PDA

View Full Version : Who was better on grass: Hingis vs Henin?


rimon
May 2nd, 2011, 06:13 AM
Overall, who do you think?

Mightymirza
May 2nd, 2011, 06:48 AM
1 wimbledon to none :shrug:.. Justine sadly did not believe she could do it.. :(

LUVMIRZA
May 2nd, 2011, 07:03 AM
Martina had a great game that worked well on any surface. I still think, if she'd had conquered RG'99, her career would have been much much better...

Justine's game is built around more on defense than offense which didnt give her the confidence to win Wimbledon.

KBlade
May 2nd, 2011, 07:06 AM
1 wimbledon to none :shrug:.. Justine sadly did not believe she could do it.. :(

Case closed.

allhailwilliams
May 2nd, 2011, 07:08 AM
Both sucked big time

Polikarpov
May 2nd, 2011, 07:13 AM
Henin. Grass was Martina's worst surface, and despite her '97 Wimbledon win, her results in the other years were subpar: one SF, one QF, one R4, two R3, and three, R1 losses.

thegreendestiny
May 2nd, 2011, 07:46 AM
No.1, AO, Wimbledon and USO champion at just 16. :worship:

young_gunner913
May 2nd, 2011, 07:50 AM
Hingis without a doubt.

BlueTrees
May 2nd, 2011, 08:04 AM
Henin for me. Hingis won it before the Williams sisters were around. Henin had a much better overall record at Wimbledon reaching two finals and three semifinals. Hingis won once, reached one semifinal and one quarterfinal. Henin has four grass titles and three runnerups. Hingis has two grass titles and no runnerups.

On grass Henin has beaten: Serena, Seles, Clijsters (x3), Capriati, Mauresmo, Martinez, Kuznetsova, Pierce, Dementieva, Petrova, Huber.
On grass Hingis has beaten: Capriati, Sanchez-Vicario, Novotna, Kournikova, Huber.

And no offense, but seriously, let's take a look at who Hingis beat to win her title.

1R: Anne Kremer
2R: Olga Barabancshikova
3R: Nicole Arendt
4R: Sabine Appelmans
QF: Denisa Chladkova
SF: Anna Kournikova
Final: Jana Novotna

And I'm not an Henin fan, if that counts.

vixter
May 2nd, 2011, 08:25 AM
I voted about the same. Based on achievements Martina's Wimbledon victory tops Henin's 2 finals by far. Martina was the natural born smiling champion which helped her. Her forced exit from the sport was ridiculous.

Betten
May 2nd, 2011, 08:29 AM
Henin for me as well. Yes, Hingis has the Wimbledon title, but as BlueTrees noted it came before the Williams sisters took over. Henin had to face them in their prime (2001-2003), and they're amongst the top grass players ever. Her overall results on the surface are also better (more titles, better W/L at Wimbledon) and her wins have been more impressive.

TheHangover
May 2nd, 2011, 08:40 AM
hingis won wimbledon but henin was better than hingis on every surface, henin had to battle with the sisters, while in 97 venus wasn't at the top yet, hingis then was destroyed by dokic, cmon! plus henin had a better serve and a better net game and a better forehand (and backhand). Don't understand the logic of who voted hingis, by this logic schiavone is better than dementieva because won rg...i don't think so.

Betten
May 2nd, 2011, 08:49 AM
Don't understand the logic of who voted hingis, by this logic schiavone is better than dementieva because won rg...i don't think so.

That's the TF logic for you: the importance of slams is inflated to the point where they trump everything. With little room for nuisance, context and a lot of favouritism you gets results like these. I wouldn't be surprised if someone here would say Schiavone is a better clay court player than Conchita Martinez because the former won the French Open and the latter didn't.

Kworb
May 2nd, 2011, 09:17 AM
Hingis if we go by pure peak ability and peak results. Henin if we go by overall consistent ability and overall results.

J4m3ka
May 2nd, 2011, 09:23 AM
Henin.

Hingis's 1997 run is going to be similar to Wimbledon this year if the WS don't play. No defining grass court player resulting in a slightly opportunistic win. The same argument could be made for the last two slams.

Mr.Sharapova
May 2nd, 2011, 09:41 AM
Henin for me :shrug:.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 09:41 AM
Henin.Hingis' wimbledon title was a fluke. She should've won FO instead. At their peak henin is better than hingis on every surface.

Mr.Sharapova
May 2nd, 2011, 09:45 AM
Henin made good runs at Wimbledon during the Williams sisters Era:shrug:.

Justine had the game to win in London, but it was a mind thing that she didn't :angel:.

doomsday
May 2nd, 2011, 10:24 AM
I'd say Henin.

rimon
May 2nd, 2011, 10:40 AM
hingis won wimbledon but henin was better than hingis on every surface, henin had to battle with the sisters, while in 97 venus wasn't at the top yet, hingis then was destroyed by dokic, cmon! plus henin had a better serve and a better net game and a better forehand (and backhand). Don't understand the logic of who voted hingis, by this logic schiavone is better than dementieva because won rg...i don't think so.

Henin has nothing on Hingis on Rebound Ace.

rimon
May 2nd, 2011, 10:41 AM
Henin.

Hingis's 1997 run is going to be similar to Wimbledon this year if the WS don't play. No defining grass court player resulting in a slightly opportunistic win. The same argument could be made for the last two slams.

More like the last 4. Serena and Fran had joke draws at FO and W respectively.

rimon
May 2nd, 2011, 10:43 AM
Henin.Hingis' wimbledon title was a fluke. She should've won FO instead. At their peak henin is better than hingis on every surface.

I agree that there's something not quite right about Hingis being a W champion, but not FO. However, your second point is false. Hingis was far better on Rebound Ace.

Miss Atomic Bomb
May 2nd, 2011, 11:04 AM
Grass - Hingis
Indoors - Hingis
Rebound ace - Hingis
Clay - Henin
Deco-turf - They are about the same
Hingis's peak year (1997) > Henin's peak year (2007)

TheHangover
May 2nd, 2011, 11:08 AM
Hingis > Henin on grass/indoors/rebound ace
Henin > Hingis on clay/deco-turf

:lol: no henin > hingis period, hingis was smart and talented but she hit in slow motion

petkoan
May 2nd, 2011, 11:10 AM
Hingis > Henin on grass/indoors/rebound ace
Henin > Hingis on clay/deco-turf
Hingis's peak year (1997) > Henin's peak year (2007)

I second that opinion

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 11:13 AM
Hingis Hingis Hingis. One of the greatest ever hands down. Should have won 5 more slams but injuries and stubbornness killed her chances. When everyone was getting fitter and stronger she was getting more injured and disinterested.

Miss Atomic Bomb
May 2nd, 2011, 11:16 AM
:lol: no henin > hingis period, hingis was smart and talented but she hit in slow motion

Don't let the wozniacki-radwanska-hingis comparisons fool you, Hingis took the ball ridiculously early to compensate for her lack of power. Even an off-peak Hingis in her second career managed to stretch peak Henin to three sets.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 11:29 AM
Hingis Hingis Hingis. One of the greatest ever hands down. Should have won 5 more slams but injuries and stubbornness killed her chances. When everyone was getting fitter and stronger she was getting more injured and disinterested.

:rolleyes: Beating kournikova and novotna doesn't mean she was better than henin on grass.Her draws at the majors were pathetic.

KBlade
May 2nd, 2011, 11:32 AM
Still, Hingis did win Wimbledon :shrug: and her dominant results throughout that year and 2 other slam titles suggest that she probably would've won it against a more difficult draw anyway. I'd take Wimbledon over the French Open any day, and so would the majority of players on tour. Henin came back from retirement solely to try and win it again, that to me speaks volumes about it's importance.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 11:37 AM
Still, Hingis did win Wimbledon :shrug: and her dominant results throughout that year and 2 other slam titles suggest that she probably would've won it against a more difficult draw anyway. I'd take Wimbledon over the French Open any day, and so would the majority of players on tour. Henin came back from retirement solely to try and win it again, that to me speaks volumes about it's importance.

With a draw like hingis had, henin would have won it too.Henin's best chance was 2006 but she couldn't beat choker queen Mauresmo. I guess it was karma for ao06:tape:

KBlade
May 2nd, 2011, 11:43 AM
With a draw like hingis had, henin would have won it too.Henin's best chance was 2006 but she couldn't beat choker queen Mauresmo. I guess it was karma for ao06:tape:

Henin had her fair share of chances, her best being against Mauresmo. Her second best chance, probably Wimbledon 2007, exemplified to me why she didn't deserve to win the title. A position on the final was hers for the taking, she was coming off great form, and yet she pretty much refused to win the match against a player who's gamestyle she matched up well with.

