PDA

View Full Version : 2004 RG Favorites (updated with Rome results)


Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:26 AM
Awhile back there was a thread about favorites going into RG the past 5 years and what they actually did at the French. I did some fact finding about the past 5 years in that thread and found that out of the top 5 favorites nearly every year 3 or 4 of them did really well and one of them won most of the time. Unfortunately, I can seem to find the thread now. :o (if anyone can find it it would be appreciated)

Well there is only 2 weeks left before RG starts, but really only one important week and tourney remains(Rome). Let's see how the big clay tournies have panned out.

Amelia: Davenport def Mauresmo (Momo def Henin in semis)
Charleston: V Williams def Martinez
Warsaw: V Williams def Kuznetsova
Berlin: Mauresmo def V Williams (walkover)
Rome: Mauresmo def Capriati (Capriati def Serena in semis)

Now that the leadup season has been completed(big tourneys at least) let's see who the top 5 favorites are. This year is tough because of injury/illness. On form, Mauresmo and Venus are the top favorites, but Justine is the defending champ and is most comfortable on clay. Serena won 5 out of the last 6 slams she played in so she is automatically a fave. Capriati has shown that she can be a contender in the second week of RG. Davenport showed good form early, but hasn't played since Charleston and hates RG. So the five favorites I think going into RG are Mauresmo, Venus, Justine, Serena, and Capriati. Time will tell how they will do.

tenn_ace
May 12th, 2004, 03:29 AM
ok, if you're "too" shy :rolleyes: to say it, I'll do it: V. Williams is a favourite.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:33 AM
ok, if you're "too" shy :rolleyes: to say it, I'll do it: V. Williams is a favourite.
No shit Sherlock, the tourneys are not all over so I haven't declared the 5 favorites yet.

Gowza
May 12th, 2004, 03:33 AM
i'd say venus then mauresmo just going from those tournies.

tenn_ace
May 12th, 2004, 03:37 AM
No shit Sherlock, the tourneys are not all over so I haven't declared the 5 favorites yet.
oh yeah Watson, we all ARE looking forward to your formal announcement... :haha:

Gowza
May 12th, 2004, 03:38 AM
calm down guys there is no reason for this.

Deah.
May 12th, 2004, 03:41 AM
ok, if you're "too" shy :rolleyes: to say it, I'll do it: V. Williams is a favourite.

:tape:

*roddicksinme*
May 12th, 2004, 03:41 AM
dont forget, Amelia is the only clay court tourny Davenport played

cheeky
May 12th, 2004, 03:47 AM
dont forget, Amelia is the only clay court tourny Davenport playeddidn't she play the family circle cup and lose to patty schnyder??:confused:

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:49 AM
:tape:
You got alot of balls showing your face around these parts.

"Topaz"
May 12th, 2004, 03:50 AM
Rome still has to be filled in so I will bump this thread after the tourney is over.Judging by the responses, I think you should have waited till Rome is over before launching this thread.

No harm done though. We live and learn.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:52 AM
Back to the focus of the thread. There have been posters (namely fammmmedspin) who say that being a favorite for RG doesn't mean much for winning the title. I have some info here about the last 5 RG that I will post illustrating the relation between being a fave and fulfilling potential at RG.


Here is 1999:

1999 clay titles Tier 2 and higher

Hilton Head: Martina Hingis def Kournikova
Amelia Island: Monica Seles def Dragomir Ilie(Seles lost only 14 games)
Hamburg: Venus Williams def Mary Pierce(Venus lost only 18 games)
Rome: Venus Williams def Mary Pierce(beat Hingis along the way)
Berlin: Martina Hingis def Halard-Decugis

Top favorites going into RG 99 were obviously Hingis and Venus, with Seles and Pierce also making some noise.

Now let's see how they did in RG:

Pierce: seeded 8th, lost to Conchita Martinez in 2nd rd in 3 sets
Seles: seeded 3rd, lost to Graf in SF in 3 sets
Venus: seeded 5th, lost to Barbara Schwartz in 4th rd in 3 sets
Hingis: seeded 1st, lost to Graf in F

Hingis was one of the top favorites and fulfilled that by making the Final while the other top favorite Venus lost in the 4th. The 3rd fave Seles made it to the SF and did well, but Graf played the spoiler for the whole tourney beating Seles and Hingis. Pierce lost to a good clay courter in Conchita. So in 99 the favorites did good, but not great.

