PDA

View Full Version : Who is better on clay: Serena or Hingis?


Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 11:42 AM
:oh:

KBlade
May 2nd, 2011, 11:48 AM
Sarin.

hingisGOAT
May 2nd, 2011, 01:07 PM
1) What was the score of their only clay-court match? Just out of curiosity. :oh:
2) Has Serena ever had a beat down like that?

zurich62
May 2nd, 2011, 01:08 PM
martina hingis http://kawai-hingis.skyrock.com/

Kworb
May 2nd, 2011, 01:16 PM
6-2 6-2. :oh:

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 02:33 PM
1) What was the score of their only clay-court match? Just out of curiosity. :oh:
2) Has Serena ever had a beat down like that?

Yes she did by Pierce 6-2 6-1 in 2000:tape:

Smitten
May 2nd, 2011, 05:35 PM
Hingis.

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 05:40 PM
Hingis is a better clay player IMO, but Serena's shape in RG 2002 was outstanding, she would have won a Grand Slam playing on lava

Mistress of Evil
May 2nd, 2011, 05:42 PM
close call :shrug:

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 06:00 PM
Serena is better. She nearly beat a prime Henin at Roland Garros in 2003. Hingis would never come close to beating a prime Henin at Roland Garros, even once if they played five times there. Hingis couldnt even beat Majoli, grandma way past it Graf, or her pigeon Pierce to win RG, and got spanked by Capriati in her final serious attempt the year before Capriati went down to Serena.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 06:03 PM
Serena is better. She nearly beat a prime Henin at Roland Garros in 2003. Hingis would never come close to beating a prime Henin at Roland Garros, even once if they played five times there. Hingis couldnt even beat Majoli, grandma way past it Graf, or her pigeon Pierce to win RG, and got spanked by Capriati in her final serious attempt the year before Capriati went down to Serena.

Again a match up argument:rolleyes: Hingis had more FO finals, more semifinals, more other titles more everything except a FO win.What Serena is a better big match player/champion but she isn't better than hingis on clay.

justineheninfan
May 2nd, 2011, 06:13 PM
Serena is 1-4 vs Henin on clay, and 1-3 at her 18 month career peak so she obviously isnt a tough matchup for Henin on clay. Inspite of that she still nearly beat Henin coming into her prime at RG since she is that good, even on clay. Hingis could not do this, I gaurantee it.

Serena of Roland Garros 2002, Rome 2002, Berlin 2003, Charleston 2003, Roland Garros 2003 would beat any version of Hingis on clay. That is enough for me.

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 06:17 PM
Who on Earth voted 'Both suck'? :weirdo:

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 06:18 PM
Serena is 1-4 vs Henin on clay, and 1-3 at her 18 month career peak so she obviously isnt a tough matchup for Henin on clay. Inspite of that she still nearly beat Henin coming into her prime at RG since she is that good, even on clay. Hingis could not do this, I gaurantee it.

Serena of Roland Garros 2002, Rome 2002, Berlin 2003, Charleston 2003, Roland Garros 2003 would beat any version of Hingis on clay. That is enough for me.

....

Again, this must be a joke, and the results of the poll are :spit: . Hingis got beaten by Venus on clay, in Rome, in 1999. Anyone who thinks she can put good fight against the same Serena who made roasted peppers of Mauresmo in 2003 is really delusional.

Clay in a way makes it easier to overpower Hingis, because her shots just bounce up perfectly and slowly, leaving a lot of time for players to hit through them, especially the forehand.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 06:23 PM
Serena is 1-4 vs Henin on clay, and 1-3 at her 18 month career peak so she obviously isnt a tough matchup for Henin on clay. Inspite of that she still nearly beat Henin coming into her prime at RG since she is that good, even on clay. Hingis could not do this, I gaurantee it.

Serena of Roland Garros 2002, Rome 2002, Berlin 2003, Charleston 2003, Roland Garros 2003 would beat any version of Hingis on clay. That is enough for me.

You can't guarantee anything because it never happened.What happened is hingis beat Serena 6-2 6-2 in their only meeting on clay.Sure Serena can beat anybody on any surface but she is 0-3 vs schnyder on clay:o That's why Henin match up means nothing. It doesn't matter what she did vs others when you compare her with hingis.

hingis-seles
May 2nd, 2011, 06:24 PM
Serena's the better player on clay. She's won Rome and Roland Garros, the two biggest clay events.

Stonerpova
May 2nd, 2011, 06:26 PM
Hingis. She should have won multiple French Opens. Serena can play on clay, but she doesn't use the court like Hingis did.

And despite how good Henin was on clay, I don't think h2h verses her on clay is the right barometer to decide who is better.

hingis-seles
May 2nd, 2011, 06:28 PM
Serena is better. She nearly beat a prime Henin at Roland Garros in 2003. Hingis would never come close to beating a prime Henin at Roland Garros, even once if they played five times there. Hingis couldnt even beat Majoli, grandma way past it Graf, or her pigeon Pierce to win RG, and got spanked by Capriati in her final serious attempt the year before Capriati went down to Serena.

Would have, could have, should have. That's like me saying Steffi would never have defeated Monica at RG again after what happened to her in '90 and '92. Your opinion isn't any more valid than the next one which could be Henin would never come close to beating a prime Hingis at Roland Garros, even once if they played five times.

Hingis threw away her chances at RG. She played a piss poor match against Majoli, but it was excused as being post-surgery. Steffi was handed the match on a silver platter after Hingis imploded. Pierce was simply too good (as was Seles in '98). Hingis was playing horrendously by the time she faced off against Capriati in 2001. But tough shit. She didn't win the title; she clearly didn't deserve it.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 06:29 PM
....

Again, this must be a joke, and the results of the poll are :spit: . Hingis got beaten by Venus on clay, in Rome, in 1999. Anyone who thinks she can put good fight against the same Serena who made roasted peppers of Mauresmo in 2003 is really delusional.

Clay in a way makes it easier to overpower Hingis, because her shots just bounce up perfectly and slowly, leaving a lot of time for players to hit through them, especially the forehand.