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 11:50 AM
Hingis if we go by pure peak ability and peak results. Henin if we go by overall consistent ability and overall results.


This. I didn't know that you were actually capable of writing reasonable posts...


Martina had a great game that worked well on any surface. I still think, if she'd had conquered RG'99, her career would have been much much better...

Justine's game is built around more on defense than offense which didnt give her the confidence to win Wimbledon.


Err no, just no....:bs:

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 11:52 AM
Henin had her fair share of chances, her best being against Mauresmo. Her second best chance, probably Wimbledon 2007, exemplified to me why she didn't deserve to win the title. A position on the final was hers for the taking, she was coming off great form, and yet she pretty much refused to win the match against a player who's gamestyle she matched up well with.


Bartoli played the match of her life. It's not like Henin choked the match away :rolleyes:

KBlade
May 2nd, 2011, 11:55 AM
Bartoli played the match of her life. It's not like Henin choked the match away :rolleyes:

Choke, Tank, which-ever you prefer. She did state that she was afraid of playing Venus in the final :shrug:

Veritas
May 2nd, 2011, 11:59 AM
Overall, who do you think?

Martina's name is forever engraved amongst the list of Wimbledon champions.

Henin, on the other hand ... :tape:

doooma6816
May 2nd, 2011, 12:00 PM
Hingis, because she won Wimbledon...IMO Justine has perfect game for grass, she just didn't believe she could do it....that W 2006 :facepalm:

But if we're talking about consistency then I pick Henin.

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 12:04 PM
Choke, Tank, which-ever you prefer. She did state that she was afraid of playing Venus in the final :shrug:


Henin being afraid of Venus (which I don't believe anyway) has nothing to do with Bartoli playing well. :shrug:

Veritas
May 2nd, 2011, 12:08 PM
Henin for me as well. Yes, Hingis has the Wimbledon title, but as BlueTrees noted it came before the Williams sisters took over. Henin had to face them in their prime (2001-2003), and they're amongst the top grass players ever. Her overall results on the surface are also better (more titles, better W/L at Wimbledon) and her wins have been more impressive.

Martina wasn't competing between '02 and '06, so it's difficult to conclude how she would've added to her overall Wimbledon results.

And she wasn't exactly a pushover on grass. Although she lost at the '00 QFs, Martina was the most difficult challenge for Venus to overcome. This at least suggests that had they been placed on opposite ends of the draw, Martina would've likely progressed further than what she did.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 12:12 PM
Hingis, because she won Wimbledon...IMO Justine has perfect game for grass, she just didn't believe she could do it....that W 2006 :facepalm:

But if we're talking about consistency then I pick Henin.

Winning is overrated sometimes.This is one of those times. When you look at hingis record at wimbledon,it's obvious her title was a fluke.Also her draw was a cakewalk. Henin was a better player on grass.
This is like Schiavone vs hingis on clay.Who was better? Hingis of course but some will say schiavone because it's easier just to look at majors, 1>0 so it must be schiavone:o

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 12:13 PM
Martina wasn't competing between '02 and '06, so it's difficult to conclude how she would've added to her overall Wimbledon results.

And she wasn't exactly a pushover on grass. Although she lost at the '00 QFs, Martina was the most difficult challenge for Venus to overcome. This at least suggests that had they been placed on opposite ends of the draw, Martina would've likely progressed further than what she did.

One match up doesn't mean anything.Jankovic beat Venus on grass but it's her worst surface.hingis lost to Sugiyama in 2006:help:

Veritas
May 2nd, 2011, 12:33 PM
One match up doesn't mean anything.Jankovic beat Venus on grass but it's her worst surface.hingis lost to Sugiyama in 2006:help:

You got a point. However, the form and time should also be considered:

Martina lost a tight match to a prime Venus in 2000, the year in which Venus won 2 Slams, an Olympic gold, had a 35-match winning streak and was subsequently named Player of the Year. Arguably, at that time Venus was at her best, especially when compared to what she produced in 2006. So a competitive loss is at the very least suggestion that Martina has the game to not only challenge, but possibly beat Venus at Wimbledon. Unfortunately, we'll never know since that year was the only time Martina has competed against Venus (or Serena) there;

And as impressive as Jankovic's 2006 win was, beating an out-of-form Venus (ended the year ranked outside the top-40) who's been prone to inconsistent Wimbledon results is neither confirmation of Jankovic's own grass court prowess nor her capability of beating an in-form Venus. Again, I stress that a 2006 Venus was of a vastly lower quality form than a 2000 Venus;

Lastly, I agree that Martina's losses on grass are more bewildering than Henin's. Again though, those results must be considered within the context of the time it happened and therefore the form Martina was in. Losses in 2001, 2006 and 2007 were understandable because those seasons stood out as being remarkably disappointing compared to what Martina had produced in other years. And there's no need for me to explain the likelihood that the '99 RG meltdown had on Martina's state of mind going into the '99 Wimbledon...

Veritas
May 2nd, 2011, 12:38 PM
Winning is overrated sometimes.This is one of those times. When you look at hingis record at wimbledon,it's obvious her title was a fluke.Also her draw was a cakewalk. Henin was a better player on grass.
This is like Schiavone vs hingis on clay.Who was better? Hingis of course but some will say schiavone because it's easier just to look at majors, 1>0 so it must be schiavone:o

Fair enough, I stand corrected...

zurich62
May 2nd, 2011, 12:38 PM
MARTINA HINGIS i like this game etc ....
I DISLIKE HENIN THE ROBOT §§§§§§§

hingisGOAT
May 2nd, 2011, 01:04 PM
Are we really comparing Wimbledon draws? Hingis in '97 beat Novotna in the final, probably the best grass-courter of the era (with the exception of Graf of course).

In 2006, Henin had to face Mauresmo, who was an inferior grass player to Novotna. Henin simply couldn't get the job done... and what did Henin's draw look like to reach that final? I don't remember her having any spectacular wins. She certainly didn't have to beat Lindsay, Venus, Serena, Maria, etc... her road the final was a piece of cake but she still didn't have the grass court ability to become WIMBLEDON CHAMPION!

Peak Hingis > Peak Henin on grass

Hingis took the ball earlier, volleyed better, got more first serves in, and most importantly, could not be pinned in the backhand corner on grass like Justine. There is no contest.

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 01:08 PM
Are we really comparing Wimbledon draws? Hingis in '97 beat Novotna in the final, probably the best grass-courter of the era (with the exception of Graf of course).

In 2006, Henin had to face Mauresmo, who was an inferior grass player to Novotna. Henin simply couldn't get the job done... and what did Henin's draw look like to reach that final? I don't remember her having any spectacular wins. She certainly didn't have to beat Lindsay, Venus, Serena, Maria, etc... her road the final was a piece of cake but she still didn't have the grass court ability to become WIMBLEDON CHAMPION!


That's funny considering that Hingis had the luxury to beat the likes of Chladkova and Kournikova to reach the final in 1997. :tape: But her win against Novotna was good :yeah: (even though she got outplayed by her the next year :drool:)

rimon
May 2nd, 2011, 01:31 PM
Are we really comparing Wimbledon draws? Hingis in '97 beat Novotna in the final, probably the best grass-courter of the era (with the exception of Graf of course).

In 2006, Henin had to face Mauresmo, who was an inferior grass player to Novotna. Henin simply couldn't get the job done... and what did Henin's draw look like to reach that final? I don't remember her having any spectacular wins. She certainly didn't have to beat Lindsay, Venus, Serena, Maria, etc... her road the final was a piece of cake but she still didn't have the grass court ability to become WIMBLEDON CHAMPION!

Peak Hingis > Peak Henin on grass

Hingis took the ball earlier, volleyed better, got more first serves in, and most importantly, could not be pinned in the backhand corner on grass like Justine. There is no contest.

True. Okay, she had a cakewalk draw to the final, but beating Jana on grass is no mean feat. Also, you're right, Jana was a far better grass courter than Mauresmo.

nicidle
May 2nd, 2011, 01:48 PM
Henin for me as well. Yes, Hingis has the Wimbledon title, but as BlueTrees noted it came before the Williams sisters took over. Henin had to face them in their prime (2001-2003), and they're amongst the top grass players ever. Her overall results on the surface are also better (more titles, better W/L at Wimbledon) and her wins have been more impressive.