I will follow with 2000-2003 in separate installments.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:53 AM
Judging by the responses, I think you should have waited till Rome is over before launching this thread.

No harm done though. We live and learn.
No, because the heart of this thread is just about to be put in.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:54 AM
Here goes 2000:

Amelia: Seles def C. Martinez (Seles didn't drop a set, CM didn't until the final)
Hilton Head: Pierce def Vicario(Mary lost 12 games and beat Seles in SF)
Hamburg: Hingis def Vicario
Berlin: C. Martinez def Coetzer(CM didn't drop a set, beat Hingis in SF)
Rome: Seles def Mauresmo

Top favorites here were Seles, C.Martinez, and Pierce. Hingis and Vicario are outside faves.

Let's see how they did:

Hingis: seeded #1 lost in SF in 3 sets to Pierce
Vicario: seeded #8 lost in SF in 2 sets to C. Martinez
Pierce: seeded #6 won RG def C. Martinez in final in 2 sets
C. Martinez: seeded #5 lost in F to Pierce in 2 sets
Seles: seeded # 3 lost in QF to Pierce in 3 sets

Well in 2000 those who were called favorites leading into RG were indeed the top 5 performers in the tourney. They only lost to each other and 4 of them were in the semis. I wasn't sure I would come across a RG were all the faves did basically as well as they could and fulfilled their status as a favorite. I wonder if this is a rare occurence in RG or slams in general.

2001 to follow soon.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:54 AM
Alright, let's move on to 2001:

Amelia: Mauresmo def Coetzer
Charleston: Capriati def Hingis
Hamburg: Venus def Shaughnessy
Berlin: Mauresmo def Capriati
Rome: Dokic def Mauresmo

Mauresmo and Capriati are obviously the top faves here. Outside faves were Venus and Dokic(yes Dokic). I think Hingis should be thrown in too although she didn't win a title she did pretty well and was #1.

Let's see how they did:

Hingis: seeded #1, lost in SF to Capriati in 2 sets
Dokic: seeded #15, lost 3rd round to Mandula in 3 sets
Venus: seeded #2, lost 1st round to Schett in 2 sets
Capriati: seeded #4, won RG over Clijsters in 3 sets
Mauresmo: seeded #5 lost 1st round to Kandarr in 2 sets

This year, one of the top faves(Capriati) won the title, but the other crashed out in the first round. Hingis was the best of the outside faves making the SF, but Venus and Dokic disappointed with their 1st and 3rd round losses, respectively.

2002 is next.

Infiniti2001
May 12th, 2004, 03:54 AM
You got alot of balls showing your face around these parts.


Not for long, a few days ago she was prr_rrp , of course that poster is no longer with us :lol: :rolls: :haha:

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:55 AM
Onward to 2002:

Amelia: Venus def Justine
Charleston: Majoli def Schnyder
Hamburg: Clijsters def Venus
Berlin: Justine def Serena(beat Capriati in SF)
Rome: Serena def Justine(beat Capriati in SF)

Top favorites in 2002 were Justine and Serena, followed Capriati, Venus and Clijsters. Majoli won Charleston, but really wasn't a fave going into the French.

How did they do??:

Clijsters: seeded #4, lost in the 3rd round to C. Fernandez in 2 sets
Venus: seeded #2, lost in the final to Serena in 2 sets
Capriati: seeded #1, lost in the semis to Serena in 3 sets
Serena: seeded #3, won RG beating Venus in the final in 2 sets
Justine: seeded #5, lost in the 1st rd to Kapros in 3 sets

Coincidentally, the top favorites this year were seeded 1-5 going in. Justine was sick so her loss is somewhat excused. Clijsters, we would find out later, was beginning a bit of a slump. The other three favorites all did well, they were the top 3 in the world and had won 8 out of the last 10 slams. One of the two top faves prevailed(Serena). This year the faves were very successful.

