PDA

View Full Version : Lindsay's Ranking.


Andrew..
Apr 2nd, 2006, 07:30 PM
Here's a thread to follow Lindsay's spot in the rankings.

Lindsay is currently at #5. After AI, Lindsay will be at #6. She'll be out of the top five for the first time since June 2003. Yep.

tennisboi
Apr 2nd, 2006, 09:16 PM
HOLY SH*T. Lindsay better play a clay court event hopefully Charlston or Rome but I highly doubt it her scheduling is going to effect her badly and I think for her to win Wimbledon she'll need to be top 4 so she'll get a handy draw

Andrew..
Apr 2nd, 2006, 09:47 PM
Lindsay has never advanced to a slam final when ranked outside of the top three. Just worth noting.

The Daviator
Apr 2nd, 2006, 11:40 PM
:rolleyes:

If Sharapova can win Wimbledon ranked 13th and if Venus can win it ranked 14th then Lindsay can win it ranked 6th!

Listen, whether she's 6th or 16th, nothing can take away from the fact that she is probably the best grass-court player in the world after the W sisters, and with Serena where she is at, we only have to worry about Venus, and please don't mention her maybe getting a bad draw, we were #1 last year, and she had a complete minefield to negotiate, so it's really doesn't matter...

Obviously it matters from a pride point if view, but as long as she's in the top 8, there's no reason to be pissed...

Andrew..
Apr 3rd, 2006, 01:50 AM
She's never made it past the SF of a slam when ranked out of the top three. Ever.

Who did Venus beat last year in the final? Who did Maria beat in the semifinals that dark Thursday in 2004? Oh, okay.

RJWCapriati
Apr 3rd, 2006, 01:58 AM
:sad: :sad:

I hope she can be 100% for Wimbledon and then dominate in California!

Ty-Ty
Apr 3rd, 2006, 02:03 AM
What is Lindsays status on the French? I haven't been keeping up.

I wish she would take it seriously, though, and not show up with that half-ass attitude like last year. I'm watching her 98 Semi against Arantxa, and she could've very well won that.

Andrew..
Apr 3rd, 2006, 02:06 AM
What is Lindsays status on the French? I haven't been keeping up.

I wish she would take it seriously, though, and not show up with that half-ass attitude like last year. I'm watching her 98 Semi against Arantxa, and she could've very well won that.
Apparently she still plans on showing up. But, I assume she'll just show with the usual attitude. And I'll be confused as to why she loses to Dementieva or someone equally obnoxious. Oh well.

That SF match is possibly one of the most frustrating Lindsay matches ever. And she was so winning that final if she made it.

mike/topgun
Apr 3rd, 2006, 02:49 PM
As the situation on the tour is like we see - the Russians are dominating, and most of the best players - Lindsay, Belgians, WS are struggling, I'm expecting her to play RG. Only some of the best redclay specialists (that is mainly JHH) are out of her reach even if Lindsay's on top of her game. The fitness is the main issue on clay, so she's better healed and 100% eager to play it, if she wants to do really well in Paris. I hope she will.

Kimmi
Apr 3rd, 2006, 03:22 PM
Kimmi hates clay :mad:

I think with RG I would be happy if she defended last years points.

tennisboi
Apr 10th, 2006, 01:45 PM
She is at 6 now:sad:Oh how I miss the days of number 1

lindsayno1
Apr 10th, 2006, 04:56 PM
oh my god..how is mary ranked higher than her!!!

Kimmi
Apr 10th, 2006, 06:41 PM
She is at 6 now:sad:Oh how I miss the days of number 1

I think we should just be grateful that it's not #106...

Emmanya
Apr 13th, 2006, 11:32 AM
I think if Lindsay wants the best possible chance to win Wimbledon then she needs to be seeded in the top four. I'm pretty sure she'll overtake Mary before the French and then she just needs to muddle through to the quarters again and she'll definetely be world no#5 for Wimbledon. (Barring complications.) So what is the possibility Wimbledon will tamper with the seeding? JHH crashed out round1 last year and last year I remember they tampered with the men's seeds quite dramatically because Nadal had yet to prove himself on grass...And seeing as how Lindsay was runner up last year etc I wonder if they will punt her up and move Justine down? I don't know...Just an idea.