Novotna.:shrug:

Lapaco
May 2nd, 2011, 02:17 PM
there's no comparison.

henin is possibly the most talented player of all time. how tragic that her body was so weak :sad:

RenaSlam.
May 2nd, 2011, 02:18 PM
The proof is in the pudding. Hingis won Wimbledon, Henin did not.

Blu€
May 2nd, 2011, 02:19 PM
Is this even a serious question?

Lapaco
May 2nd, 2011, 02:23 PM
y do u think she has more RG titles? And the Williams sisters have more hard court & grass titles? She is not a great offense player...she is a fantastic defense player who can play offense too.

she has more rg titles, because she was a legend on clay. the bounce suited her game to a tee and the serve wasn't that important.

henin's shotmaking is unparalleled. she could literally hit every shot in the book.

petkoan
May 2nd, 2011, 02:33 PM
she has more rg titles, because she was a legend on clay. the bounce suited her game to a tee and the serve wasn't that important.

henin's shotmaking is unparalleled. she could literally hit every shot in the book.


You went a bit off the hook here

BlueTrees
May 2nd, 2011, 02:34 PM
To those Hingis fans who are arguing that Hingis has 1 Wimbledon title, Henin has 0, therefore Hingis > Henin on grass, no question. Do you think that on clay...

Schiavone > Hingis?
Majoli > Hingis?
Myskina > Hingis?

Coconut91
May 2nd, 2011, 02:45 PM
there's no comparison.

henin is possibly the most talented player of all time. how tragic that her body was so weak :sad:

I'm a fan of both, but I have to agree here :)

Lapaco
May 2nd, 2011, 02:51 PM
To those Hingis fans who are arguing that Hingis has 1 Wimbledon title, Henin has 0, therefore Hingis > Henin on grass, no question. Do you think that on clay...

Schiavone > Hingis?
Majoli > Hingis?
Myskina > Hingis?

Even Ivanovic :rolls:

petkoan
May 2nd, 2011, 02:53 PM
In that case lets add the fact that Hingis won her first doubles Grand Slam title at the age of 15 at Wimbledon. In 1998 she won another one with Novotna - at the age of 17.

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 04:02 PM
Wimbledon champ >> non Wimbledon champ. But anyway, Hingis apart from being a good volleyer, she won Wimbledon by killing Novotna with lobs in the 2nd and 3rd set, and that is a clever strategy against serve and volley players on grass.

shoryuken
May 2nd, 2011, 04:44 PM
Hingis

Smitten
May 2nd, 2011, 05:38 PM
At their peak henin is better than hingis on every surface.

:lol: Don't reach today.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 06:00 PM
Lucemferre is right.

Henin is better everywhere. Hingis lacks the tools to impose herself in the modern game. Henin is a much superior shot maker on both sides with a superior serve.

The only surface where this could be a competition is rebound ace. But then we stopped having rebound ace.

hingisGOAT
May 2nd, 2011, 06:00 PM
Wimbledon champ >> non Wimbledon champ. But anyway, Hingis apart from being a good volleyer, she won Wimbledon by killing Novotna with lobs in the 2nd and 3rd set, and that is a clever strategy against serve and volley players on grass.

Exactly. Hingis could find ways to deal with ultra-aggressive players on grass, and she found a way to do so in a Wimbledon final. Henin could never figure this out.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 06:03 PM
To those Hingis fans who are arguing that Hingis has 1 Wimbledon title, Henin has 0, therefore Hingis > Henin on grass, no question. Do you think that on clay...

Schiavone > Hingis?
Majoli > Hingis?
Myskina > Hingis?

Even Ivanovic :rolls:

Kinda pwned there.

I mean look at Hingis' record after the breakthrough of big babe tennis. It's really not very good. (at Wimbledon I mean)

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 06:05 PM
Henin. Hingis's Wimbledon title was essentially a fluke. She made only one other semifinal there. And she wouldnt have won the 97 final if Novotna wasnt injured and wasnt a huge choker, as when reasonably healthy and mentally stable she clearly outclasses Hingis on grass as did the first set of the 97 final and the whole match of the 98 semis.

petkoan
May 2nd, 2011, 06:08 PM
Henin. Hingis's Wimbledon title was essentially a fluke. She made only one other semifinal there. And she wouldnt have won the 97 final if Novotna wasnt injured and wasnt a huge choker, as when reasonably healthy and mentally stable she clearly outclasses Hingis on grass as did the first set of the 97 final and the whole match of the 98 semis.

Bitter man :help:

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 06:08 PM
Grass - Hingis
Indoors - Hingis
Rebound ace - Hingis
Clay - Henin
Deco-turf - They are about the same
Hingis's peak year (1997) > Henin's peak year (2007)

LOL Henin at her peak would destroy any version of Hingis indoors or on decoturf. Grass and rebound ace are the only surfaces one can compare them.

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 06:11 PM
Bitter man :help:

Why would I be bitter. I dont like either Jana or Martina much so I didnt care much who won, I actually like Martina more than Jana overall probably. It was obvious watching it that Jana would have won without choking though, and that even she is a clearly superior grass courter. Never mind if Hingis ever had to play Graf, Venus, or Serena there.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 06:12 PM
LOL Henin at her peak would destroy any version of Hingis indoors or on decoturf. Grass and rebound ace are the only surfaces one can compare them.

I know... I mean, if we want to get into this peak-2-peak business, would anyone in his right mind favor Hingis over a 2007 USO Henin? :tape: Hingis will go down as one of the most overrated players in tennis history. I do enjoy a lot of her game and what makes her special, but she was fortunate at the big transitional period she found herself in.

Smitten
May 2nd, 2011, 06:13 PM
LOL Henin at her peak would destroy any version of Hingis indoors or on decoturf. Grass and rebound ace are the only surfaces one can compare them.

Hingis would assault Henin on a carpet court like Tokyo.

PLP
May 2nd, 2011, 06:16 PM
With a draw like hingis had, henin would have won it too.Henin's best chance was 2006 but she couldn't beat choker queen Mauresmo. I guess it was karma for ao06:tape:

Well, if Martina did have a bit of luck with the draw that year, she totally deserved it. She had drawn GOAT Graf the previous 2 years, as 14 yr old in the 1st rd in 1995, and in the 4th rd in 1996...and Novotna was, arguably the best player on grass around at that time.

In any case, the answer is definitely Hingis.
Martina also won 3 doubles titles on grass (Wimbledon 2x and Eastbourne) plus her 2 singles titles (Wimbledon and Rosmalen). She has 5 grass court titles, three of them at Wimbledon, so this isn't that close.

All that said, Henin had an incredible game for grass. Justine should have won at Wimbledon and Hingis should have won at RG but that's tennis. They are still both great champions.

hingis-seles
May 2nd, 2011, 06:17 PM
Okay let's get a couple of things straight.

The clay season lasts months and has major tournaments (Hamburg/Stuttgart, Berlin/Madrid, Rome) leading up to Roland Garros. The grass season barely lasts a month and has no major events in the lead up to Wimbledon. So, the Schiavone, Myskina, Majoli > Hingis, Sabatini, Martinez arguments don't add up. Which is not to say Schiavone, Majoli and Myskina are not deserving RG champions - they were the best woman player in their respective championship runs. But they don't have the Tier 1 titles on clay to back it up. How many Tier 1 tournaments are there on grass? Wimbledon becomes essentially the only measuring stick.

You can only play whoever is in front of you - if you win 7 matches you're the champion. If Hingis had a weak draw, then you're essentially saying Graf had weak draws from '93 - '95. Now she's below Evert and Navratilova because 6 of her Slams were flukes. Again, this is based on the logic of your argument not mine.

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 06:18 PM
Hingis would assault Henin on a carpet court like Tokyo.

THIS.

hingis-seles
May 2nd, 2011, 06:21 PM
Hingis will go down as one of the most overrated players in tennis history. I do enjoy a lot of her game and what makes her special, but she was fortunate at the big transitional period she found herself in.

Hingis wins 5 out of 9 Slam tournaments between 1997-1999. Venus won 4 out of 6 Slam tournaments between 2000-2001 (including a 6-1, 6-1 drubbing to Hingis in a Slam and a R1 exit at Roland Garros). Then Serena wins 5 out of 6 Slams. Looks like Venus was the one in a transitional period between Hingis and Serena's eras.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 06:26 PM
Hingis wins 5 out of 9 Slam tournaments between 1997-1999. Venus won 4 out of 6 Slam tournaments between 2000-2001 (including a 6-1, 6-1 drubbing to Hingis in a Slam and a R1 exit at Roland Garros). Then Serena wins 5 out of 6 Slams. Looks like Venus was the one in a transitional period between Hingis and Serena's eras.

