PDA

View Full Version : Worst comeback?


GoDominique
Aug 8th, 2008, 11:35 AM
Vote!

Adal
Aug 8th, 2008, 11:37 AM
So far - Davenport

John.
Aug 8th, 2008, 11:44 AM
Lindsay unfortunately :sad:

Mynarco
Aug 8th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Hingis is not a bad comeback AT ALL.
She won PPO 2007 and Rome 2006, both tier 1, how bad is that?

IMO, Dokic.

brayster87
Aug 8th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Hingis not just because I like Lindsay...

Lindsay has won 4 titles since she came back and beaten some really good players in Hantuchova, Jankovic, Ivanovic etc...

So it has been a fair comeback (except the injuries)

lympyisthebest
Aug 8th, 2008, 11:50 AM
Hingis had the better comeback, winning 2 Tier 1s, and reaching #6. Unfortunately, Lindsay has been plagued by injuries this season.

OsloErik
Aug 8th, 2008, 12:04 PM
Hingis not just because I like Lindsay...

Lindsay has won 4 titles since she came back and beaten some really good players in Hantuchova, Jankovic, Ivanovic etc...

So it has been a fair comeback (except the injuries)

Meanwhile, Hingis actually LOST 4 titles, bringing her total DOWN from the pre-comeback level, and only beat a panda bear and muskrat in exhibition play, and she got to use the doubles alleys whilst her animal opponents used wooden rackets.

I fail to see how 3 Tier III and 1 Tier IV title compare with 2 Tier I and 1 Tier III title, or how Lindsay's super impressive 3 matches at slams compare to Martina's 3 slam quarterfinals. By any objective standpoint, Davenport hasn't been a top player in her comeback. Hingis kind of was.

I mean, it's one thing to say that Davenport has had a pretty good comeback (she has!) but it's entirely another to say it's been better than Hingis. Even if you compare just the first 10 months of their comebacks (roughly the period Davenport has been back on tour), Hingis had a better stretch.

That all said, I do think Davenport had a more impressive comeback. She was older when she retired, pretty much immobilized at the time, AND had a baby.

So Disrespectful
Aug 8th, 2008, 12:07 PM
How much older is Lindsay for one? A more equivalent comeback would be that of 2002 after her knee surgery.

babsi
Aug 8th, 2008, 12:30 PM
It doesn't look like Mrs Leach will be around for too much longer as she isn't entered for anything after the US Open (and they are tournaments she likes to play like Bali, Beijing and Tokyo). I think she will end her year in New York playing or not playing.

Martina beats Mrs Leach in every category in her comeback. She had a good 2006 and after Tokyo last year it seemed to fizzle out as she never reached a quarter-final again. It's just a shame she couldn't get past the quarter-final in GS's she had her chances.

Olórin
Aug 8th, 2008, 12:35 PM
Well it's all relative. Surely the definition of a good comeback is basically picking up where you left off. For a mother in her thirties, and a tennis player who was having the results she was in 2006, I think Lindsay's comeback has been both successful and worthwhile.

Let's bear in mind that Hingis was barely 25 years old, still in her physical prime, when she came back. Let's also bear in mind that in her final season before her first retirement Hingis had four match points to win a Grand Slam. Did Hingis pick up where she left off? I'm not really sure but I don't think, given this context, that her comeback was anymore successful than Lindsay's.

Pheobo
Aug 8th, 2008, 01:22 PM
I never thought that Lindsay really quit. When she said she wasn't coming back it was none too convincing. She started playing about 6 weeks after Jagger was born...so really she came back as soon as she could. I don't think that Lindsay was ever gone per se, so I don't see it as a comeback from retirement like Hingis. More like coming back from maternal leave.

OsloErik
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:23 PM
Well it's all relative. Surely the definition of a good comeback is basically picking up where you left off. For a mother in her thirties, and a tennis player who was having the results she was in 2006, I think Lindsay's comeback has been both successful and worthwhile.

Let's bear in mind that Hingis was barely 25 years old, still in her physical prime, when she came back. Let's also bear in mind that in her final season before her first retirement Hingis had four match points to win a Grand Slam. Did Hingis pick up where she left off? I'm not really sure but I don't think, given this context, that her comeback was anymore successful than Lindsay's.

As far as "where they left off..."

Hingis: Last full season before retirement (2001), ended the year ranked #4. In her comeback she hit #6. Pretty darn close.
Davenport: Last full season before retirement (2005), ended the year ranked #1. In her comeback, she's been inside the top 30. Barely.