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 12:43 PM
Wimbledon never messes with the women's seeds like that.

GrandSlam05
Apr 13th, 2006, 01:52 PM
Wimbledon never messes with the women's seeds like that.
Well they should! :mad:

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 02:05 PM
No, they shouldn't. What they do with the mens is retarded.

GrandSlam05
Apr 13th, 2006, 02:48 PM
No, they shouldn't. What they do with the mens is retarded.
OMG you yourself have said how stupid the ranking system is that just by playing alot of tourneys and getting to the quarters you can have a high ranking or even be #1. Do you think these players should be seeded higher than someone who has won slams before, but maybe had a lighter schedule b/c of injury etc and therefore has a lower ranking? And f.e. it's totally pointless to give a good, high-RANKED clay-courter a high seed at Wimbledon when they're going to drop out early anyway.
Anyway, I'm glad what they did with the men's. I'd rather watch a Federer/Roddick final than a Federer/Hewitt one.

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 03:05 PM
OMG you yourself have said how stupid the ranking system is that just by playing alot of tourneys and getting to the quarters you can have a high ranking or even be #1. Do you think these players should be seeded higher than someone who has won slams before, but maybe had a lighter schedule b/c of injury etc and therefore has a lower ranking? And f.e. it's totally pointless to give a good, high-RANKED clay-courter a high seed at Wimbledon when they're going to drop out early anyway.
Anyway, I'm glad what they did with the men's. I'd rather watch a Federer/Roddick final than a Federer/Hewitt one.
I said that the rankings aren't ideal, but they serve a purpose - they regulate seedings at events. If a tournament director wants to pull seedings out of his ass, then what's the point of having a ranking system? Your argument is moot.

GrandSlam05
Apr 13th, 2006, 03:22 PM
I said that the rankings aren't ideal, but they serve a purpose - they regulate seedings at events. If a tournament director wants to pull seedings out of his ass, then what's the point of having a ranking system? Your argument is moot.
Not ideal? I think you were a little more critical than that. :lol:
Of course the rankings serve a purpose, but if they're flawed, or don't apply to the situation (fe the surface) then I see no problem with making an adjustment. RG should've made an adjustment with Lindsay being the #1 seed last year. That was a total joke. "Pulling them out of his ass" is a little dramatic. If he/she made a logical choice based one 1) a player's previous performance on said surface, and 2) how well she did in the events leading up, that makes more sense than inflated ranking caused by others' lack of play etc. Sometimes the rankings seemed more like they're "pulled out of someone's" esp. when you see a player like Petrova in the top 5.
Maybe if more tournaments would start making needed changes to the seedings, then the wta would take the hint and fix the flawed ranking system.

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 03:43 PM
I'm critical of it when players like Dementieva or Dokic find themselves in the top five, freally only because they play 30 tournaments a year. Or back when Kim was getting there for doing the same thing when Justine was clearly the superior player. Right now, the rankings are more accurate than they've been in years. Mauresmo is the clear #1. Clijsters is the clear #2. Justine is the clear #3, and sadly, Maria is a legit #4. And like it or not, Nadia is a legit #6 now. She has made it to the QF or better of each of the last four slams, including a SF at Roland Garros. She's won two tier II titles this year, and had a win over Mauresmo. She won a tier II last year, and she's been very consistent. She's lost 1r twice in the past year. That's impressive.

Players deserve their seeding based on their ranking. If I was Justine, ranked #4 going into Wimbledon, and Lindsay, who has played three (3) tournaments all year, was seeded ahead of me, I'd be mighty angry. But that's okay! Lindsay won Wimbledon seven years ago! So, again, why do we have rankings. With that logic, we don't need them.

GrandSlam05
Apr 13th, 2006, 04:27 PM
I'm critical of it when players like Dementieva or Dokic find themselves in the top five, freally only because they play 30 tournaments a year. Or back when Kim was getting there for doing the same thing when Justine was clearly the superior player. Right now, the rankings are more accurate than they've been in years. Mauresmo is the clear #1. Clijsters is the clear #2. Justine is the clear #3, and sadly, Maria is a legit #4. And like it or not, Nadia is a legit #6 now. She has made it to the QF or better of each of the last four slams, including a SF at Roland Garros. She's won two tier II titles this year, and had a win over Mauresmo. She won a tier II last year, and she's been very consistent. She's lost 1r twice in the past year. That's impressive.