In 1999 Venus won hamburg and rome.

Slutiana
May 2nd, 2011, 06:30 PM
....

Again, this must be a joke, and the results of the poll are :spit: . Hingis got beaten by Venus on clay, in Rome, in 1999. Anyone who thinks she can put good fight against the same Serena who made roasted peppers of Mauresmo in 2003 is really delusional.

Clay in a way makes it easier to overpower Hingis, because her shots just bounce up perfectly and slowly, leaving a lot of time for players to hit through them, especially the forehand.
Agreed.

Though I think Venus is underrated on red clay. She has always recorded decent-good results on the surface, her record shows that. She's just fucking awful at RG. :help:

But that's all going to change this year, of course.

hingis-seles
May 2nd, 2011, 06:37 PM
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but Venus is a joke at RG. Look at who she beat to make her one RG final: FAT Monica and Clarisa Fernandez. Even before the ab injury, she had freak losses at RG: Schwartz in 1999 and Schett in 2001.

Apoleb
May 2nd, 2011, 06:40 PM
Agreed.

Though I think Venus is underrated on red clay. She has always recorded decent-good results on the surface, her record shows that. She's just fucking awful at RG. :help:

But that's all going to change this year, of course.

Could be, but I brought up this match because 1) Hingis was at the peak of her confidence/career. And confidence is crucial for her game 2) Venus was up and coming, and her game was like 2/3 of what ti would become in 2001-2003. IIRC, Hingis got fairly outplayed and overpowered.

And let's not forget she was overpowered by Iva Majoli in 1997 and overpowered/trashed again in 1998 by Monica Seles. Something similar would have happened with Serena in 2002/2003.

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 06:45 PM
Hingis except for Serena 2002.

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 06:47 PM
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but Venus is a joke at RG. Look at who she beat to make her one RG final: FAT Monica and Clarisa Fernandez. Even before the ab injury, she had freak losses at RG: Schwartz in 1999 and Schett in 2001.

Mauresmo was a joke at RG too but she was considered to be one of the best clay courters.Venus is/was:o very good on clay too.

Annie.
May 2nd, 2011, 06:48 PM
The one that won Roland Garros

Sammo
May 2nd, 2011, 06:50 PM
Serena's the better player on clay. She's won Rome and Roland Garros, the two biggest clay events.

Hingis won Rome twice and won 6 Tier I's on clay (4 on red clay). She also reached more finals and more semifinals on RG than Serena. Serena won 2 Tier I's on clay (1 on red clay) + RG

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 06:59 PM
Could be, but I brought up this match because 1) Hingis was at the peak of her confidence/career. And confidence is crucial for her game 2) Venus was up and coming, and her game was like 2/3 of what ti would become in 2001-2003. IIRC, Hingis got fairly outplayed and overpowered.

And let's not forget she was overpowered by Iva Majoli in 1997 and overpowered/trashed again in 1998 by Monica Seles. Something similar would have happened with Serena in 2002/2003.


All of this means nothing.One match at RG doesn't make anyone a better player.Hingis was better on clay than all of the above other than Seles.Are you going to say because hingis beat and humiliated seles many times she was better?

dragonflies
May 2nd, 2011, 08:02 PM
All of this means nothing.One match at RG doesn't make anyone a better player.Hingis was better on clay than all of the above other than Seles.Are you going to say because hingis beat and humiliated seles many times she was better?


This is a joke thread and your logic(or lack there of) are absurb. A Roland Garros champion is automatically better than a non clay cp one, ends of discussion. Plus Serena did not win her Slam out of the blue like some others, but she was also playing at the champion 's level on red clay in many years.

The FO03 was in her bag until Henin pulled her trick, then more importantly, the nasty loud crowd jump on her. Any reasonable tennis fan who watched the semi btw Serena and Henin knew that. When a match interfered by an outside factor, it's a shame. Try to play tennis hitting accurately while you dont want to be there and are vocal abused by the people around against a tough opponent at a high level. Even a small distraction would be huge, let alone thousands hostile people jeered on you. Many players, Dementieva, Hantuchova to name a few lost their match over a bad call. And yes they didn't have thoudsands spectators jeered and cheered on their errors.


Serena should have at least 2 Fo based on her level of play. She also came close when barely lost to Kuzi, Stosur and Capriati those years and her form was definitely up there with the champions those years. Not to mentioned Serena DNP several FOs. She also managed to win some big clay tournaments despite barely play the clay seasons in all those years.

Hingis is a great player on clay and she should have won the French99. Unfortunally it didn't happen. She came close in 97, and 00 but couldn't pull it off. At the end of the day, she never won the FO, so when all the factors combined,there is no way she is rated over a French champion esp in Serena 's case. This pole reflects how accuracy and reliable of poles in forums where fans vote for their favorites.

In this thread Hingis-seles is a devoted Hingis fan and Apoleb is kind of anti -Serena, but they were reasonable enough in their logics to be fair, and I respect that. On the other hand, the OP opens this thread, say "discuss", but swept out every facts and argurments by arbitrary comments and his own " feeling" and " all of this means nothing" (?) , how does it means nothing? I would say it means more than your arbitrary judgment and if you already stuck with an idea then print it our and put it above your bed and savor it. It would better than coming here opening a thread then blast off everyone's oppinions with your bias. I dont really have time to argue back and forth over a message board with trolls while there are better things to do, so it's over for me here. Take care.

Nicolás89
May 2nd, 2011, 08:08 PM
Serena is better. She nearly beat a prime Henin at Roland Garros in 2003. Hingis would never come close to beating a prime Henin at Roland Garros, even once if they played five times there. Hingis couldnt even beat Majoli, grandma way past it Graf, or her pigeon Pierce to win RG, and got spanked by Capriati in her final serious attempt the year before Capriati went down to Serena.

Serena is 1-4 vs Henin on clay, and 1-3 at her 18 month career peak so she obviously isnt a tough matchup for Henin on clay. Inspite of that she still nearly beat Henin coming into her prime at RG since she is that good, even on clay. Hingis could not do this, I gaurantee it.