I see your point, but by the same token Davenport never fell off the ranking. Her last two events of 2006 were Bali and Beijing. Her first two events of 2007 were Bali and Beijing. Hingis, meanwhile, took a little over three years off. I'm not counting her Pattaya match in 2005, as it was effectively the equivalent of Davenport's doubles match in the US Open series.

Both are pretty impressive, but I think Hingis came much closer to matching her level pre-retirement, and has the results as well.

Dave.
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:37 PM
It's not even comparable- why start a thread? Hingis established herself as a top 10 player again, Lindsay was injured when she had her big chance.

Uncle Jason
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:42 PM
worst? i'm going with poor Dokic.........

misael
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:42 PM
Hingis not just because I like Lindsay...

Lindsay has won 4 titles since she came back and beaten some really good players in Hantuchova, Jankovic, Ivanovic etc...

So it has been a fair comeback (except the injuries)Are you kidding, Martina made the quarters of a few slams, and beat Lyndsey, Venus , and Maria.

JAMESYBABY!
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:44 PM
lukic

imo :)

Olórin
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:45 PM
As far as "where they left off..."

Hingis: Last full season before retirement (2001), ended the year ranked #4. In her comeback she hit #6. Pretty darn close.
Davenport: Last full season before retirement (2005), ended the year ranked #1. In her comeback, she's been inside the top 30. Barely.

I see your point, but by the same token Davenport never fell off the ranking. Her last two events of 2006 were Bali and Beijing. Her first two events of 2007 were Bali and Beijing. Hingis, meanwhile, took a little over three years off. I'm not counting her Pattaya match in 2005, as it was effectively the equivalent of Davenport's doubles match in the US Open series.

Both are pretty impressive, but I think Hingis came much closer to matching her level pre-retirement, and has the results as well.

Well, I'm not sure why we have use their last full seasons on tour...rather than their actual last seasons, I think both played enough in 2002 and 2006 for those seasons to "count" as where they left off.

I also think using rankings as you did in the post illustatrates how different their comebacks were, imo it doesn't really prove anything apart from that. Lindsay came back with the intention of hardly playing anything, and she played even less than she intended, Hingis came back with the intention of playing every other week, and she did.

To me Hingis basically came back to win another Grand Slam, probably seeing the FO as her best chance. Lindsay came back with the intention of playing at the Grand Slams, having one last moment on the big stages and possibly winning a medal at the Olympics. Obvoiusly neither have worked out as planned, so I would say they were both about equally successful...or not.

markhingis
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:47 PM
The fact that Martina beat Lindsay in 2006, when Lindsay was quite well means that Martina's comeback was a better one!

Dave.
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:51 PM
The fact that Martina beat Lindsay in 2006, when Lindsay was quite well means that Martina's comeback was a better one!

Her back injury was at it's very worst by Indian Wells and after that match she took 4 months off.

darkchild
Aug 8th, 2008, 02:53 PM
The fact that Martina beat Lindsay in 2006, when Lindsay was quite well means that Martina's comeback was a better one!


:help:

Dinayer
Aug 8th, 2008, 03:41 PM
lindsay :sad:

shaktincredible
Aug 8th, 2008, 03:43 PM
comparing both of them,hingis is better than davenport with her toray pan pasific title and three Quarter Final of grandslam.

but i'm really sure they're both not made the worst comeback.

dokic is even worse,for example.

LefandePatty
Aug 8th, 2008, 03:59 PM
None of them had a bad comeback.

Both fought so hard to comeback, both enjoyed playing again so much and both won many matchs. For me both are successes. :yeah:

OsloErik
Aug 8th, 2008, 04:23 PM
Well, I'm not sure why we have use their last full seasons on tour...rather than their actual last seasons, I think both played enough in 2002 and 2006 for those seasons to "count" as where they left off.

I guess it's because Hingis played twice as many matches in her 2002 season as Davenport in her 2006 season.

But even by those standards, Hingis was a top 10 player AT BEST in 2002. I think Davenport was a solid top 10 player who was simply a little too injured to stay ranked there. Other than her last tournament in the Spring and her first in the Summer (Hingis and Stosur) her losses were just to top 10ers. And of the two, Hingis made it back to her 2002 level. Davenport didn't quite.

I also think using rankings as you did in the post illustatrates how different their comebacks were, imo it doesn't really prove anything apart from that. Lindsay came back with the intention of hardly playing anything, and she played even less than she intended, Hingis came back with the intention of playing every other week, and she did.