Players deserve their seeding based on their ranking. If I was Justine, ranked #4 going into Wimbledon, and Lindsay, who has played three (3) tournaments all year, was seeded ahead of me, I'd be mighty angry. But that's okay! Lindsay won Wimbledon seven years ago! So, again, why do we have rankings. With that logic, we don't need them.
I think I'm being misunderstood LOL. I'm not saying tourneys should mess with the seedings every single time. Most times no change needs to be made. Of course Lindsay should not be seeded higher than Justine. Justine is clearly the better player right now so that would go against what I originally said. However, when Henin was seeded #10 last year at RG when she was clearly the best clay-courter in the world at the time, it made the seedings seem pointless. Less so, but sort of the same with Kim being seeded #15 at Wimbledon last year after she had won IW, Miami, and Eastbourne. The players' ranking had dropped due to injury, but in the months before they had proven they were among the best so IMO they should've been seeded higher in these cases. Of course, this led to Kim being taken out in the R16, so I can't complain too much. :lol: But that could've also been a disaster for Lindsay if she lost having to play a player in the R16 that was seeded too low.
Another example is exactly what you said about how in 2003 Justine was better, but Kim played all time (at least we got an injury out of it) so was ranked higher than Justine and therefore was seeded higher. IMO this is also a case where tourneys should've seeded Justine higher than Kim.
So what I guess I'm saying is that most of the time the tourneys should probably stick to the rankings and not make too many changes anyways, but at certain times when things seem obviously false then it should be up to their discretion.

mike/topgun
Apr 13th, 2006, 05:30 PM
you're wrong.
IMHO only Wimbledon is that special event which needs special seeding system, and I guess it's fair what they do there with gentlemen seeds...No matter what on grass it's all a different story. There's the few players that always count there no matter what their rank is.

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 06:20 PM
I think I'm being misunderstood LOL. I'm not saying tourneys should mess with the seedings every single time. Most times no change needs to be made. Of course Lindsay should not be seeded higher than Justine. Justine is clearly the better player right now so that would go against what I originally said. However, when Henin was seeded #10 last year at RG when she was clearly the best clay-courter in the world at the time, it made the seedings seem pointless. Less so, but sort of the same with Kim being seeded #15 at Wimbledon last year after she had won IW, Miami, and Eastbourne. The players' ranking had dropped due to injury, but in the months before they had proven they were among the best so IMO they should've been seeded higher in these cases. Of course, this led to Kim being taken out in the R16, so I can't complain too much. :lol: But that could've also been a disaster for Lindsay if she lost having to play a player in the R16 that was seeded too low.
Another example is exactly what you said about how in 2003 Justine was better, but Kim played all time (at least we got an injury out of it) so was ranked higher than Justine and therefore was seeded higher. IMO this is also a case where tourneys should've seeded Justine higher than Kim.
So what I guess I'm saying is that most of the time the tourneys should probably stick to the rankings and not make too many changes anyways, but at certain times when things seem obviously false then it should be up to their discretion.
They had higher seedings for players with injuries. They were called SSR's - Special Seed Rankings. They just don't work out well, and the WTA stopped them last year. Lindsay had that when she came back from her first injury in 2002. Who are you going to bump down to bump up that player? That's where your logic goes sour. At Wimbledon, are you going to bump down Mauresmo? No, she she's the de factor #1 right now. Kim? No. Justine? No. Maria, the 2004 Champion with a 22-1 record on grass the past two years? No. You leave them where they are. If Lindsay is seeded 6, so be it. It's where she belongs right now.

!<blocparty>!
Apr 13th, 2006, 06:25 PM
She should be seeded above crap like Demented, Kuz and Petrova for Wimbledon, all other players, no.

Mary, Kim, Quitter, Amelie and Maria can all beat Lindsay on grass.