We'll finish up with 2003.

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 03:56 AM
On to 2003:

Charleston: Justine def Serena
Amelia: Dementieva def Davenport(beat Justine in SF)
Warsaw: Mauresmo def Venus
Berlin: Justine def Clijsters
Rome: Clijsters def Mauresmo

Justine and Serena were the top favorites going into RG this year. I know Serena didn't win a title, but she had won the last 4 GS in a row and had to be a top favorite here. Other potential winners were Mauresmo and Clijsters. Venus was really a question mark because of her injury, but made the last 4 GS finals so she was the last outside fave. I know Dementieva won Amelia, but she really wasn't a top contender going into RG.

Let's see how they did:

Venus: seeded #3, lost to Zvonareva in fourth round in 3 sets
Clijsters: seeded #2, lost to Justine in final in 2 sets
Mauresmo: seeded #5, lost to Serena in QF in 2 sets
Serena: seeded #1, lost to Justine in SF in 3 sets
Justine: seeded #4, won RG beating Clijsters in final in 2 sets

Once again, just like 2002, the top faves were seeded #1-#5. Venus crashed out in the 4th round, her stomach injury seems to have affected her. Mauresmo totally choked in losing to Serena in the QF, but she fulfilled her seeding. Justine shocked the world beating World #1 Serena in the SF and went on to smoke Clijsters in the F. This year the favorites did very well except for Venus. She was the only one who didn't live up to her "favorite" status.

In doing this research on the last five years, it does seems that the players who play the best in the 6 weeks leading to RG end up doing very well there. So maybe winning these' titles do mean a little more than I thought. So we should pay attention to who is doing well because they will most likely do well also at RG.

Eurotennisfan
May 12th, 2004, 04:44 AM
On to 2003:

Charleston: Justine def Serena
Amelia: Dementieva def Davenport(beat Justine in SF)
Warsaw: Mauresmo def Venus
Berlin: Justine def Clijsters
Rome: Clijsters def Mauresmo

Justine and Serena were the top favorites going into RG this year. I know Serena didn't win a title, but she had won the last 4 GS in a row and had to be a top favorite here. Other potential winners were Mauresmo and Clijsters. Venus was really a question mark because of her injury, but made the last 4 GS finals so she was the last outside fave. I know Dementieva won Amelia, but she really wasn't a top contender going into RG.

Let's see how they did:

Venus: seeded #3, lost to Zvonareva in fourth round in 3 sets
Clijsters: seeded #2, lost to Justine in final in 2 sets
Mauresmo: seeded #5, lost to Serena in QF in 2 sets
Serena: seeded #1, lost to Justine in SF in 3 sets
Justine: seeded #4, won RG beating Clijsters in final in 2 sets

Once again, just like 2002, the top faves were seeded #1-#5. Venus crashed out in the 4th round, her stomach injury seems to have affected her. Mauresmo totally choked in losing to Serena in the QF, but she fulfilled her seeding. Justine shocked the world beating World #1 Serena in the SF and went on to smoke Clijsters in the F. This year the favorites did very well except for Venus. She was the only one who didn't live up to her "favorite" status.

In doing this research on the last five years, it does seems that the players who play the best in the 6 weeks leading to RG end up doing very well there. So maybe winning these' titles do mean a little more than I thought. So we should pay attention to who is doing well because they will most likely do well also at RG.

thanks a lot Knizzle. Looks like you put a lot of work into something that really was nice to read.

Cybelle Darkholme
May 12th, 2004, 04:53 AM
Awhile back there was a thread about favorites going into RG the past 5 years and what they actually did at the French. I did some fact finding about the past 5 years in that thread and found that out of the top 5 favorites nearly every year 3 or 4 of them did really well and one of them won most of the time. Unfortunately, I can seem to find the thread now. :o (if anyone can find it it would be appreciated)

Well there is only 2 weeks left before RG starts, but really only one important week and tourney remains(Rome). Let's see how the big clay tournies have panned out.

Amelia: Davenport def Mauresmo (Momo def Henin in semis)
Charleston: V Williams def Martinez
Warsaw: V Williams def Kuznetsova
Berlin: Mauresmo def V Williams (walkover)
Rome: ??? def ???