To me Hingis basically came back to win another Grand Slam, probably seeing the FO as her best chance. Lindsay came back with the intention of playing at the Grand Slams, having one last moment on the big stages and possibly winning a medal at the Olympics. Obvoiusly neither have worked out as planned, so I would say they were both about equally successful...or not.

I guess that's where I read differently into the comebacks. I think the very fact that she played fairly frequently explains that she didn't really expect to win slams. I think she was, frankly, bored and aware that she still had the skills to cut it as a top 20 player. I think she surprised herself by how high she could climb.

Davenport I truly thought was retired. She was so clear that she couldn't perceive herself playing again and I totally believed it. She could barely string together a tournament at the end, she had a baby, she was old...all the signs were there for a retirement. When she came back, I think she just wanted to answer any question about whether the baby cut off her career early, or made her retire before it got painful. And I think she answered those questions.

So in terms of what they hoped to accomplish, I think they both did so. But in terms of their actual results, I think Hingis clearly had the better comeback, and I don't think there's really a subjective component to determining who had a better comeback. Results, not intentions, are what count.

danieln1
Aug 8th, 2008, 04:37 PM
From Bali 2007 to Amelia Island 2008 it was great and she beat A LOT of good players, including the next number 1 and current, it was awesome seeing her!
From Amelia Island until now it was the worst comeback ever, even worst than late 2007 Martina

Mattographer
Aug 8th, 2008, 04:50 PM
From Bali 2007 to Amelia Island 2008 it was great and she beat A LOT of good players, including the next number 1 and current, it was awesome seeing her!
From Amelia Island until now it was the worst comeback ever, even worst than late 2007 Martina
Agreed

OsloErik
Aug 8th, 2008, 04:51 PM
I know we all harp on the nice big wins Davenport has over Jankovic and Ivanovic, and they are good wins, but you know what Jankovic did from Davenport's match on in 2007? 5-7. One win over Davenport, at that!

You know who else has beaten Ivanovic this season? Pironkova, Paszek, Zheng...there's definite bragging rights, having beaten the current #1 and all that, but would anyone argue that she's been so dominant that it's proof of a successful comeback? It's also not like Davenport was beating top 5ers back to back, or even coming close. Look, I don't want to take anything away from Davenport's comeback. Any time a mother succeeds in a sport, it's newsworthy. But as far as comebacks go, she pretty much rocked the journeywomen and couldn't cut it with the big girls. And that's fine, if you can play 15-20 tournaments a year. But for a player who just three years ago was #1 in the world, it's hardly a return to form.

OsloErik
Aug 8th, 2008, 04:52 PM
I'll add, we shouldn't be expecting a return to form. After all, she's over thirty, had a baby, and was walking wounded in 2006. But if a comeback is judged by how well you replicate your pre-retirement (or injury, or baby, or whatever) form, it's not quite what I'd hope for if I were coming back.

slamchamp
Aug 8th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Davenport

VeeReeDavJCap81
Aug 8th, 2008, 05:19 PM
Lindsay by far, but Lindsay has the POTENTIAL to have a much better comeback as she has the guns to battle with the big girls.

SoClose
Aug 8th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Hingis of course

Olórin
Aug 8th, 2008, 05:49 PM
I guess that's where I read differently into the comebacks. I think the very fact that she played fairly frequently explains that she didn't really expect to win slams. I think she was, frankly, bored and aware that she still had the skills to cut it as a top 20 player. I think she surprised herself by how high she could climb.

Davenport I truly thought was retired. She was so clear that she couldn't perceive herself playing again and I totally believed it. She could barely string together a tournament at the end, she had a baby, she was old...all the signs were there for a retirement. When she came back, I think she just wanted to answer any question about whether the baby cut off her career early, or made her retire before it got painful. And I think she answered those questions.

So in terms of what they hoped to accomplish, I think they both did so. But in terms of their actual results, I think Hingis clearly had the better comeback, and I don't think there's really a subjective component to determining who had a better comeback. Results, not intentions, are what count.

Interesting. Well first of all I don't think results are the only criteria for determining a successful comeback. The term successful (particularly in a tennis context) itself is so subjective it just didn't occurr to me to analyse it on soley objective terms. Obviously I have gone about this examining it a fairly subjective manner, while you have been very objective. I think they both made some impressive accomplishments in coming back, particularly in Lindsay's case relative to her age, (of course Hingis played more and won more and was simply better); but I believe both ultimately fell (in Lindsay's case I fear will) fall short of what they had ultimately hoped.

