PDA

View Full Version : A follow up to another thread: Davy/ Seles...


Davenselesport
May 21st, 2005, 10:15 PM
What is so drastically different about Davenports game and Seles'...

where Monica has won 3 titles at Roland Garros... and every time except the last one she has reached the quarters or better...

Davenport on the other hand has reached only one SF, two quarters, and many 4r and below...

They are both similar- reasonably tall, poor movement, hard hitting, big serve...

WHY?

TF Chipmunk
May 21st, 2005, 10:17 PM
I think Seles has better movement than Davenport...and the fact that Davenport is taller than her (I think Seles isn't even 6 feet right??) makes it harder for her to move on clay. I agree that they both have similar games, as they pound the balls to their opponents, but I think movement is a big factor.

great graf
May 21st, 2005, 10:33 PM
i think the difference is that when monica won her three french open titles her movement was excellent,much better than davenports and also lindsey doesnt take the ball as early as monica so she gets pushed behind the baseline so her power isnt so effective on a clay court.

Knizzle
May 21st, 2005, 10:36 PM
Back then Seles had good enough movement to stay in and she's also more patient and steadier from the back of the court than Lindsay and uses better angles.

lindsayno1
May 21st, 2005, 10:37 PM
because monica didnt have knee surgery like lindsay which hampers her already weakened movement/confidence.... clays gonna play on her mind with her injury

king416
May 21st, 2005, 10:43 PM
Monica's serve is not nearly as good as Davenports, which she uses as a weapon mainly on the hard courts and grass. Serves are not as important on clay court which does affect Davenports game, as it is based around crunching serves. Also, Davenports ground strokes are stronger and deeper than seles' but Monica did create some spectacular angles and had much better movement.

Pengwin
May 21st, 2005, 10:47 PM
Because Monica was in a league of her own. Davenport is still only a tiny bit ahead of her rivals.

R&J
May 21st, 2005, 11:32 PM
i think the difference is that when monica won her three french open titles her movement was excellent,much better than davenports and also lindsey doesnt take the ball as early as monica so she gets pushed behind the baseline so her power isnt so effective on a clay court.

Good point. And, Monica grew up on clay until around 1986. I think it does help if you grew up learning on the surface. Just my opinion.

Shonami Slam
May 21st, 2005, 11:58 PM
um, hello?
am i the only one who thinks the only thing the two have in common is that they play tennis?
they are SO different in thier game and style.

thelittlestelf
May 22nd, 2005, 12:47 AM
Monica hit the ball MUCH earlier and rallied a lot better than Lindsay. Monica also moved much quicker than Lindsay on all surfaces.

Lindsay hits a cleaner ball with more depth and has a FAR superious serve to Monica's (although I always thought Monica had a good serve, Davenport's is just in a different class).

sartrista7
May 22nd, 2005, 10:51 PM
Seles was faster in her prime than Davenport has ever been, but that's not really the answer - Seles is leagues ahead of Davenport in terms of rallying, tactics, how to construct a long, hard point. It's inevitable on clay that most of your points will be very long and arduous - Davenport loathes those, while Seles thrived on them. Davenport wants to pound a serve and a couple of groundstrokes to win the point, Seles was happy to pummel you again and again and again for as long as necessary. They're not actually very similar players at all.

Also, Seles's mentality was leagues ahead of Davenport's.

faboozadoo15
May 22nd, 2005, 11:22 PM
well they really have never been 'similar' players to me, but i can see how some people may think that.

the biggest difference between them is their on court attitude toward the surface and their tactics.

maybe if we're only talking about monica from 95 on... maybe then i can see a comparison. before then it's obvious why a monica in 90-93 dominated the surface. she had the best angles, the most tenacity, the best return of serve, and really good movement.

so if we're talking about monica in the last few years of her career and comparing her RG reasults to lindsay's whole career, i guess we have a closer means of comparison. after lindsay won her first major in 98, she has always been a better player than monica, so it does make one question why even then she didn't do as well or better than monica on the dirt. i guess it has a lot to do with monica's fight and the fact that she had won the event three times in her career and really never loses to people ranked below her. monica also uses the court better than lindsay with angles.

K-Dog
May 22nd, 2005, 11:59 PM
The time that she won them during. The competion back in the early 90's isn't nearly what it is today. The players these days are much better than the players that Seles had to play. Graf, Sanchez, and perphaps Sabatini are no match for today's top ten. Their 80 mile per hour first serves would get crushed now-a-days. The power and weight of shot is so much better than in the early 90's.

lloyders76
May 23rd, 2005, 12:14 AM
Graf, Sanchez, and perphaps Sabatini are no match for today's top ten.[B]

great, another poster with no knowledge of tennis pre - i'm guessing - 98.

isn't dementieva in the top ten now with her serve?

also does this mean davenport would be sweeping all before her in the early nineties playing as she is now??

vw.
May 23rd, 2005, 12:17 AM
Because Monica was in a league of her own. Davenport is still only a tiny bit ahead of her rivals.
Agreed!

faboozadoo15
May 23rd, 2005, 01:35 AM
The time that she won them during. The competion back in the early 90's isn't nearly what it is today. The players these days are much better than the players that Seles had to play. Graf, Sanchez, and perphaps Sabatini are no match for today's top ten. Their 80 mile per hour first serves would get crushed now-a-days. The power and weight of shot is so much better than in the early 90's.

is this a joke?
steffi won a slam in 1999 (way past her prime). don't tell me the game has moved on much since then.
monica was still contending for slams and ranked around the top 5 in 2002-- about a decade after her prime. don't tell me the game has moved on that much since then.
sanchez vicario beat venus williams in 2000 at RG way past her prime.

no match for the top 10? until monica got injured in 2003, she was IN the top 10. even playing injured in 2003, she made a tier 1 final pushing davenport to three sets in tokyo and made the final of dubai and had match point against justine during the best year of justine's career.

the gals from the early 90's would be no match? pffff.

MisterQ
May 23rd, 2005, 02:36 AM
If you are able to stand on or near the baseline and take the ball very early like Monica, you don't have to cover as much ground as someone who stands farther back. Monica was not fast in terms of the distance she covered, but she was quick in terms of reacting and anticipating, and her footwork was active and precise. She also had great feel and was more willing than Lindsay to throw up a loopy but deep moonball so she could get back into the point. Monica's shorter and quicker backswing allowed her to make last-minute adjustments more easily. Monica used a combination of power and angles to create openings for winners, whereas Lindsay relies a bit less on angles and more on the pure pace that her incredibly clean ball striking produces. Others have already mentioned Monica's inate mental strength and her greater willingness to play a long, patient, grueling point.

I still think Lindsay can do real damage on this surface, though. I hope she will make it far at RG this year! :)

WhatTheDeuce
May 23rd, 2005, 03:25 AM
Come back Monica :sad: