland Garros.

Whether Monica ever had the game to win Wimbledon, I don't know. She always seemed to me to be the least comfortable around the net. And to my recollection, Monica never even made a Wimbledon final.

Hingis has the game to win on clay --as Rome this year again proved. The question is, does she have the stamina to last out seven tough matches in a row, at least three of which would probably be against top players? I sort of think she is on her way to proving that is possible.

Monica_Rules
Dec 16th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Monica got to the final of wimbledon in 1992.

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Oh please don´t be ridiculous, yeah she was going through a very emotional moment during her comeback but tennis wise she was not as consistent as she was in the past, she would not hit those killing angles and in fact she cameback hitting much more flatter strokes tecnically wise and that was different from before, she would hit with more topspin more control in her groundies still hitting the ball really hard. And that´s only tecnically wise.
Fitness wise she became really slower, Monica was the kind of player that could frustrate Graf not only with her power but also with her inmense consistency and ability to return her big shots back. See 1993 Australian Open final for example and watch Monica run many balls down and frustrate Steffi into errors, something that post stabbing just dissapeared (1998 Roland Garros the only exception).
And Mentally wise Monica could never be the same in the early 90ties when in trouble Monica would just display that never die attitude, something that enabled her to be toughest while down and out, go for her shots even more and have a great percentage of those in. After the stabbing she looked more satisfied, trying her best but could never really produce and show that mental toughness she had pre stabbing.

And BTW Peak Hingis will never be better than Peak Seles, mainly because Peak Seles won 8 grand slams out of 11, and 3 straght YECs nevertheless, the only one having a case of peak Hingis being better than peak Seles is just you and your mind :rolleyes:

I was referring to peak Hingis being able to beat peak Seles in a "fantasy" match. It's obvious Seles is more accomplished as a player than Hingis in term of slam titles, so there's no point bringing that back on the table.

For the rest, I think mentally Monica still had the same never-die attitude after the stabbing. And that her game was basically the same. But the point is that if she was the so-called "greatest player of all time", she would have found a way to somewhat dominate again the tour. Even with personal and physical problems, Graf was able to win Slams at all points during her career.

TonyP
Dec 16th, 2006, 04:31 PM
You know, one of the really silly things about this whole thread is the concept of peak this person and peak that person. A tennis career is a tennis career and trying to isolate one small period of time during that career and measuring it against a small stretch of time in someone else's career is just unrealistic.

The greats, like Evert, etc, won slams year after year after year. Could Seles have beaten Evert at her best. Maybe, some times, but Chris would have won other times.

Could Seles have beaten Hingis during Monica's best years? Sure. But in real life, Hingis beat Seles 16 out of 21 times they played. Does that not count because it was post stabbing? Well, Seles would have gotten older stabbing or not and she might have also developed a weight problem, stabbing or not. Lots of women develop weight problems and most of them are never stabbed. Her career is the sum total of all of her matches, not just the ones during her best period.

Davenport, who just retired, had not won a major in nearly seven years. So, when was peak Davenport? Funny, she looked slimmer and fitter and in some ways was playing better tennis in her last couple of years than she did back in 2000, the last year she won a slam.

Peak is usually measured by records of achievement, but then everyone says Graf won a lot of slams after Seles was taken out of the equation.

So when it comes down to it, its very hard to say who faced the most competition in their career.

In '99, the last year she won a slam, Hingis faced a field that included Graf, Seles,Serena Williams, Davenport, Pierce, ASV, Novotna, Martinez. (And soon to be slam winner Venus Williams) I defy anyone to say this was not probably the strongest field ever, and yet she managed to finish at number one that year and the year after.

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 04:56 PM
Sure. But in real life, Hingis beat Seles 16 out of 21 times they played.

It does count because it's not like Seles was 40. Simply put, Hingis owned Seles for a long period of time. We can find 100 excuses for Seles, but at the very least, the stats show that Hingis had the talent and ability to take care of a player like Seles.

Steffica Greles
Dec 16th, 2006, 05:33 PM
You know, it's so funny that a person thinking outside the box about Hingis incites all kinds of accusations, but when somebody takes the next step and focuses on Seles, it is even further beyond reproach.

And it's hilarious that people think that I'm going to take it personally if they cast a critical eye over Seles' career, just in the same sad, childish way that they do over Hingis.

I welcome unorthodox comments on Seles' career. Calimero used to go too far, but I think King of Prussia makes some good points, although I'm not sure I entirely agree with him on everything.

Steffica Greles
Dec 16th, 2006, 05:40 PM
You know, one of the really silly things about this whole thread is the concept of peak this person and peak that person. A tennis career is a tennis career and trying to isolate one small period of time during that career and measuring it against a small stretch of time in someone else's career is just unrealistic.

The greats, like Evert, etc, won slams year after year after year. Could Seles have beaten Evert at her best. Maybe, some times, but Chris would have won other times.