Hmm, that is not how I judge what makes a transitional period, simply because of some sandwich assortment of slam wins. At the time Hingis took over in 1997, an old generation was dying in favor of a new one, and Hingis possessed the most mature tennis among other plays of the new generation who needed more time for their game to mature - this allowed her to dominate and do well in the late 90s. But then when the new generation power game took off, she was left in the background. This was also a truly transitional period because there was a somewhat radical shift in the way the game was being played - far less rallying, a lot more emphasis on power, shotmaking and getting quick winners. And she couldn't handle the pace/physicality of the game, going into retirement.

hingisGOAT
May 2nd, 2011, 06:33 PM
I know... I mean, if we want to get into this peak-2-peak business, would anyone in his right mind favor Hingis over a 2007 USO Henin? :tape: Hingis will go down as one of the most overrated players in tennis history. I do enjoy a lot of her game and what makes her special, but she was fortunate at the big transitional period she found herself in.

Let's not even get into this! Henin didn't have to compete with Graf, Seles, or Hingis, and most of her Slams were without the Williams sisters present either. Her rival was pre-baby Kim :help:

hingis-seles
May 2nd, 2011, 06:34 PM
Hmm, that is not how I judge what makes a transitional period, simply because of some sandwich assortment of slam wins. At the time Hingis took over in 1997, an old generation was dying in favor of a new one, and Hingis possessed the most mature tennis among other plays of the new generation who needed more time for their game to mature - this allowed her to dominate and do well in the late 90s. But then when the new generation power game took off, she was left in the background. This was also a truly transitional period because there was a somewhat radical shift in the way the game was being played - far less rallying, a lot more emphasis on power, shotmaking and getting quick winners. And she couldn't handle the pace/physicality of the game, going into retirement.

Fair enough, but we could make the same case for Steffi or Serena.

Graf took over as Evert and Navratilova began to fade away. Sabatini was not mature and Seles had not yet arrived. This allowed her to dominate, until Seles burst on to the scene and took over the sport with a game that had a lot more emphasis on power, shotmaking and going for quick winners.

Similarly with Serena, as well as she played who was around when her domination began at RG 2002? Hingis and Davenport, the top two players in the world were out with injuries. The field was essentially Capriati who had already won her last Slam, Clijsters and Henin in sophomore slumps, Mauresmo, morbidly obese Seles, and Top 5 players Dokic and Hantuchova. Oh, and ofcourse big sis Vee.

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 06:41 PM
Hmm, that is not how I judge what makes a transitional period, simply because of some sandwich assortment of slam wins. At the time Hingis took over in 1997, an old generation was dying in favor of a new one, and Hingis possessed the most mature tennis among other plays of the new generation who needed more time for their game to mature - this allowed her to dominate and do well in the late 90s. But then when the new generation power game took off, she was left in the background. This was also a truly transitional period because there was a somewhat radical shift in the way the game was being played - far less rallying, a lot more emphasis on power, shotmaking and getting quick winners. And she couldn't handle the pace/physicality of the game, going into retirement.

Absolute bullshit.

Martina will go down as an underachiever with enough talent for double digit slams and anyone who watched her will know that. She should have won at least two more slams 99 French, 2002 AO.
And Hingis went into retirement because of injury issues and was competitive until the end. To say that she couldnt compete is foolish as she had close to even H2H's with all the players of that time.
Additionally, the level of play exhibited by Venus and Serena in 2002 was shown to be unsustainable. If Hingis would have stuck around(and was healthy), she would have been top 5 and possibly winning slams for the next 6 years.

Stonerpova
May 2nd, 2011, 06:46 PM
Schiavone > Hingis?
Majoli > Hingis?
Myskina > Hingis?

I don't think this comparison quite works. If you take away the three aforementioned players' French Open titles, their resumes are not impressive in the least. But, if you take away Hingis' Wimbledon, she still has 40+ titles and four other majors, which stands up to Henin. Plus Martina won Wimbledon and Henin didn't. Simple as that.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 06:49 PM
Absolute bullshit.

Martina will go down as an underachiever with enough talent for double digit slams and anyone who watched her will know that. She should have won at least two more slams 99 French, 2002 AO.
And Hingis went into retirement because of injury issues and was competitive until the end. To say that she couldnt compete is foolish as she had close to even H2H's with all the players of that time.
Additionally, the level of play exhibited by Venus and Serena in 2002 was shown to be unsustainable. If Hingis would have stuck around(and was healthy), she would have been top 5 and possibly winning slams for the next 6 years.

If we lived in a world with other laws of physics, Hingis would have won 23 GS, ending up as the best player of all time. :worship: And the sky would be red, and the Earth flat.

:spit: :yawn:

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 06:53 PM
If we lived in a world with other laws of physics, Hingis would have won 23 GS, ending up as the best player of all time. :worship: And the sky would be red, and the Earth flat.

:spit: :yawn:

Is that an attempt at humor?

My point still stands. Hingis had match points at AO 2002. Various injuries forced her out of the game.. otherwise she would have been competitive.

Or do you think that she couldn't handle the Myskina's, Kuznetsova's, and Dementieva's of the tour :lol:

Smitten
May 2nd, 2011, 06:59 PM
To a person unfamiliar with tennis, Apoleb's hyperbolic description of Hingis' career paints a picture that Martina was at the top of the game and then once the game magically transformed that she became a mere journeywoman scrapping for wins.

Stonerpova
May 2nd, 2011, 07:00 PM
Is that an attempt at humor?

My point still stands. Hingis had match points at AO 2002. Various injuries forced her out of the game.. otherwise she would have been competitive.

Or do you think that she couldn't handle the Myskina's, Kuznetsova's, and Dementieva's of the tour

Nah she just wasn't winning majors and didn't have the motivation to get stronger. Winning wasn't easy anymore so she threw in the towel (she did stop being stubborn and come back, though). I remember several people saying around 03 that there was no reason Hingis could not compete. She was literally hit off the tour.

Miss Atomic Bomb
May 2nd, 2011, 07:04 PM
And she couldn't handle the pace/physicality of the game, going into retirement.

And yet she managed to win (even handing out beatdowns) against 06Sharapova/Myskina/Kuznetsova/Dementieva/Lindsay/Pre-slump Vaidisova/Venus/Peak Nadia in her half-asked comeback.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 07:04 PM
Is that an attempt at humor?

My point still stands. Hingis had match points at AO 2002. Various injuries forced her out of the game.. otherwise she would have been competitive.

Or do you think that she couldn't handle the Myskina's, Kuznetsova's, and Dementieva's of the tour :lol:


Who cares? If Sharapova didn't get her shoulder injured, she would dominate women's tennis and end up with a double digit slam count. You cannot take injuries outside the context of the tennis i.e the athleticism of the player, the physical burn out they have to go through and also their mental toughness. And imo all three took their toll on Hingis and she couldn't keep up. Her injuries were also not career-ending obviously as she came back in 2006, with no great physical impairments.

So yes, I maintain the higher physicality and pace of the game was at least partly a reason in her retirement. And being "competitive" is all reletive - fact is, she was only a huge threat at the AO from 1999 onwards. Her record attests to that. And she "shouldn't have won" 1999 FO bla bla bla.

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 07:05 PM
Nah she just wasn't winning majors and didn't have the motivation to get stronger. Winning wasn't easy anymore so she threw in the towel (she did stop being stubborn and come back, though). I remember several people saying around 03 that there was no reason Hingis could not compete. She was literally hit off the tour.

No she wasn't. Where is all this coming from. She faced various injuries and had to have surgery several times :weirdo:

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 07:12 PM
Who cares? If Sharapova didn't get her shoulder injured, she would dominate women's tennis and end up with a double digit slam count. You cannot take injuries outside the context of the tennis i.e the athleticism of the player, the physical burn out they have to go through and also their mental toughness. And imo all three took their toll on Hingis and she couldn't keep up. Her injuries were also not career-ending obviously as she came back in 2006, with no great physical impairments.

So yes, I maintain the higher physicality and pace of the game was at least partly a reason in her retirement. And being "competitive" is all reletive - fact is, she was only a huge threat at the AO from 1999 onwards. Her record attests to that. And she "shouldn't have won" 1999 FO bla bla bla.