Rome still has to be filled in so I will bump this thread after the tourney is over.
once again for the thousandth time a walkover is not a defeat. There was no match so how do you defeat someone you never played?

Chunchun
May 12th, 2004, 04:59 AM
LenaD, Venus, Serena, no more

Fingon
May 12th, 2004, 05:12 AM
Tennis is not a sport of statistics, it's a game of ability and mental strenght, and athletism.

Result on big clay tournaments are normally a good indicator of who is playing well on that surface at the moment and might win RG.

However, you can't take the statistics at face value, the fact is that the top 2 players are out, and Serena has been out for a while, like it or not, the 3 ARE big factors.

Maybe if Kim, Justine and Serena played those tournaments are were healthy the winner would still be Davenport, Venus and Mauresmo, and I am not saying the three didn't deserve their titles, they did, but those wins are not a necessarily good indicator since this year has been very atypical.

7~ŒLêV3ñ½
May 12th, 2004, 05:20 AM
if you think abuot it
Serena should have won RG 1998, 2003, and won it in 2002
while ms Venus should have won 1999 :devil:

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 05:17 PM
once again for the thousandth time a walkover is not a defeat. There was no match so how do you defeat someone you never played?
I wasn't counting it as an official loss, but that's just the way it's listed in the record books. What would YOU have me to write Cybelle??

Lady
May 12th, 2004, 05:28 PM
Justine waw more like #4 favourite going into last year's tourny! ;) No matter what she won.

Serena was #1 fave, cos she seemed unbeatable in slams.
Kim was #2, cos she won Rome, and was playing great.
Venus still was #3, I think, cos after all she's been in the finals in all 4 slams prior to that RG.
Justine was #4, cos no matter what she won, nobody really trusted her mental part on a big stage. :)

That's just how I remember all this.

And by the polls, that were here on WTA World, Serena was a big favourite against Justine in semis, and a lot more people thought Kim will beat her in the final.

Happy Guy
May 12th, 2004, 05:37 PM
I hope no one will find it offensive, but I don't really think Amélie can reach the final (or even the semifinal if the draw is hard) 'cos it is really difficult to deal with the pressure and expectation from her home crowd. She has lost there in early rounds and when now she has grown older and the pressure to prove herself on home soil will only get heavier. I am not jinxing her as she is undoubtedly one of the sharpest players on clay right now, so if she can deal with the mental part of the game she'll break through.

It may be still too early to say, but Jennifer is really giving me the feeling that she is going to peak at the right time. The clear favourites out there are Serena, Venus, Justine and perhaps Amélie, so if Jennifer can really peak at the right time, she has a chance at semis or even further.

These are just my thoughts :)

Ballbuster
May 12th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Honestly, I really don't have time to see you develop a thread. Next time, do it in the opening post......and let the posters run with it. :o

Paneru
May 12th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Top Five Favorites:
1. S. Williams (Record and VW & JHH's situation(in spite of knee))
2. J. Henin-Hardenne (Record and possible affects of her illness)
3. V. Williams (Record and possible affects of her injury)
4. A. Mauresmo (Current form and mental fagility)
5. J. Capriati (Record and beginning to find form)

DA FOREHAND
May 12th, 2004, 06:11 PM
Back to the focus of the thread. There have been posters (namely fammmmedspin) who say that being a favorite for RG doesn't mean much for winning the title. I have some info here about the last 5 RG that I will post illustrating the relation between being a fave and fulfilling potential at RG.


Here is 1999:

1999 clay titles Tier 2 and higher

Hilton Head: Martina Hingis def Kournikova
Amelia Island: Monica Seles def Dragomir Ilie(Seles lost only 14 games)
Hamburg: Venus Williams def Mary Pierce(Venus lost only 18 games)
Rome: Venus Williams def Mary Pierce(beat Hingis along the way)
Berlin: Martina Hingis def Halard-Decugis

Top favorites going into RG 99 were obviously Hingis and Venus, with Seles and Pierce also making some noise.