It's funny how you saw Hingis' comeback so differently to me. I'd assumed she was playing so many tournaments because she always had, and saw that as the way of getting back to form and back to putting herself in top contention for everything she entered. Around the French Open 2006, I thought it was only a matter of time before she re-entered the top 5 as a regular member. I really don't think she ever saw herself as "merely" a top-20 player. She said when she qualified for the YECs that it had been one of the goals of her comeback, and that she was pleased she had achieved it. I thought she had some very lofty goals, moreover I think she could have gone a lot further to achieving them if she had retained her 1997-2002 consistency.

spencercarlos
Aug 8th, 2008, 05:52 PM
Hingis not just because I like Lindsay...

Lindsay has won 4 titles since she came back and beaten some really good players in Hantuchova, Jankovic, Ivanovic etc...

So it has been a fair comeback (except the injuries)
Delusional post.
Hingis beat many many more top players, got back into the top 6, went on to play the YEC again, i doubt Davenport will ever achieve a tier I win let a alone get a top ten ranking again.

Michaelz
Aug 8th, 2008, 06:02 PM
good comeback for both, but hingis one is the best

A'DAM
Aug 8th, 2008, 06:06 PM
Pierce

petkoan
Aug 8th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Well, Hingis had one of the greatest comebacks ever. Of course not that spectacular as Jennifer and Monica (bow), but still damn good. Hingis was unranked and made what may be called the biggest one-year jump in the rankings in the history. She was solid on her way back to top 5 - untill after Tokyo where she played like a solid top player. What happend afterwards is history, but you know she was cheered back on the courts all over the world like a pop star. I remember Beijing 2007. It was amazing. How many people there were. Just for her.

On the other hand I didn't quite felt that Lindsay made a comeback. Yes, the sweet story with the mom back at work worked and was nice. In someway she just continued playing. But I would never call a 19-1 win/loss record and 4 titles "bad" comeback - no where near.

jonny84
Aug 8th, 2008, 08:31 PM
I would say Testud's comeback in 2004 after having a baby was a bit of a disaster. She only won three matches and had a 8 match losing streak on the tour. I think she only wanted to play the Olympics but sadly kind of failed.

The Daviator
Aug 8th, 2008, 08:42 PM
None of them had a bad comeback.

Both fought so hard to comeback, both enjoyed playing again so much and both won many matchs. For me both are successes. :yeah:

:worship:

Lindsay came back as a 31-year old mother, Hingis came back at 25 after a 3 year break, so it's tough to compare, but obviously Martina had way more success, so by that standard Lindsay's was worse.

Alexj
Aug 8th, 2008, 08:56 PM
lindsay :sad:

Elldee
Aug 8th, 2008, 08:58 PM
This is so like this forum. Why're we polling the worst comeback of the two rather than whose was better? Always negative.

Oh, and Lindsay's was worst results wise, better situationally.

PLP
Aug 8th, 2008, 10:51 PM
I guess it's because Hingis played twice as many matches in her 2002 season as Davenport in her 2006 season.

But even by those standards, Hingis was a top 10 player AT BEST in 2002. I think Davenport was a solid top 10 player who was simply a little too injured to stay ranked there. Other than her last tournament in the Spring and her first in the Summer (Hingis and Stosur) her losses were just to top 10ers. And of the two, Hingis made it back to her 2002 level. Davenport didn't quite.



I guess that's where I read differently into the comebacks. I think the very fact that she played fairly frequently explains that she didn't really expect to win slams. I think she was, frankly, bored and aware that she still had the skills to cut it as a top 20 player. I think she surprised herself by how high she could climb.

Davenport I truly thought was retired. She was so clear that she couldn't perceive herself playing again and I totally believed it. She could barely string together a tournament at the end, she had a baby, she was old...all the signs were there for a retirement. When she came back, I think she just wanted to answer any question about whether the baby cut off her career early, or made her retire before it got painful. And I think she answered those questions.

So in terms of what they hoped to accomplish, I think they both did so. But in terms of their actual results, I think Hingis clearly had the better comeback, and I don't think there's really a subjective component to determining who had a better comeback. Results, not intentions, are what count.

uhhh...Martina made a slam final in 2002, where she had match points to win it. She was injured for half the year. She would have finished in the top 5 had it not been for that damn ankle! Saying she was top 10 at best is ludicrous.

Martina obviously had a better comeback and what was most impressive was that she had been off the tour for 3 years. Also, she wasn't as fast when she came back, probably related to her career stalling injuries, and still she finished #6 and made the YEC.
But I think they both had very good comebacks. Most players wouldn't even dream of coming back after having a kid, much less win tournaments.