GrandSlam05
Apr 13th, 2006, 07:01 PM
They had higher seedings for players with injuries. They were called SSR's - Special Seed Rankings. They just don't work out well, and the WTA stopped them last year. Lindsay had that when she came back from her first injury in 2002. Who are you going to bump down to bump up that player? That's where your logic goes sour. At Wimbledon, are you going to bump down Mauresmo? No, she she's the de factor #1 right now. Kim? No. Justine? No. Maria, the 2004 Champion with a 22-1 record on grass the past two years? No. You leave them where they are. If Lindsay is seeded 6, so be it. It's where she belongs right now.
I never said LINDSAY should be seeded higher. I was talking about other instances. Lindsay belongs where she is.
And the only way I agree with SSR would be if the player proved they were "back" by beating other top players recently. If they are fresh off an injury and are still playing crap, then they don't really deserve to be seeded higher.

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 07:06 PM
Then why did you start this by saying Wimbledon should adjust seedings if you don't care if they do it for Lindsay.

GrandSlam05
Apr 13th, 2006, 07:07 PM
She should be seeded above crap like Demented, Kuz and Petrova for Wimbledon, all other players, no.

Mary, Kim, Quitter, Amelie and Maria can all beat Lindsay on grass.
I don't know about Mary. :lol: She's never had that much success on grass I think her QF last year was her best finish ever and Richard-in-Drag still managed to bagel her in the 1st set. That 2nd set TB though. :hearts:
I also think Kuz would have a chance against Lindsay (especially if she plays like she has been recently). That could've been a competitive QF last year if Kuz hadn't played like an idiot.

GrandSlam05
Apr 13th, 2006, 07:15 PM
Then why did you start this by saying Wimbledon should adjust seedings if you don't care if they do it for Lindsay.
I just wanted to get some decent discussion going on around here. Honestly I do agree with Lindsay's rank/seed though.
If say Lindsay had a layoff or crappy year last year, but then stormed back and won big events beating top players all the time, but was still RANKED say lower than 10. Then I would say, yes, her seeding should be higher.
Unfortunately she's made her own bed though. Prematurely planning a skim schedule and then getting injured so she can't even play those few events. Then there's no reason to give her a high seed.
She should've done what Vee and Ree do: "plan" on playing tournaments, then drop out at the last minute. That would've kept her butt covered in case an injury popped up too.

lindsayno1
Apr 13th, 2006, 08:29 PM
I also think Kuz would have a chance against Lindsay (especially if she plays like she has been recently). That could've been a competitive QF last year if Kuz hadn't played like an idiot.

me and rayrob were at that match... lindsay played really well!!

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 09:42 PM
I don't know about Mary. :lol: She's never had that much success on grass I think her QF last year was her best finish ever and Richard-in-Drag still managed to bagel her in the 1st set. That 2nd set TB though. :hearts:
I also think Kuz would have a chance against Lindsay (especially if she plays like she has been recently). That could've been a competitive QF last year if Kuz hadn't played like an idiot.
It helped that Lindsay was also playing some ugly tennis in that QF.

Svetlana shouldn't pose a major problem to Lindsay anywhere but clay. Even at her best, she's ridiculously inconsistent. Lindsay loves to play that.

Andrew..
Apr 13th, 2006, 09:43 PM
me and rayrob were at that match... lindsay played really well!!
Are you joking. In the first set, she was clearly out of sorts. She was extremely lucky to win that set. Second set was pretty though.

!<blocparty>!
Apr 13th, 2006, 10:53 PM
She wasn't really lucky to win the set. She saved the set point with a first serve if I remember correctly.

Nadia on the other hand could have won the second set against MIA! The crowd were really into it during the tiebreaker, but, like in the men's semi, she had a lucky net cord.

:sad:

GrandSlam05
Apr 14th, 2006, 01:30 PM
It helped that Lindsay was also playing some ugly tennis in that QF.

Svetlana shouldn't pose a major problem to Lindsay anywhere but clay. Even at her best, she's ridiculously inconsistent. Lindsay loves to play that.
Agreed, I thought LIndsay's form was crap esp. in the first set. She dropped serve at least twice esp. when serving for the first set at which point she let out a big "fuck!". She didn't really start playing decently until the TB which she won easily. But Svetlana can do some stupid shit. Out of the blue she makes a racquet change at like 5-all. I thought Lindsay's play improved in the 2nd set, but nowhere near the level she was at against Clijsters.