So you have to have career-ending injuries to be impeded or to be forced into retirement? :lol:


And only a huge threat at the AO from 1999 onwards? Did you see her 2000 matches against Vee at Wimbledon and USO?
And making 5 straight semi's at the French until retirement is not a huge threat?
Additionally, if Jennifer fucking Capriati could remain competitive and keep making slams semifinals until her "retirement", then I'm sure Hingis could.

Anyway all your claims are unsubstantiated. The facts are she did face injuries and several surgeries and they not only altered her performance but factored into her retirement just like Kim's injuries factored into her first retirement and Henin's injury factored into her second retirement.

Stonerpova
May 2nd, 2011, 07:13 PM
No she wasn't. Where is all this coming from. She faced various injuries and had to have surgery several times


The ankle surgery wasn't career ending. Lots of players come back after surgery and regain former form. Martina didn't want to. I thought that was common knowledge :confused:

I'm not bashing her, but it's a pretty prevalent thought in tennis circles that Hingis was done with the power players and threw in the towel.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 07:16 PM
So you have to have career-ending injuries to be impeded or to be forced into retirement? :lol:


And only a huge threat at the AO from 1999 onwards? Did you see her 2000 matches against Vee at Wimbledon and USO?
And making 5 straight semi's at the French until retirement is not a huge threat?
Additionally, if Jennifer fucking Capriati could remain competitive and keep making slams finals until her 2004, then I'm sure Hingis could.

Anyway all your claims are unsubstantiated. The facts are she did face injuries and several surgeries and they not only altered her performance but factored into her retirement just like Kim's injuries factored into her first retirement and Henin's injury factored into her second retirement.

Actually all my claims are substantiated by her record and the facts of her record. My arguments are based on those. The fact that she won all of her slams between 1997 and 1999, right in a very important transitional period in tennis. The fact that she got overpowered and outplayed at every GS besides the AO from 1999 onwards. The fact that, if you saw her matches at that time, while she got close, her opponents always had something extra at the crucial moments, because they had the serve, or the important ground stroke that saved them sweat and mental pain.

On the other hand, your claim is based on some ridiculous hypothetical "if she didn't get injured, she would have won double digit GS because the level of 2000-2003 was not kept".... :spit: Please.

Olórin
May 2nd, 2011, 07:26 PM
The ankle surgery wasn't career ending. Lots of players come back after surgery and regain former form. Martina didn't want to. I thought that was common knowledge :confused:


Well at the time Martina said her injuries were career-ending. We have to take her at her word. We have no idea how much effort and rehab she put in to be able to come back in 2006.

There is no common knowledge otherwise. Except in your mind.

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 07:26 PM
So you have to have career-ending injuries to be impeded or to be forced into retirement? :lol:


And only a huge threat at the AO from 1999 onwards? Did you see her 2000 matches against Vee at Wimbledon and USO?
And making 5 straight semi's at the French until retirement is not a huge threat?
Additionally, if Jennifer fucking Capriati could remain competitive and keep making slams semifinals until her "retirement", then I'm sure Hingis could.

Anyway all your claims are unsubstantiated. The facts are she did face injuries and several surgeries and they not only altered her performance but factored into her retirement just like Kim's injuries factored into her first retirement and Henin's injury factored into her second retirement.


I guess you are forgetting Capriati was 4-0 vs Hingis in 2001-2002, and the only match Hingis came that close to winning was the 2002 AO. So Capriati being competitive doesnt automatically mean anything for Hingis, and even Capriati was increasingly a bit factor overshadowed by the Williams, Belgians, Mauresmo, and Davenport after the 02 AO.

As for your references to Myskina and Dementieva it is not like either were a consistent threat to win slams. Myskina's one slam win was a minor fluke at best, and her only time past the quarters of a slam. Dementieva never won a slam and made her only finals in 2004.

Hingis was on decline already at the time of her first retirement and lost to the likes of *gasp* Myskina and Dementieva and Dokic and many others outside the top group in 2002. At best if she continued she would have won 1 lucky slam if she got a great draw. Forget beating Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, or probably even Mauresmo or Sharapova in a slam by that point.

danieln1
May 2nd, 2011, 07:30 PM
People saying Henin is a better grasscourt player than Hingis are pretty delusional...

Gosh, Martina won Wimbledon, how can a player with no Wimbledon title can be even compared with a player who actually won the tournament, regardless of the opponents faced... 100% of people should choose to have Martina Hingis grasscourt stats than a couple of finals lost that Henin had

Drake1980
May 2nd, 2011, 07:32 PM
Hingis has a Wimbledon title so Hingis! :shrug:

propi
May 2nd, 2011, 07:32 PM
Natural surfaces ie. clay and grass for Henin, hard and indoors for Martina :cheer:

Nicolás89
May 2nd, 2011, 07:57 PM
Henin.

Hingis's 1997 run is going to be similar to Wimbledon this year if the WS don't play. No defining grass court player resulting in a slightly opportunistic win. The same argument could be made for the last two slams.

Henin had a chance of a lifetime in 2006 with no sister around and she couldn't make it and was defeated by a s&v choker, Martina defeated hers.

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 08:00 PM
Actually all my claims are substantiated by her record and the facts of her record. My arguments are based on those. The fact that she won all of her slams between 1997 and 1999, right in a very important transitional period in tennis. The fact that she got overpowered and outplayed at every GS besides the AO from 1999 onwards. The fact that, if you saw her matches at that time, while she got close, her opponents always had something extra at the crucial moments, because they had the serve, or the important ground stroke that saved them sweat and mental pain.

On the other hand, your claim is based on some ridiculous hypothetical "if she didn't get injured, she would have won double digit GS because the level of 2000-2003 was not kept".... :spit: Please.

The fact is that she got overpowered in every GS aside from AO from 1999 onwards? Sorry but more bullshit. Your OPINION is that Hingis was overpowered in all these matches. Martina was more than capable of handling the power and athleticism. Some matches she played subpar (USO 2001 semi's) and some matches she was just outplayed with nothing she could do. However, that is no indictment of her game. Sometimes your opponent is just too good, as Hingis was against Serena at AO 2001 or against Venus at USO 1999.
If she was just overpowered, than some of her matches would not have been the greatest of all time.. she would not have gotten as close as she did against Venus at USO 2000 or Capriati in 2002.

You act like because she didn't win a slam post 1999 AO, that she was no longer competing with the best which is just FALSE>

And the facts are that she struggled with injuries and surgeries. Whether she would have won more slams is my OPINION, but one cannot deny that her career was greatly affected by the ailments she suffered.
All that stuff about an extra shot or sweat and what not is just your opinion.

I guess you are forgetting Capriati was 4-0 vs Hingis in 2001-2002, and the only match Hingis came that close to winning was the 2002 AO. So Capriati being competitive doesnt automatically mean anything for Hingis, and even Capriati was increasingly a bit factor overshadowed by the Williams, Belgians, Mauresmo, and Davenport after the 02 AO.

As for your references to Myskina and Dementieva it is not like either were a consistent threat to win slams. Myskina's one slam win was a minor fluke at best, and her only time past the quarters of a slam. Dementieva never won a slam and made her only finals in 2004.

Hingis was on decline already at the time of her first retirement and lost to the likes of *gasp* Myskina and Dementieva and Dokic and many others outside the top group in 2002. At best if she continued she would have won 1 lucky slam if she got a great draw. Forget beating Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, or probably even Mauresmo or Sharapova in a slam by that point.

HIngis had already started having surgery in 2001. 2002 was her last year and it was filled with stops and starts.
And I'm not taking your post seriously. Forget beating Venus or Serena or Davenport? She was already capable of doing that. Post-2003 Venus or Serena would have been well within reach.

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 08:02 PM
To a person unfamiliar with tennis, Apoleb's hyperbolic description of Hingis' career paints a picture that Martina was at the top of the game and then once the game magically transformed that she became a mere journeywoman scrapping for wins.

Exactly.

And people are convinced by misconceptions that are easily contained in one sentence or phrase.

Nicolás89
May 2nd, 2011, 08:05 PM
Actually all my claims are substantiated by her record and the facts of her record. My arguments are based on those. The fact that she won all of her slams between 1997 and 1999, right in a very important transitional period in tennis. The fact that she got overpowered and outplayed at every GS besides the AO from 1999 onwards. The fact that, if you saw her matches at that time, while she got close, her opponents always had something extra at the crucial moments, because they had the serve, or the important ground stroke that saved them sweat and mental pain.