Serena of Roland Garros 2002, Rome 2002, Berlin 2003, Charleston 2003, Roland Garros 2003 would beat any version of Hingis on clay. That is enough for me.

So, the answer revolves in that one of them had to compete against Henin? :help:

and that's a big if right there.

petkoan
May 2nd, 2011, 08:16 PM
Serena has the silver in this category, Hingis unfortunately doesn't, even though she came painfully close. So I guess you could say Hingis was a great clay court player, (Chris Evert believes FO clay is Hingis' best surface) with skill and all, but Williams proved to be a tougher competitor and went all the way with for the title. It is difficult to judge, I believe it is important to clarify what the thread is aiming to discuss - 1.skill/ability or 2.results/credentials? In the first I believe Hingis is better and in the second the better competitor Williams, took the most important clay title and she wins in this category. It must me noted too that Hingis too had some great results on clay.

Nicolás89
May 2nd, 2011, 08:16 PM
Could be, but I brought up this match because 1) Hingis was at the peak of her confidence/career. And confidence is crucial for her game 2) Venus was up and coming, and her game was like 2/3 of what ti would become in 2001-2003. IIRC, Hingis got fairly outplayed and overpowered.

And let's not forget she was overpowered by Iva Majoli in 1997 and overpowered/trashed again in 1998 by Monica Seles. Something similar would have happened with Serena in 2002/2003.

Well, not every match is decided by power and Hingis' career proves it. It's stupid to claim "oh yea, she got overpowered before so she was always going to be overpowered onwards 1999....", Serena was already stronger that Martina in 1999 but in their match up in Rome she obviously couldn't outplay Martina, power alone doesn't win a match.

AcesHigh
May 2nd, 2011, 08:19 PM
Serena has the silver in this category, Hingis unfortunately doesn't, even though she came painfully close. So I guess you could say Hingis was a great clay court player, (Chris Evert believes FO clay is Hingis' best surface) with skill and all, but Williams proved to be a tougher competitor and went all the way with for the title. It is difficult to judge, I believe it is important to clarify what the thread is aiming to discuss - 1.skill/ability or 2.results/credentials? In the first I believe Hingis is better and in the second the better competitor Williams, took the most important clay title and she wins in this category. It must me noted too that Hingis too had some great results on clay.

Great post. Serena is the ultimate competitor and overall, a greater athlete and player. However, Martina's skill on the surface eclipses Serena's. If you put Serena's mind and will in Martina's body, she probably would have had 2 RG titles.

TheHangover
May 2nd, 2011, 08:29 PM
can i ask what is the logic that move people in this forum? i mean in the other thread martina was better than henin on grass because she won wimbledon and henin didn't, now that is serena vs martina on clay, martina is in great advantage in the poll even if serena won rg and martina didn't! btw even not considering rg, serena is better than martina on EVERY surface

faboozadoo15
May 2nd, 2011, 08:32 PM
It's close in my opinion. Hingis really should have won multiple RG titles. I don't know what she was doing on court against Majoli-- by FAR her worst match in probably a 2-3 year span. Seles played maybe her best post-stabbing match to take out Hingis in 98, otherwise I really doubt Arantxa could have stopped Hingis in the final. We all know she pissed on the 99 final. Pierce and Capriati had Martina's number when they beat her, and they were playing the best tennis of their lives.

faboozadoo15
May 2nd, 2011, 08:34 PM
can i ask what is the logic that move people in this forum? i mean in the other thread martina was better than henin on grass because she won wimbledon and henin didn't, now that is serena vs martina on clay, martina is in great advantage in the poll even if serena won rg and martina didn't! btw even not considering rg, serena is better than martina on EVERY surface

This is slightly more difficult because there are many more clay tournaments to take into account. And if we are just to look at RG alone, I think Martina has the better record there too, in spite of not winning.

Sombrerero loco
May 2nd, 2011, 08:35 PM
hingis is way better than serena on clay.in fact she is way better than serena anyway :hearts:

BuTtErFrEnA
May 2nd, 2011, 08:38 PM
give me the trophy

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 08:41 PM
This is a joke thread and your logic(or lack there of) are absurb. 1.A Roland Garros champion is automatically better than a non clay cp one, ends of discussion. 2.Plus Serena did not win her Slam out of the blue like some others, but she was also playing at the champion 's level on red clay in many years.

3.The FO03 was in her bag until Henin pulled her trick, then more importantly, the nasty loud crowd jump on her. Any reasonable tennis fan who watched the semi btw Serena and Henin knew that. When a match interfered by an outside factor, it's a shame. Try to play tennis hitting accurately while you dont want to be there and are vocal abused by the people around against a tough opponent at a high level. Even a small distraction would be huge, let alone thousands hostile people jeered on you. Many players, Dementieva, Hantuchova to name a few lost their match over a bad call. And yes they didn't have thoudsands spectators jeered and cheered on their errors.


4.Serena should have at least 2 Fo based on her level of play. She also came close when barely lost to Kuzi, Stosur and Capriati those years and her form was definitely up there with the champions those years. Not to mentioned Serena DNP several FOs. She also managed to win some big clay tournaments despite barely play the clay seasons in all those years.

Hingis is a great player on clay and she should have won the French99. Unfortunally it didn't happen. She came close in 97, and 00 but couldn't pull it off. At the end of the day, she never won the FO, 5.so when all the factors combined,there is no way she is rated over a French champion esp in Serena 's case. This pole reflects how accuracy and reliable of poles in forums where fans vote for their favorites.

In this thread Hingis-seles is a devoted Hingis fan and Apoleb is kind of anti -Serena, but they were reasonable enough in their logics to be fair, and I respect that. On the other hand, the OP opens this thread, say "discuss", but swept out every facts and argurments by arbitrary comments and his own " feeling" and " all of this means nothing" (?) , how does it means nothing? I would say it means more than your arbitrary judgment and if you already stuck with an idea then print it our and put it above your bed and savor it. It would better than coming here opening a thread then blast off everyone's oppinions with your bias. I dont really have time to argue back and forth over a message board with trolls while there are better things to do, so it's over for me here. Take care.