Could Seles have beaten Hingis during Monica's best years? Sure. But in real life, Hingis beat Seles 16 out of 21 times they played. Does that not count because it was post stabbing? Well, Seles would have gotten older stabbing or not and she might have also developed a weight problem, stabbing or not. Lots of women develop weight problems and most of them are never stabbed. Her career is the sum total of all of her matches, not just the ones during her best period.

Davenport, who just retired, had not won a major in nearly seven years. So, when was peak Davenport? Funny, she looked slimmer and fitter and in some ways was playing better tennis in her last couple of years than she did back in 2000, the last year she won a slam.

Peak is usually measured by records of achievement, but then everyone says Graf won a lot of slams after Seles was taken out of the equation.

So when it comes down to it, its very hard to say who faced the most competition in their career.

In '99, the last year she won a slam, Hingis faced a field that included Graf, Seles,Serena Williams, Davenport, Pierce, ASV, Novotna, Martinez. (And soon to be slam winner Venus Williams) I defy anyone to say this was not probably the strongest field ever, and yet she managed to finish at number one that year and the year after.

I haven't got time to respond, but I think you raise some good points here.

But still, each player, when they look back over their career, will be able to think of at least 1 performance when absolutely everything came together under pressure. I have said that if we viewed Hingis' selections, and collated them with most of the other number ones' citations, Hingis would hit fewer winners, her serves would be more returnable and she would not move as quickly in comparison to many of them. Yes, it's subjective. But I think we've all seen Hingis hit off the court enough times to know where her weaknesses lie, and in which areas she is overwhelmed. At least 12 of the 16 number ones excel in those areas.

If that still hasn't gone in, then I give up. Happy Christmas!:)

:wavey:

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 05:45 PM
For the record, my 2 points are:

1) Seles is certainly not the best no1 in open area.

2) Hingis isn't the worst, and is superior to Clijsters, Mauresmo, Capriati and Sanchez.

For the rest, I think, like I said, that it is highly subjective and subject to personal bias.

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:24 PM
"She was never the same" is the cliché used all the time, but you know... It's like a religious belief, there is no possible discussion on that aspect. You believe it or you don't.

I have seen ALL Seles matches in 95, and Seles was stunningly good right at the start of her comeback. ALL the commentators mentionned she came back like if she never left.

The only different aspect is the fitness, but even without the stabbing fitness and injuries would have been an issue too. In 93, a lot of people wondered how long Seles body would hold up playing such a game.

goldenlox
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:32 PM
I've seen several of these arguments about Monica and Steffi.
The fact is that Graf did not win back her #1 spot.
Seles was knifed in the back, and left the tour.

It's impossible to compare that to Hingis being off the tour, because of the psychological difference.
Monica was absolutely a clear #1 when she was attacked. Winning a huge %age of the majors.

goldenlox
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:36 PM
How King of Prussia, or anyone, views how well Monica came back is irrelevant.
It's subjective opinion from a biased fan.

But facts are facts, and Monica's numbers are clear domination, until the moment she was stabbed.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:40 PM
In '99, the last year she won a slam, Hingis faced a field that included Graf, Seles,Serena Williams, Davenport, Pierce, ASV, Novotna, Martinez. (And soon to be slam winner Venus Williams) I defy anyone to say this was not probably the strongest field ever, and yet she managed to finish at number one that year and the year after.

I'm not going to bring up the argument about Steffi's physical and mental state in 1999, despite the fact that Steffi HUMILIATED her at the French Open that year, lost in the first round of Wimbledon and lost to Serena Williams 75% of the times they played that year, and only took 2 sets off of her (a 2 set win) all year....:rolleyes: yeah, the best #1 ever, someone who loses in the first round of a major (something Serena's NEVER done) and losing to the same player 3 times in a year (again, something Serena's never done)

Nice try :wavey:

hingisGOAT
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:49 PM
why bash hingis when tony's post had nothing to do with serena? i'll take the bait anyway, just because i like owning dumb williams fans

I'm not going to bring up the argument about Steffi's physical and mental state in 1999, despite the fact that Steffi HUMILIATED her at the French Open that year

really, i recall hingis serving for that match :tape: so please explain how she was humiliated? graf revealed herself to be the cheating unsportsman bitch that she is; the french crowd revealed themselves to be the worst crowd in tennis; the umpire revealed her incompetence; hingis revealed that she was a teenager, but humiliation? nice try troll

lost in the first round of Wimbledon and lost to Serena Williams 75% of the times they played that year, and only took 2 sets off of her (a 2 set win) all year....:rolleyes: yeah, the best #1 ever, someone who loses in the first round of a major (something Serena's NEVER done) and losing to the same player 3 times in a year (again, something Serena's never done)


has it ever crossed your mind that serena doesn't lose to the same players three times in one year because she plays half the tournaments that martina does? :help:

like right now, for example. i've been waiting for serena to actually play a tournament so hingis can whip her ass and even the head-to-head. but serena doesn't play tournaments, so i'll probably be waiting a while...

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:51 PM
It is not your fanatical belief, it is the TRUTH.