On the other hand, your claim is based on some ridiculous hypothetical "if she didn't get injured, she would have won double digit GS because the level of 2000-2003 was not kept".... :spit: Please.

Really? Is that a fact?

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 08:34 PM
You act like because she didn't win a slam post 1999 AO, that she was no longer competing with the best which is just FALSE>

.

It doesn't take too much brain power to understand the concept that competitiveness is relative, especially in the sense that I used and after I pointed this out several times. She was "competing" with the best, if you say so, but always coming up 2nd, 3rd, 4th best.. slam after slam.

A lot of the Hingis tards, it seems to me, take solace in that she had close matches with the power players of her day. But then at the end of the day what matters is that she was losing to one or the other at pretty much every big stage tournament. In that sense, she became far less competitive than 1997-1999. The experimental evidence clearly point that out. Basically, her game became ineffective.

Martina was more than capable of handling the power and athleticism

Riight... the accolades were raining on her. Somehow we should disregard her drought of big titles, and just sweetly remember all the tight matches she played.. which just go to prove how she perfectly managed the power game. Or better yet, extrapolate over 5/6 years, and how she would have gotten a couple more of GS if she kept playing at the same level without injuries.

timafi
May 2nd, 2011, 08:44 PM
With a draw like hingis had, henin would have won it too.Henin's best chance was 2006 but she couldn't beat choker queen Mauresmo. I guess it was karma for ao06:tape:

bitch please! what did Bartoli ever do before that year while Amelie made the SEMIFINALS 3 times:rolleyes:

Amelie whooped Henin's ass nice and good in 2006 and Henin choked against Bartoli:tape:

Amelie would have tore Hingis a fresh new one on grass had these 2 met and it would have been beautiful to watch:drool:

Lapaco
May 2nd, 2011, 08:52 PM
bitch please! what did Bartoli ever do before that year while Amelie made the SEMIFINALS 3 times:rolleyes:

Amelie whooped Henin's ass nice and good in 2006 and Henin choked against Bartoli:tape:

Amelie would have tore Hingis a fresh new one on grass had these 2 met and it would have been beautiful to watch:drool:

indeed. since when is novotna better than mauresmo?

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 08:54 PM
bitch please! what did Bartoli ever do before that year while Amelie made the SEMIFINALS 3 times:rolleyes:

Amelie whooped Henin's ass nice and good in 2006 and Henin choked against Bartoli:tape:

Amelie would have tore Hingis a fresh new one on grass had these 2 met and it would have been beautiful to watch:drool:

They met in a major final and mauresmo got her ass whooped 6-2 6-3 :oh:

Sombrerero loco
May 2nd, 2011, 08:57 PM
martina by far

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 09:03 PM
It doesn't take too much brain power to understand the concept that competitiveness is relative, especially in the sense that I used and after I pointed this out several times. She was "competing" with the best, if you say so, but always coming up 2nd, 3rd, 4th best.. slam after slam.

A lot of the Hingis tards, it seems to me, take solace in that she had close matches with the power players of her day. But then at the end of the day what matters is that she was losing to one or the other at pretty much every big stage tournament. In that sense, she became far less competitive than 1997-1999. The experimental evidence clearly point that out. Basically, her game became ineffective.



Riight... the accolades were raining on her. Somehow we should disregard her drought of big titles, and just sweetly remember all the tight matches she played.. which just go to prove how she perfectly managed the power game. Or better yet, extrapolate over 5/6 years, and how she would have gotten a couple more of GS if she kept playing at the same level without injuries.

First, 1997 is the anomaly in your "experimental evidence" not 1998 or 1999. 1998-2000 aren't much different.

Secondly, her drought of big titles? She won YEC in 2000 and won 5 Tier I's in 2000. 2001 was her first "down" year. Started out well but went downhill after, losing to players she had dominated, struggling with tendonitis resulting in a 1st round error-strewn loss at Wimbledon and having season ending surgery in the fall. Nonetheless, she started out that year beating Serenax2, Davenport, Kim and Venus.

And she was still beating Davenport, Venus and Serena in big matches until 2001 when her health issues started in full force at the end of the year. Or is it only acceptable when she beats them in every match..

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 09:14 PM
indeed. since when is novotna better than mauresmo?

On grass?

Novotna>>>>>>Mauresmo

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 09:30 PM
People saying Henin is a better grasscourt player than Hingis are pretty delusional...

Gosh, Martina won Wimbledon, how can a player with no Wimbledon title can be even compared with a player who actually won the tournament, regardless of the opponents faced... 100% of people should choose to have Martina Hingis grasscourt stats than a couple of finals lost that Henin had


Maybe because there's more to tennis/grass than only winning the Slam titles?

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 09:34 PM
Henin had a chance of a lifetime in 2006 with no sister around and she couldn't make it and was defeated by a s&v choker, Martina defeated hers.


Jana was even more of a s&v choker than Momo ever was :tape:
But these comparisons are not taking as anywhere.

Lapaco
May 2nd, 2011, 09:36 PM
On grass?

Novotna>>>>>>Mauresmo

based on what? :confused:

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 09:37 PM
Novotna was a better volleyer, proved by her multiple Grand Slam titles

Lapaco
May 2nd, 2011, 09:39 PM
Novotna was a better volleyer, proved by her multiple Grand Slam titles

debatable, momo's volleys and touch were federersque.

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 09:42 PM
Applied for the singles, yes. But if her volleys where so good she should had won doubles Grand Slams.

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 09:51 PM
Applied for the singles, yes. But if her volleys where so good she should had won doubles Grand Slams.


That's not an argument. Maybe she didn't care about doubles or didn't find the right partner?

Both Momo and Jana had pretty much flawless volleys, I'm not seeing any difference there tbh :shrug:
When they were in choking-mode they could miss the easiest volleys, though :tape:

Linguae^
May 2nd, 2011, 10:22 PM
Hingis. She won it. Case closed.

BuTtErFrEnA
May 2nd, 2011, 10:39 PM
Martina's name is forever engraved amongst the list of Wimbledon champions.

Henin, on the other hand ... :tape:


funny how these two always go together :oh:

anyways...hingis...give me the dish

Conor
May 2nd, 2011, 10:55 PM
Justine. Sure Hingis won it, but that's when Serena and Venus werent around. You really think Hingis would have had the same results or better than Justine had the pair of them started out when Justine did? I wouldn't have thought so.

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 11:02 PM
Justine. Sure Hingis won it, but that's when Serena and Venus werent around. You really think Hingis would have had the same results or better than Justine had the pair of them started out when Justine did? I wouldn't have thought so.

Uh, yes? She didn't defeat Serena or Venus to reach the 2006 final against Mauresmo and she lost to Venus in 2001

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 11:07 PM
HIngis had already started having surgery in 2001. 2002 was her last year and it was filled with stops and starts.
And I'm not taking your post seriously. Forget beating Venus or Serena or Davenport? She was already capable of doing that. Post-2003 Venus or Serena would have been well within reach.

If you watched the Hingis-Capriati matches (and we both know full well you did) you would be well aware that any lingering injuries were not a factor in Hingis's defeats in any of them. Of course they could well be a factor in her overall decline, but that just further validates my point. Hingis was already fading mentally, going down tennis wise, and finding her body breaking down too by the early 2000s and you think she was going to start winning a bunch of slams in the mid 2000s just because Serena and Venus werent at absolute peak form anymore. Sorry but not likely. Hingis peaked in the late 90s, was still pretty good in 2000, really began to fade in 2001, and 2002 Australian which was depleted by several key injuries was the last hurrah- especialy after that epic choke where she couldnt even close out a crappy and out of form Capriati (Capriati has played 5 times better than that in some of her big losses to Serena and Henin).

Hingis's last 3 matches with Serena before her retirement were 2 bad spankings and 1 3 set loss. Serena was no longer in reach for her, even not at her best. Davenport was in a slump herself around 2001 and 2002 but still usually beat Hingis by that point anyway. Hingis had not beaten Venus on any fast court in a very long time at the time she retired, and slow courts? Who cares, since Venus isnt the road to anything on those typically even in her best years.

Hingis had she continued would have probably had 2006 like results where she went something like 1-10 vs Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, and Sharapova, the big 4 at the time. Just because the Williams are sometimes in a funk doesnt mean there werent other good players to stop Hingis, especialy one clearly already past her glory days. And the much weaker Dementieva not only beat Hingis in 2002 in one of her last first career matches, but creamed her 6-2, 6-0 in their first meeting second career. I could go on awhile here but you get the picture.