1. No. Is Schiavone/myskina/majoli better than Safina, Jankovic, Hingis on clay? No. Jankovic doesn't even have a final but she is better on clay than flukes who only have a FO and some MM title on clay.

2. :spit: She won her first and only titles on red clay in 2002.Nobody saw that coming. She was the best player on clay that year but never before or after.

3. Same thing happened to hingis in 1999.

4. People say that about hingis too.She should've won both her finals but didn't.And Serena won only three clay titles.Stop lying.

5. Like I saidshe was better on clay than one time flukes like myskina, schiavone,majoli even though she lost to her.So you see there is a way.

6. :bigwave:

LightWarrior
May 2nd, 2011, 08:44 PM
Who on Earth voted 'Both suck'? :weirdo:

This is TF forum. Probably a retarded. :tape:
Hingis was better, more consistent and her style suited clay better. Serena won RG and Hingis didn't though.

Matt01
May 2nd, 2011, 10:04 PM
Winning Slam finals counts for a lot but that's not everything.
Hingis wins all the other improtant stats so it's her :shrug:

hingis-seles
May 2nd, 2011, 10:12 PM
Could be, but I brought up this match because 1) Hingis was at the peak of her confidence/career. And confidence is crucial for her game 2) Venus was up and coming, and her game was like 2/3 of what ti would become in 2001-2003. IIRC, Hingis got fairly outplayed and overpowered.

And let's not forget she was overpowered by Iva Majoli in 1997 and overpowered/trashed again in 1998 by Monica Seles. Something similar would have happened with Serena in 2002/2003.

Why is it that whenever Hingis loses to a power player, she was blown off the court? She isn't allowed to have bad days? Take a look at Venus - in the midst of her peak, she lost to Hingis 6-1, 6-1.

As for something similar would have happened with Serena, we can say Steffi was never going to win AO or RG again? She lost a combined 3 finals to Monica there, who had equalled Steffi's 3 AO titles and had won more RG titles by the spring of 1993. Going into would have, could have, should have territory is dangerous. All we know is the one time Hingis and Serena played on clay, Hingis won 6-2, 6-2.

dragonflies
May 2nd, 2011, 10:26 PM
:awww:1. No. Is Schiavone/myskina/majoli better than Safina, Jankovic, Hingis on clay? No. Jankovic doesn't even have a final but she is better on clay than flukes who only have a FO and some MM title on clay.

2. :spit: She won her first and only titles on red clay in 2002.Nobody saw that coming. She was the best player on clay that year but never before or after.

3. Same thing happened to hingis in 1999.

4. People say that about hingis too.She should've won both her finals but didn't.And Serena won only three clay titles.Stop lying.

5. Like I saidshe was better on clay than one time flukes like myskina, schiavone,majoli even though she lost to her.So you see there is a way.

6. :bigwave:


Your argument has fatal flaws, but I am not sure if you intended to manipulate the facts in a malicious way ( that would be really bad), or it was due to lacking of critical thinking ability and inteligence. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and also b/c I don't like to think of others as evils, so I would assume it was the later.


First of, your poor attemp of trying to clump Serena in a group of one slam winners( or one slam wonders as people said. By the way, I think all the one slam winners are also very good players when they accomplished victories that over 95% of the players couldn't ). Let me devide those players to catergories if you can't


* Ivanovic> Majoli> Myskina> Schiavone : Won one FO thanks a lot to the luck of their draws. All the best players were to be on the other sides and killed each other off before got to the finals ( ie Schiavone, Majoli , Schiavone also benefited from a fragile mentally Stosur) to take advantage. Myskina was just like Schiavone's case, but she did play some not-in-form top players.


*Hingis>> >Safina> Jankovic: Players that are very good on clay, won some bigger warm up tournaments yet unable to pull off a Slam win. Hingis is way better than the other 2 with Safina was the top contenders for 2 years and Jankovic were strong for about 3 years but not as strong as Safina's.


*Serena> Kuznetsova: Players that won the FO besides other clay tournaments and also were contenders for many FO, playing at the level of the ultimate champions. Serena came closer in more ocassions in playing less tournaments put her befor Kuzi.


So whether Jankovic is better than Ivanovic or Myskina is another matter, but clamp Serena with the first group is already dismiss your argument instanly.



2. Serena has played usually 9-13 tournaments / year with maybe 2,3 years(?) she played more than that. She skip several Slams, and barely played clay court tournaments. Her high level of play was not only in 02, but also in 03 in FO with the infamous" the hand" and 01, 09. You are the one that needs to stop lying.



3. The incidents with Serena and Hingis proved that they were the top contenders in more than one Slam and the outside interfered factors changed the match's results. But the difference was their attitudes. Hingis stop the play when Graf was ready to serve to go on the other court to look for the ball mark, so the crowd turned on her is kind of legitimate. Serena, on the other hand, rightfully asked for a first serve which she was denied ( Navratilova commented that when a player raised her hand, then whatever happend would be discounted), then the crowd who didn't know about tennis 's rule jump on her. O



4. Serena won one Slam and 2 tier 1 against great competiton and you compare her with Majoi then say she is worse than Jankovic who won 2 Rome, no FO final with weak competitions? what kind of logic is that? Also I would say roughly 3 out of 10= 30% > 3 wins out of 30 = 10%. I am sure you are not good at math.



5. When you say someone is better, then it's instantly the final call? lmao. Anyway, I would say it would be better for you and for this forum if you spend more time to do productive things rather than posting b/s. At least going back to school learning some basic thinkings than posting that much on a forum that is filled with biased rabbit fans. I dont know what got into me today to spend my time replying to nonsense posts. My bad.

faboozadoo15
May 2nd, 2011, 10:47 PM
In Conchita better than both of them?