Now let's see how they did in RG:

Pierce: seeded 8th, lost to Conchita Martinez in 2nd rd in 3 sets
Seles: seeded 3rd, lost to Graf in SF in 3 sets
Venus: seeded 5th, lost to Barbara Schwartz in 4th rd in 3 sets
Hingis: seeded 1st, lost to Graf in F

Hingis was one of the top favorites and fulfilled that by making the Final while the other top favorite Venus lost in the 4th. The 3rd fave Seles made it to the SF and did well, but Graf played the spoiler for the whole tourney beating Seles and Hingis. Pierce lost to a good clay courter in Conchita. So in 99 the favorites did good, but not great.

I will follow with 2000-2003 in separate installments.

They did thier best...Steffi was just better!

fammmmedspin
May 12th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Interesting research. Depends whether you mean favourite or favourites and if its favourite to win or get to the final - in many years the asumption was that one player was a pretty clear favourite to win. Problem is agreeing who was the favourite isn't easy even if there was one at the time. The original thread was about a favourite for the FO - I would agree that there are a list of people who might win and recent success might help assess their chances. Not sure if all the people who got wins in 1999-2003 got into many peoples favourites list - I think people look at the bigger tournaments more and I don't recall much support for Mary's chances in 2000 for example. I also think people look for general ability rather than focusing on some players clay performance so Venus would have been favoured last year just on her GS finalist record. I just think Majoli, ASV. Graf, Pierce and Justine were not the favourite to win (and in some cases even to do well) but did and a whole string of favourites did not manage to get to match their status as favourites let alone as the favourite.

It might be interesting to look at who all those well known infallible commentators like Pam and Chrissy were backing or even the betting. Looking at your data it looks like apart from 01-2 when there was real uncertainty about the winner, the favourite may have had more chance of losing before the QF than winning and the number who lost in the first might be higher than the number who won if you look at the 1 or 2 top tipped players..

Knizzle
May 12th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Interesting research. Depends whether you mean favourite or favourites and if its favourite to win or get to the final - in many years the asumption was that one player was a pretty clear favourite to win. Problem is agreeing who was the favourite isn't easy even if there was one at the time. The original thread was about a favourite for the FO - I would agree that there are a list of people who might win and recent success might help assess their chances. Not sure if all the people who got wins in 1999-2003 got into many peoples favourites list - I think people look at the bigger tournaments more and I don't recall much support for Mary's chances in 2000 for example. I also think people look for general ability rather than focusing on some players clay performance so Venus would have been favoured last year just on her GS finalist record. I just think Majoli, ASV. Graf, Pierce and Justine were not the favourite to win (and in some cases even to do well) but did and a whole string of favourites did not manage to get to match their status as favourites let alone as the favourite.

It might be interesting to look at who all those well known infallible commentators like Pam and Chrissy were backing or even the betting. Looking at your data it looks like apart from 01-2 when there was real uncertainty about the winner, the favourite may have had more chance of losing before the QF than winning and the number who lost in the first might be higher than the number who won if you look at the 1 or 2 top tipped players..
I don't think there is just one favorite going into a slam. Like in my research, there are usually 4 or five 5 players who are playing well leading into a slam. There are usually 2 or 3 of those who stand above the rest as what I am calling "Top" favorites. THE #1 favorite doesn't always win for sure, but when you narrow it down to 4 or 5 you can usually get the winner from those.

SJW
May 12th, 2004, 09:59 PM
oh look.....Diya was back...and now she's banned again :haha:

SJW
May 12th, 2004, 10:00 PM
Not for long, a few days ago she was prr_rrp , of course that poster is no longer with us :lol: :rolls: :haha:
OMG that was her? no way! :haha:

Knizzle
May 13th, 2004, 04:36 AM
oh look.....Diya was back...and now she's banned again :haha:
The loser said the sisters were finished and that Venus would never win anything again.

maximus82
May 13th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Hehe, I feel that personally the favorites are rather clear:

Top favorites: Serena, Venus, and Justine (all have had recent success at Roland Garros)
Contenders: Lindsay, Amelie, Jennifer

The top favorites, even if they haven't played much recently, have shown that their top games are enough to routinely beat the players ranked below them (with perhaps Momo-Justine being the exception, they are 2-2 with each other since start of 2003). So you have to give them the early nod. If they are not on top of their games, you go to the players who typically win tournaments whenever they don't have to face one of the Belgian duo or a Williams - i.e. Lindsay, Jenn, and Amelie.