And other than a Myskina like fluke where would Hingis have won slams had she continued:

Hard courts- Those were almost all going to Clijsters, Henin, Serena, Sharapova, after 2002. All of those in slam winning form would be too powerful for Hingis, especialy a mid 20s Hingis who peaked in her teens, on a hard court.

Clay- Justine Henin. The end. Not that it would matter much when at her peak she couldnt win it even with no clay courter anywhere near Henin's caliber near their primes in the late 90s/early 2000s

Grass- Venus and Serena. The end. And Mauresmo, Davenport, Sharapova, and Henin would probably handle her as well.

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 11:17 PM
On grass?

Novotna>>>>>>Mauresmo

Novotna didnt even start contending on grass until after Seles was stabbed, Sabatini went into major decline, and Navratilova turned 36. I do think Novotna might be game wise slightly better than Mauresmo on grass (and even that is debateable) but mentally Novotna makes Mauresmo look like Chris Evert. Henin could never lose a slam final on any surface to someone like Novotna, anyone who has seen the horror of all of Jana's 4 slam finals (including the one win where she lucked out to play Tauziat of all people) would know this. Of course Henin could easily lose to Novotna in a Wimbledon semi or quarter, but then again so did Hingis easily in 98.

rimon
May 3rd, 2011, 02:51 AM
Thanks for all replies thus far. I have to give the edge to Martina. Justine has the more consistent record, but unlike clay, Wimbledon is really all that you have to measure.

It comes down to 1 W, 2 SF to 2 F, 5 SF. I would definitely take the former. Justine does have 4 titles to Martina's 2 though, so I don't think that it's as clear cut as people make out, either way.

PLP
May 3rd, 2011, 06:43 PM
Where did all of these 'Who was better on...' threads come from? :lol:
I blame this thread, pretty sure it was the first.

PLP
May 3rd, 2011, 06:55 PM
Novotna didnt even start contending on grass until after Seles was stabbed, Sabatini went into major decline, and Navratilova turned 36. I do think Novotna might be game wise slightly better than Mauresmo on grass (and even that is debateable) but mentally Novotna makes Mauresmo look like Chris Evert. Henin could never lose a slam final on any surface to someone like Novotna, anyone who has seen the horror of all of Jana's 4 slam finals (including the one win where she lucked out to play Tauziat of all people) would know this. Of course Henin could easily lose to Novotna in a Wimbledon semi or quarter, but then again so did Hingis easily in 98.

:tape: Do you really think these 2 events are related?
Please don't try and put down Jana just to make Martina look bad...we get, you don't like her, next...

Sammo
May 3rd, 2011, 07:00 PM
LOL Jana is way better than Seles on grass

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 07:03 PM
:tape: Do you really think these 2 events are related?
Please don't try and put down Jana just to make Martina look bad...we get, you don't like her, next...

Seles reached the Wimbledon final in 1992. Novotna lost in the 3rd round. Why wouldnt Seles have been better than Novotna on grass? Seles at 18 was already much better than 24 year old Novotna on grass before the stabbing. At Wimbledon 92 Seles also beat a very good Navratilova in 3 sets, while when Jana faced a very good Navratilova in the 94 quarters she got fed a bagel and breadstick in the last 2 sets (the 93 Wimbledon Martina was a pretty bad one).

My comments are not based on who I do or dont like. There is simply no justification for the claim Novotna is far better than Mauresmo on grass. She played in an era with almost no good grass courters other than Graf, a pathetic grass era really where Conchita Martinez won Wimbledon, and still barely achieved more than Mauresmo (and each won 1 Wimbledon) who played in a super grass era with both Williams, Davenport, Sharapova, Henin, and others. Not to mention Jana is the biggest ever big match choking dog (other than Safina maybe) who needs to play someone outside the Worlds 15 best players (eg- someone like Tauziat) if she is to ever win a slam final on any surface.

AcesHigh
May 3rd, 2011, 07:08 PM
Seles reached the Wimbledon final in 1992. Novotna lost in the 3rd round. Why wouldnt Seles have been better than Novotna on grass? Seles at 18 was already much better than Novotna on grass before the stabbing. At Wimbledon 92 Seles also beat a very good Navratilova in 3 sets, while when Jana faced a very good Navratilova in the 94 quarters she got fed a bagel and breadstick in the last 2 sets (the 93 Wimbledon Martina was a pretty bad one).

:help:

You mean the Seles that was drubbed twice by Graf?
The same Graf that Novotna should have beaten the next year?

Seles was not better than Novotna on grass, sorry.
And neither was Mauresmo

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 07:12 PM
:help:

You mean the Seles that was drubbed twice by Graf?
The same Graf that Novotna should have beaten the next year?

Seles was not better than Novotna on grass, sorry.
And neither was Mauresmo

Who cares if Seles was drubbed by Graf as an 18 year old. She was an 18 year old playing in the Wimbledon final. Where was Novotna at 18, LOL! For that matter where was Novotna at Wimbledon 92 where Seles was playing in the final. Losing in the 3rd round to an unseeded opponent. Novotna turned out better than Seles in the long run on grass because of the stabbing, but there is no indication she was ever going to be before that. Novotna peaked on grass during the worst grass court era ever, from 93-96 especialy there was nobody other than Graf. Graf's biggest competition at Wimbledon was Conchita Martinez at one point, ugh.

And regardless who is better on grass between Novotna and Mauresmo (very debateable) if they ever played in a Wimbledon final Mauresmo would win. Novotna's 4 slam final performances prove conclusively she would need a clown opponent to even hope to win since mentally she is the biggest train wreck this side of Safina.

AcesHigh
May 3rd, 2011, 07:12 PM
Seles reached the Wimbledon final in 1992. Novotna lost in the 3rd round. Why wouldnt Seles have been better than Novotna on grass? Seles at 18 was already much better than 24 year old Novotna on grass before the stabbing. At Wimbledon 92 Seles also beat a very good Navratilova in 3 sets, while when Jana faced a very good Navratilova in the 94 quarters she got fed a bagel and breadstick in the last 2 sets (the 93 Wimbledon Martina was a pretty bad one).

My comments are not based on who I do or dont like. There is simply no justification for the claim Novotna is far better than Mauresmo on grass. She played in an era with almost no good grass courters other than Graf, a pathetic grass era really where Conchita Martinez won Wimbledon, and still barely achieved more than Mauresmo (and each won 1 Wimbledon) who played in a super grass era with both Williams, Davenport, Sharapova, Henin, and others. Not to mention Jana is the biggest ever big match choking dog (other than Safina maybe) who needs to play someone outside the Worlds 15 best players (eg- someone like Tauziat) if she is to ever win a slam final on any surface.

Ugh, there's just so much wrong with this post. Mauresmo did not play in a "super grass era". She competed in an era where players don't know how to play on natural surfaces. Henin and Sharapova are not great grasscourt players. Venus and Serena are the only competition.. why do you think they are able to ease by so easily on their surface despite nowhere near their prime?

Meanwhile, Novotna competed with Tauziat, graf, Navratilova, and many other players who knew how to play S&V, who knew how to play the surface..and didn't just approach it like it was a hardcourt.

Matt01
May 3rd, 2011, 07:14 PM
She played in an era with almost no good grass courters other than Graf, a pathetic grass era really where Conchita Martinez won Wimbledon, and still barely achieved more than Mauresmo


QF, QF, QF, SF, F, F, W is clearly better than SF, SF, SF, W :help: :rolleyes:

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 07:18 PM
Ugh, there's just so much wrong with this post. Mauresmo did not play in a "super grass era". She competed in an era where players don't know how to play on natural surfaces. Henin and Sharapova are not great grasscourt players. Venus and Serena are the only competition.. why do you think they are able to ease by so easily on their surface despite nowhere near their prime?

Meanwhile, Novotna competed with Tauziat, graf, Navratilova, and many other players who knew how to play S&V, who knew how to play the surface..and didn't just approach it like it was a hardcourt.

Are you seriously saying Sharapova and Henin are inferior to Tauziat on grass. :lol: Just because ones game is better suited to a surface or it is a better personal surface. If you put prime Henin or prime Sharapova against Tauziat at Wimbledon it is pretty obvious what will happen. And Navratilova was in her mid 30s by that time, an age almost nobody is even playing pro tennis anymore. And Graf doesnt even use any special grass court tactics. She is just fortunate her amazing power, athletic ability, and that she happens to have a slice backhand, work well naturally on the surface.