Lucemferre
May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 PM
:awww:


Your argument has fatal flaws, but I am not sure if you intended to manipulate the facts in a malicious way ( that would be really bad), or it was due to lacking of critical thinking ability and inteligence. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and also b/c I don't like to think of others as evils, so I would assume it was the later.


First of, your poor attemp of trying to clump Serena in a group of one slam winners( or one slam wonders as people said. By the way, I think all the one slam winners are also very good players when they accomplished victories that over 95% of the players couldn't ). Let me devide those players to catergories if you can't


* Ivanovic> Majoli> Myskina> Schiavone : Won one FO thanks a lot to the luck of their draws. All the best players were to be on the other sides and killed each other off before got to the finals ( ie Schiavone, Majoli , Schiavone also benefited from a fragile mentally Stosur) to take advantage. Myskina was just like Schiavone's case, but she did play some not-in-form top players.


*Hingis>> >Safina> Jankovic: Players that are very good on clay, won some bigger warm up tournaments yet unable to pull off a Slam win. Hingis is way better than the other 2 with Safina was the top contenders for 2 years and Jankovic were strong for about 3 years but not as strong as Safina's.


*Serena> Kuznetsova: Players that won the FO besides other clay tournaments and also were contenders for many FO, playing at the level of the ultimate champions. Serena came closer in more ocassions in playing less tournaments put her befor Kuzi.


So whether Jankovic is better than Ivanovic or Myskina is another matter, but clamp Serena with the first group is already dismiss your argument instanly.



2. Serena has played usually 9-13 tournaments / year with maybe 2,3 years(?) she played more than that. She skip several Slams, and barely played clay court tournaments. Her high level of play was not only in 02, but also in 03 in FO with the infamous" the hand" and 01, 09. You are the one that needs to stop lying.



3. The incidents with Serena and Hingis proved that they were the top contenders in more than one Slam and the outside interfered factors changed the match's results. But the difference was their attitudes. Hingis stop the play when Graf was ready to serve to go on the other court to look for the ball mark, so the crowd turned on her is kind of legitimate. Serena, on the other hand, rightfully asked for a first serve which she was denied ( Navratilova commented that when a player raised her hand, then whatever happend would be discounted), then the crowd who didn't know about tennis 's rule jump on her. O



4. Serena won one Slam and 2 tier 1 against great competiton and you compare her with Majoi then say she is worse than Jankovic who won 2 Rome, no FO final with weak competitions? what kind of logic is that? Also I would say roughly 3 out of 10= 30% > 3 wins out of 30 = 10%. I am sure you are not good at math.



5. When you say someone is better, then it's instantly the final call? lmao. Anyway, I would say it would be better for you and for this forum if you spend more time to do productive things rather than posting b/s. At least going back to school learning some basic thinkings than posting that much on a forum that is filled with biased rabbit fans. I dont know what got into me today to spend my time replying to nonsense posts. My bad.

I was trying to show you that RG champions could be worse than players who havent won RG.It could be true whether it's a one slam wonder or multiple major winner with only one major on that surface. In the other thread I also placed henin higher than hingis on grass because her record at wimbledon even without the title is more consistent.Hingis' draw was a joke when she won.

Serena is a better big match player than hingis but overall hingis was better on clay.If you ask me who would win at their peak my answer would be Serena but that's a diferent question. She had only one great year on clay and never won another red clay title afterwards.

AcesHigh
May 3rd, 2011, 12:07 AM
Why is it that whenever Hingis loses to a power player, she was blown off the court? She isn't allowed to have bad days?

No, she's not apparently

Ryusuke Tenma
May 3rd, 2011, 12:09 AM
Serena's title means nothing. Hingis was and is the overall better claycourter.

BuTtErFrEnA
May 3rd, 2011, 12:31 AM
Serena's title means nothing. Hingis was and is the overall better claycourter.

we'll see how much that title doesn't mean in a couple weeks eh :lol:

LeonHart
May 3rd, 2011, 12:53 AM
Truth of the matter is we'll never know as they are both way past their prime and will never play each other on clay ever again. So it's not even worth fighting over :shrug:

pedropt
May 3rd, 2011, 12:54 AM
Serena's title means nothing. Hingis was and is the overall better claycourter.

http://i.imgur.com/5kPUj.gif

Polikarpov
May 3rd, 2011, 03:48 AM
Peak to peak, I'll give it to Serena; overall consistency to Hingis.

In my opinion, Serena's impressive string of wins on clay from 2002-2003 is down to the fact that she was at her absolute physical peak at that time -- not because she fully understands the dynamics and nuances of playing on the surface. She was just a beast back then and could easily improvise and compensate for her inability to slide and sub-par footing. But when her fitness slightly regressed, she more often than not struggled on the surface. And I think her records show that. Pre-2002, all of Serena's titles were on either hard or carpet. Post-2003, she only managed to win Charleston, which was on green clay.

Clay was kind of a double-edged sword for Hingis. The slow and high-bouncing balls neutralizes her opponents power, which gives her more time to work the court and play her game. But this also means that her shots, especially her forehand, would sit up more nicely for her opponents. And against the top players, she needed to work extra hard since she really doesn't have a definitive shot she can rely on to finish points off more quickly. Moreover, she can also get caught in long, grinding rallies, which ends up draining her stamina. That's why, implosion aside, she wasn't able to offer much of a resistance in the third set of the '99 Roland Garros final against Graf. She was out of gas and was jumping the gun very so often.

At their respectives peaks, I think Hingis would be lucky to take a set off Serena. However, Hingis had the better overall clay record because, in spite of her physical deficiencies, she had the fundamentals, and genuinely knew how to play on the surface. That's why six years after her physical peak and three years of inactivity, she managed to sneak in a Tier 1 title in Rome and a respectable QF finish in Roland Garros.