Especially since all the tier II and above tournaments have been won by the top ten this year, you'd be silly to dub anybody outside of them as the roland garros winner. And, looking at the top ten, you can see good reasons why the other 4 players aren't likely to win RO. Clijsters is out. Myskina got dumped hard by Jenn in Rome, hasn't shown good clay form at all. Petrova has been losing to the savvy clay courters who will spin and not give her pace. Dementieva's fallen horribly short on red clay.

Best bet for players to cause an upset (but not make a full title run)?
- Kuznetsova (who is near top 10 anyway)
- Schnyder (if her arm is better...and she focuses, rather than getting angry)
- Conchita (a swan song SF would be nice)
- Sprem (duh...haven't you heard the hype from the Rome semi yet?)
- Schiavone (solid results so far, has played above her ranking)
- Seles (a boy can dream, can't he?)

maximus82
May 13th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Oh, and great research Knizzle!

SJW
May 13th, 2004, 09:07 AM
The loser said the sisters were finished and that Venus would never win anything again.if you look up the prrrrp or whatever name...she was attacking me personally calling me a BB (try and figure that out)...shoulda known it was that dirty b*tch :haha:

fleemke³
May 13th, 2004, 10:11 AM
Amelie, Venus, Serena and Justine.

Amelie and Venus because of their recent results :)
Serena and Justine because it's a Slam and big girls can give something more in the big tournaments :)

Chance
May 13th, 2004, 10:25 AM
Momo

the rest are ???

Kart
May 13th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Unfortunately, I can seem to find the thread now. :o (if anyone can find it it would be appreciated)
Is this the one ? :)

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=111625

swiss
May 13th, 2004, 02:29 PM
Alright, let's move on to 2001:

Amelia: Mauresmo def Coetzer
Charleston: Capriati def Hingis
Hamburg: Venus def Shaughnessy
Berlin: Mauresmo def Capriati
Rome: Dokic def Mauresmo

Mauresmo and Capriati are obviously the top faves here. Outside faves were Venus and Dokic(yes Dokic). I think Hingis should be thrown in too although she didn't win a title she did pretty well and was #1.

Let's see how they did:

Hingis: seeded #1, lost in SF to Capriati in 2 sets
Dokic: seeded #15, lost 3rd round to Mandula in 3 sets
Venus: seeded #2, lost 1st round to Schett in 2 sets
Capriati: seeded #4, won RG over Clijsters in 3 sets
Mauresmo: seeded #5 lost 1st round to Kandarr in 2 sets

This year, one of the top faves(Capriati) won the title, but the other crashed out in the first round. Hingis was the best of the outside faves making the SF, but Venus and Dokic disappointed with their 1st and 3rd round losses, respectively.

2002 is next.
very good work Knizzle ;)
but one mistake
Mauresmo lost to Kandarr in 3 sets :sad:
I have seen that terrible experience :p

Knizzle
May 13th, 2004, 02:34 PM
Is this the one ? :)

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=111625
Yeah, that's it. I had already found it though. :o Sorry.

Knizzle
May 13th, 2004, 02:35 PM
very good work Knizzle ;)
but one mistake
Mauresmo lost to Kandarr in 3 sets :sad:
I have seen that terrible experience :p
It was 7-5, 7-5 wasn't it?? If not then let me know the score.

Linnie
May 13th, 2004, 02:38 PM
Yes, it was 5-7 5-7 :mad: :sad: :rolleyes: :bigcry:

Knizzle
May 16th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Bump, let me know what you think of my top 5 faves going into RG.

LindsayRocks89
May 16th, 2004, 04:47 PM
i think the top favs are

1. Amelie
2. Venus(if healthy i think number 1)
3. Jen
4. Lindsay
5. Serena

Knizzle
May 28th, 2004, 09:47 PM
Well going into the weekend, only one of the top 5 favorites is out of the tourney and that's Justine who lost in the 2nd round.