Venus, Serena, Davenport, Sharapova, Henin >>>>>>>>> Graf, Sanchez, Martinez, mid 30s Navratilova, Tauziat. Funny how you ignore Davenport altogether btw (and in case you bring it up, yes I know Graf is better than Venus or Serena on grass, but she alone doesnt compensate for the rest of the group).

Also the great grass courter Tauziat you refer to was thrashed by the 18 year old Seles who you seem to think was hopeless on grass 6-3, 6-1 at Wimbledon 92.

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 07:20 PM
QF, QF, QF, SF, F, F, W is clearly better than SF, SF, SF, W :help: :rolleyes:

Not really. The most important stat (Wimbledon titles) is the same, and even the # of semifinals are the same. How many more finals and semis would Mauresmo have reached is Conchita Martinez and Nathalie Tauziat were amongst her biggest rivals at Wimbledon or if one of Venus or Serena were stabbed like Seles was.

Matt01
May 3rd, 2011, 07:24 PM
Mid 30s Navratilova >>>> Pova, Lindsay, Henin on grass.

:wavey:

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 07:26 PM
Mid 30s Navratilova >>>> Pova, Lindsay, Henin on grass.

:wavey:

Yes which is why she lost in straight sets to Capriati and also lost to Martinez at Wimbledon in her mid 30s. I guess Martinez and Capriati >>>> Pova, Lindsay, Henin on grass too now. :rolleyes: Your posts are always good for a laugh Matt01.

AcesHigh
May 3rd, 2011, 07:43 PM
Are you seriously saying Sharapova and Henin are inferior to Tauziat on grass. :lol: Just because ones game is better suited to a surface or it is a better personal surface. If you put prime Henin or prime Sharapova against Tauziat at Wimbledon it is pretty obvious what will happen. And Navratilova was in her mid 30s by that time, an age almost nobody is even playing pro tennis anymore. And Graf doesnt even use any special grass court tactics. She is just fortunate her amazing power, athletic ability, and that she happens to have a slice backhand, work well naturally on the surface.

Venus, Serena, Davenport, Sharapova, Henin >>>>>>>>> Graf, Sanchez, Martinez, mid 30s Navratilova, Tauziat. Funny how you ignore Davenport altogether btw (and in case you bring it up, yes I know Graf is better than Venus or Serena on grass, but she alone doesnt compensate for the rest of the group).

Also the great grass courter Tauziat you refer to was thrashed by the 18 year old Seles who you seem to think was hopeless on grass 6-3, 6-1 at Wimbledon 92.

:tape:

There really is no hope for you if you believe that post2003Venus, post2003Serena, Sharapova, Henin, post2002Davenport are better than Graf, Novotna, Navratilova, Davenport, Seles, Tauziat, Garrison, Sabatini, Zvereva, etc

First, Sharapova and Henin are not grass greats. Henin loses to the likes of Daniillidou, Mauresmo, Bartoli and Kim on grass. Sharapova aside from her win in 2004 has done hardly anything.
You only have past-prime Venus, Serena and Davenport. Not enough to compensate for Graf, Nav (the two greatest Wimbledon champions ever) and the rest. Not to mention the many floaters who all knew how to play on grass.

Matt01
May 3rd, 2011, 07:46 PM
Your posts are always good for a laugh Matt01.


Loving the irony here :)

Look up Navi's stats at W...she won it being 33 years of age and 4 years later made the final...that's already more than Pova did in her whole career...:lol:

And Martinez and Capriati were very good players on grass...the latter not only beat Navi on grass but Serena, too, btw...:rolleyes:

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 08:03 PM
Loving the irony here :)

Look up Navi's stats at W...she won it being 33 years of age and 4 years later made the final...that's already more than Pova did in her whole career...:lol:

And Martinez and Capriati were very good players on grass...the latter not only beat Navi on grass but Serena, too, btw...:rolleyes:

Martinez is the worst grass court player to win Wimbledon, something that everyone on the planet can agree on except possibly you. And Capriati during her best year ever lost to baby Henin at Wimbledon, and comparing her to Davenport on grass when she regularly gets thumped by her even on hard courts is even more of a laugher.

The Navratilova of 1990 was far removed from the Navratilova that Novotna was battling at Wimbledon in 93 and 94 so your statement there is as usual pointless. The Navratilova of 1991-1994 who was even inferior to Seles, Martinez, Sabatini, and Capriati on grass would no doubt be FAR inferior to Henin, Sharapova, or Davenport on grass. That isnt taking anything away from Martina of course, she was still the best mid 30s tennis player ever, it is the simple reality of a player in their mid 30s in professional tennis.

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 08:20 PM
There really is no hope for you

Coming from you I take that as a huge compliment.

if you believe that post2003Venus, post2003Serena, Sharapova, Henin, post2002Davenport are better than Graf, Novotna, Navratilova, Davenport, Seles, Tauziat, Garrison, Sabatini, Zvereva, etc


ROTFL so much nonsense here on your part I dont even know where to start. First of your implying the Davenport which Novotna was facing during her contending days at Wimbledon (I am not even counting 1999 when she was injured and no threat, and playing her final year on tour) was better than the Davenport which Mauresmo faced at Wimbledon.

Mauresmo made her first Wimbledon semifinal in 2002 and was denied by Serena in the semis, so what is with this post 2003 only crap to begin with. Even more funny you talk about Venus, Serena, and Davenport being past their very best yet for some of the period they played Mauresmo, yet ignore Navratilova being 36 and 37 years old in her final 2 years on tour when Novotna finally began to contend at Wimbledon, and that others you mention such as Sabatini, Garrison, Zvereva, were all clearly past their primes already by that point. And as I already mentioned Seles was stabbed just before Novotna began contending at Wimbledon, and was a joke on grass in her second career.

Lets break it down shall we (Mauresmo and Novotna excluded as we are comparing their competition):

Graf > Serena
2002-2005 Venus >>>>>>>>>> 36 and 37 year old granny Navratilova who loses Wimbledon final to Conchita Martinez (after still thrashing Jana to get there btw)
2002-2006 Davenport >>> whoever else you brought up, washed up Sabatini, etc...
Sharapova or Henin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zvereva, Tauziat, Garrison, etc...(even if they werent well past their primes already)

First, Sharapova and Henin are not grass greats. Henin loses to the likes of Daniillidou, Mauresmo, Bartoli and Kim on grass.

The likes of Mauresmo, a Wimbledon Champion. :lol: And the Kim loss was while substaining a career ending injury during the match.

Do you want me to list all of the losses of Tauziat, Garrison, Zvereva, and the other strange assortment of players you listed, at Wimbledon. Or the Davenport of 1993-1998 whose Wimbledon showings were not just losing but often getting trounced by Chladkova, Neiland, Tauziat, Mary Joe Fernandez, yet who you include as part of Jana's strong competition at Wimbledon. Or Seles of 93-98 who the 3 times she even played Wimbledon lost to Studenikova, Testud, and Zvereva.


Sharapova aside from her win in 2004 has done hardly anything.

So losing in the semis of Wimbledon to the eventual winner is nothing. :lol: By that standard, atleast half the people you named have never done anything on grass period.

You only have past-prime Venus, Serena and Davenport. Not enough to compensate for Graf, Nav (the two greatest Wimbledon champions ever)

Still ignoring Navratilova was 36 and 37 at the time Novotna just began to contend at Wimbledon I see. If a player was a 50 year old I guess you would still ignore it if it suited the purpose of your weak arguments. :tape:

Matt01
May 3rd, 2011, 08:22 PM
The Navratilova of 1991-1994 who was even inferior to Seles, Martinez, Sabatini, and Capriati on grass would no doubt be FAR inferior to Henin, Sharapova, or Davenport on grass.


:haha:

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 08:29 PM
:haha:

Navratilova of 91-94 on grass:

0-1 vs Capriati
0-1 vs Martinez
0-1 vs Seles
0-0 vs Sabatini

Wimbledon finals for each during that period:

Capriati- 0 (didnt play the year Martina reached the final)
Martinez- 1 (beat Martina in final)
Seles- 1 (despite only playing 1 of thos years)
Sabatini- 1 (points from beating Graf)


Navratilova at this point was superior on grass to these players based on what exactly. The big bandage on her aging beat up knees which was a nicer color. :rolleyes:

Hilarious some of you are so stupid you dont even realize the basic concept of what it means to be 36 or 37 years old in tennis. An age that is a whole 7 years after Steffi Graf and Monica Seles retired as shadows of their old selves. And look at Venus Williams now and imagine what she will look if heaven forbid she is on tour 6 or 7 years from now.