BlueTrees
May 3rd, 2011, 03:59 AM
The Hingis fans in the Hingis vs. Henin on grass thread were saying 1 Wimbledon > 0 Wimbledon therefore Hingis > Henin. So 1 Roland Garros > 0 Roland Garros therefore Serena > Hingis. It works both ways. :wavey:

rimon
May 3rd, 2011, 04:11 AM
The Hingis fans in the Hingis vs. Henin on grass thread were saying 1 Wimbledon > 0 Wimbledon therefore Hingis > Henin. So 1 Roland Garros > 0 Roland Garros therefore Serena > Hingis. It works both ways. :wavey:

If that is the sole reason, then yes, you're right. However, we must remember that grass pretty much IS Wimbledon. The clay season is way longer. It's interesting to note that it's the same situation in terms of SFs/Fs. Martina has 5 SFs and 2 Fs, to Serena's 2 SFs and 1 F. Same situation with her and Justine at W, except in reverse.

Hardiansf
May 3rd, 2011, 04:27 AM
Martina is the better clay court player.
But between these two, Serena is overall the better player. So I choose her. And I'm bias, I know.

dragonflies
May 3rd, 2011, 05:46 AM
If that is the sole reason, then yes, you're right. However, we must remember that grass pretty much IS Wimbledon. The clay season is way longer. It's interesting to note that it's the same situation in terms of SFs/Fs. Martina has 5 SFs and 2 Fs, to Serena's 2 SFs and 1 F. Same situation with her and Justine at W, except in reverse.


At the caliber of players like Serena and Martina, it's the WIN (ie victory) that counts, not the LOSE( ie. got beaten by some players in the slams). Some lesser players might be thrilled with a QF or SF finish, but with these 2 players, a SF is considered a failure, cause they wanted to go all the way.

All the warm up tournaments are there to prepare for the ultimate battle where everyone is there and ready, so if you can't even win once, besides many times in many years of trying, it speaks loudly how good a player you are. Only retared people would value some warm up tournies where top players take turn to rest here and there over a Grand Slam.

Serena won the ultimate prize on clay. Martina didn't. Most people in the world, sports commentators, fans and nonfans remember a champion, not the semifinalists, because SFs and QFs depends a lot on the luck of the draws. The lone place where people compare SFs and QFs is this place where hot headed biased teenate fans dominate. There is no doubt Martina would trade all her clay titles plus an AO for a FO so she can complete a career grand slam.

KBlade
May 3rd, 2011, 05:59 AM
Serena's title means nothing. Hingis was and is the overall better claycourter.

Sure, a Grand Slam title means nothing :rolleyes: Nice logic.

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 06:12 AM
Hingis is yet another who belongs in the very "overrated" category on this forum. The fact she is leading the poll both vs Serena on clay and Henin on grass is a joke, especialy as others said to vote for her in both requires some major inconsistency in reasoning.

During the Hingis on and off reign at #1 the French Open titles went to Majoli, a way past her prime Sanchez, an even more way past her prime Graf, Mary Pierce, and Jennifer Capriati. Hingis couldnt even sneak one out amongst that group. Hingis isnt the best clay courter to not win the French either, Sabatini and Martinez are both superior. Martinez btw leads the H2H with Hingis on clay, and even beat her in 2000 when she was in her twilight years and Hingis was still at or near her best.

Serena only plays for Roland Garros but that is already enough to prove she is superior. Had it not been for Henin, by far the best clay courter of the last 15 years, Serena would have won 3 French Open titles- 2002, 2003, and 2007.

bandabou
May 3rd, 2011, 06:36 AM
A title is a title, no?! :lol: :angel: Serena defied all odds and logic, but that's what she always does.

dragonflies
May 3rd, 2011, 07:20 AM
Serena's title means nothing. Hingis was and is the overall better claycourter.

A Grand slam title means nothing? Tell that to Fransexa Schiavone. She would beg you to differ then forfeit all her " sex before matches" to go after you until you look as good as a roasted Peking duck.;)

BartoLiNa
May 3rd, 2011, 07:38 AM
Serena, obviously.

homogenius
May 3rd, 2011, 07:55 AM
Martina

I didn't read all the thread but some saying that being a slam winner on a particular surface automatically means that you are a better player that some who never won this slam (in this case the FO)are wrong imo.

Hingis, Safina and JJ are/were better on clay than Myskina or Schiavone.
Conchita is a Wimbledon winner.Justine is not.However, Justine was WAY better than her on grass etc...

Polikarpov
May 3rd, 2011, 07:58 AM
Had it not been for Henin, by far the best clay courter of the last 15 years, Serena would have won 3 French Open titles - 2002, 2003, and 2007.

And you know this for a fact because? I'll give you 2003. But 2007? She lost in the QF, but apparently you're so sure that she would have won her next two matches.

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 04:42 PM
And you know this for a fact because? I'll give you 2003. But 2007? She lost in the QF, but apparently you're so sure that she would have won her next two matches.

For her standards Serena played a pretty bad quarterfinal vs Henin and still won many more games (7) than Jankovic (4) and Ivanovic (2). Ivanovic in the final was dreadful, Serena would have no problems there. Jankovic could be more of a problem, but really who would ever bet on JJ over Serena in a slam semi or final (I know she has beaten Serena in a slam quarterfinal).

hingis-seles
May 3rd, 2011, 08:48 PM
Hingis is yet another who belongs in the very "overrated" category on this forum. The fact she is leading the poll both vs Serena on clay and Henin on grass is a joke, especialy as others said to vote for her in both requires some major inconsistency in reasoning.

During the Hingis on and off reign at #1 the French Open titles went to Majoli, a way past her prime Sanchez, an even more way past her prime Graf, Mary Pierce, and Jennifer Capriati. Hingis couldnt even sneak one out amongst that group. Hingis isnt the best clay courter to not win the French either, Sabatini and Martinez are both superior. Martinez btw leads the H2H with Hingis on clay, and even beat her in 2000 when she was in her twilight years and Hingis was still at or near her best.

Serena only plays for Roland Garros but that is already enough to prove she is superior. Had it not been for Henin, by far the best clay courter of the last 15 years, Serena would have won 3 French Open titles- 2002, 2003, and 2007.