She beat Graf 2 and 3 in 93 AO when Graf even conceded she was playing well and that certainly would have boosted Seles confidence even more and deflated Graf's confidence. Graf was staring at the image that Seles was the top mama and wasn't going to give it up to Graf easily. Seles had better 90 than 89, a better 91 than 90,and a better 92 than 91, and she started 93 with perhaps her finest victory (AO over Graf) where even the rabid Grafans have to admit Seles played well. And Seles had just turned 19, the age when Graf had started her peak in 88, 89. Since Seles was a better player in 1993, the *only* line was that she was just entering her peak, it's not as if all of a sudden Seles would suddenly have fitness problems and "never be the same again".

Again, Steffi Graf regained her GS form because her top competition was removed. Gunther did his job. That is the line you can draw.

My fanatical belief :confused: For the record, I'm mostly a Seles fans and I have extensive knowledge about her. But then again, when you question the religious belief of the Seles doctrine, people get emotional.

If it conforts people to think Seles would have won 14 more slams, I don't care. I can only deal with facts and stats, and stats tell that Seles hasn't won any slam since 96, which doesn't make her a candidate for the greatest of all time.

But think what you want if it makes you happy. :)

goldenlox
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:53 PM
It doesn't matter how many she would have won.
If Federer has the same tragedy happen to him, how many more he would have won is impossible to quantify.
But Seles being stabbed at that age, is one of the great tragedies in sports history.

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:54 PM
How King of Prussia, or anyone, views how well Monica came back is irrelevant.
It's subjective opinion from a biased fan.

But facts are facts, and Monica's numbers are clear domination, until the moment she was stabbed.

There is also plenty of facts about Monica's numbers since 96.

I don't think anyone questions the fact she was dominating before the stabbing. But Serena was also dominating the tour for a while... Where is she now? You can never tell how long dominance will last, so what would have happen without the stabbing is highly speculative.

We can only deal with Seles results since her comeback. That's all we have.

hingisGOAT
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:56 PM
oh and after losing to serena three times in a row as #1, she went on to defeat serena three times in a row as #1 :shrug:

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 16th, 2006, 08:59 PM
How King of Prussia, or anyone, views how well Monica came back is irrelevant.
It's subjective opinion from a biased fan.

But facts are facts, and Monica's numbers are clear domination, until the moment she was stabbed.

Same for Serena pre-surgery

From Toronto 2001-Wimbledon 2003

109-9 (inc. a mid-match retirement)

13 titles, 4 other finals, UNDISPUTED #1
:sad:
Too bad, she and Monica could have been battling out for GOAT, hopefully Serena'll get back to her domination shape...

goldenlox
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:01 PM
There is also plenty of facts about Monica's numbers since 96.

I don't think anyone questions the fact she was dominating before the stabbing. But Serena was also dominating the tour for a while... Where is she now? You can never tell how long dominance will last, so what would have happen without the stabbing is highly speculative.

We can only deal with Seles results since her comeback. That's all we have.
It's impossible to say what would have happened if...
But when it happened, facts are facts. Monica was dominant.

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:06 PM
It's impossible to say what would have happened if...
But when it happened, facts are facts. Monica was dominant.

But I'm not denying that Monica was dominant, so I don't see what's your point.

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:09 PM
Seles is one of the greatest players in the history of tennis (whether you like it or not).

I don't deny that she is ONE of the great, however I don't think she is the greatest player of all time. Which is what was my point if you follow the discussion. I think Serena game is more lethal than Monica's game for example.

And I also think that Hingis exposed Monica limitation to her game. The H to H speaks volume. To me this has nothing to do with pre-stabbing and post-stabbing. Hingis exposed limitations that were already there before the stabbing. Now I don't think I said Hingis is greater than Monica, nor did I say that I'm convinced that peak Hingis would dominate peak Seles.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:09 PM
oh and after losing to serena three times in a row as #1, she went on to defeat serena three times in a row as #1 :shrug:

she's supposed to beat her, she's no. #1 ;) (one was a retirement ;) )
....but don't forget about the last 3 times ;)...and those were all before Serena became #1 (or even before her domination began)

and I have a feeling that Serena and Martina will play in 2007....

they only played 2 tournaments together and they were on opposite sides of the draw both times.

...I like Hingis, I was just playing devil's advocate for those that think she was the greatest #1 ever. I don't think was the greatest, but she was DAMN good to be able to play ALL of those tournaments and still consistently play well week in and week out. Apart from the lower players, she's least likely, IMO to get upset, because her game was so sound and solid.

goldenlox
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:09 PM
My point is, there is no reason to say she was as good as before, because you can't measure that.
It definately takes away from Monica, but it's just subjective guessing.

SAEKeithSerena
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:18 PM
best-serena williams
worst-tracy austin

King of Prussia
Dec 16th, 2006, 09:21 PM
My point is, there is no reason to say she was as good as before, because you can't measure that.


You can't measure it objectively, but you can have a subjective opinion comparing pre-stabbing matches with post-stabbing matches.

Of course this is subjective, that's why there is a discussion. If the issue would be objective, I don't think people would argue so much over the issue.

And Sheryl I can't bothered to answer your last post. You seem to assume a lot about me. Try to focus on the discussion instead.