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=18709523&postcount=1

So what have you finally decided? Overrated or an underachiever?

justineheninfan
May 3rd, 2011, 09:02 PM
She is an underachiever, but she is overrated by people here who seem to judge her as if her career turned out as it had potential to, rather than the reality it frittered away due to becoming a headcase and not working hard enough to maximize her talents and keep improving her game as her peers did after the fast start. Who else played their best ever tennis at 16. So she is easily both an underachiever and in some cases (such as this forum) overrated.

She is a more talented player than someone like Justine Henin, yet Henin clearly achieved more and is the better player inspite of it. Of course some on this forum rate Hingis a better player than even Henin or Venus anyway, which is an example of the overrating, while what I said is the example of the underachieving part. Clijsters and Sharapova who are likewise clearly less talented both have the chance to achieve more as well (Kim probably will at this point).

Linguae^
May 3rd, 2011, 09:11 PM
Serena. No less.

LCS
May 3rd, 2011, 09:31 PM
Serena is better. She nearly beat a prime Henin at Roland Garros in 2003. Hingis would never come close to beating a prime Henin at Roland Garros, even once if they played five times there. Hingis couldnt even beat Majoli, grandma way past it Graf, or her pigeon Pierce to win RG, and got spanked by Capriati in her final serious attempt the year before Capriati went down to Serena.

Henin fan of course. Hingis had skipped the entire clay season when she lost to Majoli cause she had fallen off her horse :weirdo: She still made the final. Now shut it and retire like your fav. kthxbye :wavey:

Apoleb
May 3rd, 2011, 09:32 PM
She is an underachiever, but she is overrated by people here who seem to judge her as if her career turned out as it had potential to, rather than the reality it frittered away due to becoming a headcase and not working hard enough to maximize her talents and keep improving her game as her peers did after the fast start. Who else played their best ever tennis at 16. So she is easily both an underachiever and in some cases (such as this forum) overrated.

She is a more talented player than someone like Justine Henin, yet Henin clearly achieved more and is the better player inspite of it. Of course some on this forum rate Hingis a better player than even Henin or Venus anyway, which is an example of the overrating, while what I said is the example of the underachieving part. Clijsters and Sharapova who are likewise clearly less talented both have the chance to achieve more as well (Kim probably will at this point).

How do you base that on and how do you define talent? She didn't have the racket head speed and neither the athleticism of Justine Henin. Justine is a more complete player. I'm sure Martina tried to add more fire power to her game, but she simply doesn't possess that, and that's part of "talent". Justine's shot making ability is more remarkable given her size.

I don't think Martina is an underachiever. She benefited from her immense tennis maturity at a time when the game was transitioning and her generation hadn't yet fully developed. She is certainly overrated on this board, that seems to take her to some fantasized mythical level.

She has no business winning the poll imo; not by this margin, anyway.

LCS
May 3rd, 2011, 09:33 PM
She is an underachiever, but she is overrated by people here who seem to judge her as if her career turned out as it had potential to, rather than the reality it frittered away due to becoming a headcase and not working hard enough to maximize her talents and keep improving her game as her peers did after the fast start. Who else played their best ever tennis at 16. So she is easily both an underachiever and in some cases (such as this forum) overrated.

She is a more talented player than someone like Justine Henin, yet Henin clearly achieved more and is the better player inspite of it. Of course some on this forum rate Hingis a better player than even Henin or Venus anyway, which is an example of the overrating, while what I said is the example of the underachieving part. Clijsters and Sharapova who are likewise clearly less talented both have the chance to achieve more as well (Kim probably will at this point).

Martina was the most rawly talented player to grace the courts in the last 15 years. She certainly underachieved and is certainly not overrated.

justineheninfan
May 4th, 2011, 12:51 AM
Martina was the most rawly talented player to grace the courts in the last 15 years.

Nope that would be Serena Williams, keeping in mind natural ability to hit with power and extreme athleticsm are part of "talent" too.

zurich62
Jun 16th, 2011, 12:12 PM
hey great news today martina hingis will playing liverpool tennis against eugenie bouchard ;) :) this match will starting in 02h00 and in live here
http://kawai-hingis.skyrock.com

go hingis

Grafbestever
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:01 PM
Serena by far. Serena won a French during the Henin era on clay. To take a French Open title away from the likes of Henin, Capriati, and Clijsters is a stellar feat on her part.

Hingis couldnt even win a French during a transition clay court period after Graf, Seles, and Sanchez Vicario fell well off their prime levels, with no dominant leader. Heck it was a way past her prime/nearly retired Graf who denied her. The year before that a past her prime Seles beat her paving the way for a well below her former best Sanchez Vicario's title. Conchita Martinez one of the lesser clay court greats of the Graf era who was also years past her prime also walloped her the next year when they met on clay. Some clay court great Hingis was, not.

Lapaco
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:25 PM
Henin fan of course. Hingis had skipped the entire clay season when she lost to Majoli cause she had fallen off her horse :weirdo: She still made the final. Now shut it and retire like your fav. kthxbye :wavey:

Follow your own advice and do the same :wavey:

Lapaco
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:26 PM
Serena by far. Serena won a French during the Henin era on clay. To take a French Open title away from the likes of Henin, Capriati, and Clijsters is a stellar feat on her part.

Hingis couldnt even win a French during a transition clay court period after Graf, Seles, and Sanchez Vicario fell well off their prime levels, with no dominant leader. Heck it was a way past her prime/nearly retired Graf who denied her. The year before that a past her prime Seles beat her paving the way for a well below her former best Sanchez Vicario's title. Conchita Martinez one of the lesser clay court greats of the Graf era who was also years past her prime also walloped her the next year when they met on clay. Some clay court great Hingis was, not.

Serena never won a French during Henin era. During that era, she lost twice to Henin, once to Capriati and a couple of times didn't show up to play.

Grafbestever
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:28 PM
Henin began her dominance on clay in 2002 with the Berlin title and carried it through until her first retirement in 2008. Henin was one of the favorites for the 2002 French. Serena did win a French during the Henin era, and was cheated out of a second one by the famous hand.

Lapaco
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:34 PM
Henin began her dominance on clay in 2002 with the Berlin title and carried it through until her first retirement in 2008. Henin was one of the favorites for the 2002 French. Serena did win a French during the Henin era, and was cheated out of a second one by the famous hand.

Berlin 2002 was the first big title she won. She was sick for 2002 RG and lost in the first round to Kapros. Her true big time breakthrough happened in 2003.

timafi
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Hingis >>>>>>>>>>>>Williams despite the trophy

zurich62
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtUqtMdv-Ss martina hingis training with henri leconte at eastbourne 13 june 2011

zurich62
Jun 16th, 2011, 01:56 PM
7/5 3/0 for hingis :)

Sonf@
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:03 PM
Hingis' head to head against top players on clay surfaces:
-Novotna 3/0
-Martínez 2/3
-Sánchez-Vicario 6/2
-Pierce 0/2
-Graf 1/1
-Seles 2/1
-Majoli 2/1
-Capriati 1/2
-V.Williams 3/3
-S.Williams 1/0
-Mauresmo 1/3
-Dementieva 1/0
-Schiavone 1/0
-Safina 1/0
-Clijsters 0/1

Total: 25/19


Serena's head to head against top players on clay surfaces:
-Martinez 3/0
-Hingis 0/1
-Sánchez-Vicario 0/2
-V.Williams 1/1
-Capriati 2/3
-M.J.Fernandez 0/1
-Henin 1/4
-Myskina 1/0
-Pierce 3/0
-Davenport 1/0
-Mauresmo 1/1
-Kuznetsova 1/1
-Schiavone 1/2
-Safina 1/1
-Sharapova 1/0
-Jankovic 0/1
-Stosur 0/1

Total: 17/19

zurich62
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:11 PM
martina hingis is very impressive today at liverpool tennis :) :) she can comeback at wta without problem :) :)
nobody watch this match ?

zurich62
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:18 PM
martina hingis The Swiss Miss comes through 7-5, 6-1! A great start for Hingis on her return to Liverpool this week.

with 7 aces :)

pictures soon here http://kawai-hingis.skyrock.com

sluggahjells
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:31 PM
Hingis never wanted to do the physical work to beef up her serve........And that's why, I say it's really a push, with Serena's RG title the tiebreaker.

Olórin
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:39 PM
Hingis >>>>>>>>>>>>Williams despite the trophy

Nope.

harloo
Jun 16th, 2011, 02:58 PM
Serena won the French in 2002. In her prime she was unstoppable on any surface. On the other hand while Hingis' game was suited all surfaces she didn't have the will and determination to improve her weak serve. The game passed her by and she refused to do anything about it. Serena wins by miles.:)

Matt01
Jun 16th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Serena won the French in 2002. In her prime she was unstoppable on any surface. On the other hand while Hingis' game was suited all surfaces she didn't have the will and determination to improve her weak serve. The game passed her by and she refused to do anything about it. Serena wins by miles.:)


:bs:

Clay isn't only about RG 02. :help: Hingis could play much better on clay, won more titles and has a better record against the top players as shown in this thread. :wavey:

zurich62
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:27 PM
after eugenie bouchard ( martina win 75 61 ) today martina will playing against martina navratilova :) :) on live here

http://kawai-hingis.skyrock.com/

Sir Stefwhit
Jun 17th, 2011, 01:09 PM
Again a match up argument:rolleyes: Hingis had more FO finals, more semifinals, more other titles more everything except a FO win.What Serena is a better big match player/champion but she isn't better than hingis on clay.

I agree. If the two met at their respective peaks in a FO final the safe money is on Serena. Her mental strength and her ability to elevate her game at the majors is second to none, but all in all Hingis is the more comfortable on clay. Minus the French, which by the way is a BIG minus, I would agree Hingis is better on clay. The funny thing is that she'd trade every clay victory for the one Serena has...lol

bandabou
Jun 17th, 2011, 01:14 PM
Serena's peak, peak form on clay? RG title, Rome title, Berlin RU in the SAME year! After '03 Serena wasn't much of a factor on clay, but that peak form..rivals anything Hingis did on surface plus Serena DID win RG.

Matt, stop it already. You act like Serena only won RG as her lone clay-title. She had a pretty good run..in fact came one or two points from winning Berlin, Rome and RG in the same year.

Matt01
Jun 17th, 2011, 06:38 PM
Matt, stop it already. You act like Serena only won RG as her lone clay-title. She had a pretty good run..in fact came one or two points from winning Berlin, Rome and RG in the same year.


She had exactly 1 good run in 2002 (when Hingis and Davenport were out with injury). :yeah:
All the other years, she hasn't been successful on red clay.

Sammo
Jun 17th, 2011, 07:08 PM
Serena won the French in 2002. In her prime she was unstoppable on any surface. On the other hand while Hingis' game was suited all surfaces she didn't have the will and determination to improve her weak serve. The game passed her by and she refused to do anything about it. Serena wins by miles.:)

Why do people say that all the time? It gets boring I mean she improved a lot when she came back, her average serve speed was like 160 kmh which is OK, I still remember an ace she hit against Davenport in Indian Wells 06 which was like 182 kmh, but watching the WTT match in which she almost defeated Venus last year she was playing the tennis she used to play 10 years ago which basically consisted in lowering the unforced errors to the minimum :shrug:

Hingis lost ridicolous matches against players like Peng or Mirza because of injuries, not because they passed her away, because when she was injury free she was defeating ballbashers like them easily (Kudryavtseva) :lol:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:20 PM
I agree. If the two met at their respective peaks in a FO final the safe money is on Serena. Her mental strength and her ability to elevate her game at the majors is second to none, but all in all Hingis is the more comfortable on clay. Minus the French, which by the way is a BIG minus, I would agree Hingis is better on clay. The funny thing is that she'd trade every clay victory for the one Serena has...lol


there is the answer

friendsita
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:22 PM
Really?
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmy4ubYH3s1qg5h2to1_500.gif

open your eyes
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:30 PM
If the luck factor is into consideration then Serena, probably, but in fact Martina, of course. Why this is even a question?