Ty-Ty
Apr 14th, 2006, 09:22 PM
If I'm correct, Petrova passed Lindsay today with her win. :sad:

It's pathetic to see players like Petrova passing Lindsay, regardless of how good they are playing. From No. 1 in Jan., to No. 7, in April.

Wake up Linds. :o

Andrew..
Apr 14th, 2006, 09:46 PM
Petrova passed Lindsay at the start of the week.

Ty-Ty
Apr 14th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Whatever. Doesn't really matter.

It still sucks.

Andrew..
Apr 14th, 2006, 11:10 PM
Yes. But, barring total disaster, Nadia will be top four soon.

lindsayno1
Apr 14th, 2006, 11:56 PM
nadia...top 4....that sucks

!<blocparty>!
Apr 14th, 2006, 11:58 PM
I second Nadia top 4 sucking. LOL, what a joke.

Ty-Ty
Apr 15th, 2006, 12:08 AM
I will stop watching tennis when Nadia is in the top four.

It's bad enough she's ahead of Lindsay.

Andrew..
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:08 AM
She has a shot at #1 later in the year.

She's crazy, but I love her game when she isn't stupid.

MH0861
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:18 AM
She has a shot at #1 later in the year.

She's crazy, but I love her game when she isn't stupid.

She frustrates me SO MUCH when she plays Sharapova in slams.

Andrew..
Apr 15th, 2006, 03:22 AM
Yeah. I don't like to talk about those matches.

Elldee
Apr 15th, 2006, 08:47 AM
Lindsay's INJURED, she had an amazing 2005 and so it makes sense that this would happen when she's not playing.

The Daviator
Apr 15th, 2006, 01:43 PM
Petrova will never be #1, the only top 10 player she's beaten this year is Mauresmo. Sharapova, the Belgians and Lindsay own her, plus she has one GS semi, and two GS quarters to defend, and I can easily see her losing early in one of them, probably Wimbledon...

GrandSlam05
Apr 15th, 2006, 01:57 PM
Petrova just wants it too bad I guess. I too love watching her game when she's playing well. But it's disgusting when she plays Sharapova. I started throwing things at the tv at their AO match this year. :lol:
I wish I would've watched that Capriati match from the 03 French Open that everyone raves about.

!<blocparty>!
Apr 15th, 2006, 05:19 PM
Nadia didn't do stupid spin shots then. She was scary good. :scared:

MH0861
Apr 15th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Petrova just wants it too bad I guess. I too love watching her game when she's playing well. But it's disgusting when she plays Sharapova. I started throwing things at the tv at their AO match this year. :lol:
I wish I would've watched that Capriati match from the 03 French Open that everyone raves about.

Yeah, and I expected her to do great things after that.. but she sort of just turned into an average pushover 6-8 ranked player, that a top 4 would love to see in the QF's of a slam. Looks like her play has been picking up now, I'd love to see her play to the best of her abilities.

mike/topgun
Apr 15th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Nadia's a good player, but she'll "never" become n#1, or as long as some other - I mean the real top class players stay there in the game. She blows when it comes to the big points and her rivalry with Sharapova is mainly due to her inconsistency... I don't like her extreme FH grip which forces her play more defensive.It's strange cos, her BH is very flat and effective. She isn't playing that smoothly, what makes me think she's "never" gonna win slams. And she hasn't got any particular weapon to rely on when she's down - it could be her serve, but still it's too inconsistent and all the best players handle it well enough to take advantage of her weaker movement on court. Once again, I must admit, that I'd rather saw Masha "on top":p
Lindsays ranking is going to go down next week to 7th place. However, I can easily imagine her winning Wimby and some events in the californian summer swing. Don't forget that all - Pierce, Petrova, Sharapova, JHH, Momo and Clijsters have lots of points to defend so sooner or later they'll lose some of them. As for now Linds got to defend RG QF and Wimbledons final until New Haven which isn't that important cos the seeding rank to NY is taken from the week before PP. I'm quite sure she's not going to defend PTGP and Zurich so after USO her rank will slowly go down to about 15 by the end of the year...IF she continues to play.

The Daviator
Apr 15th, 2006, 05:44 PM
15 at the end of 2006? I don't think so, unless she's planning on qutting this year, there's no way she'll allow her ranking to slip that low, do you really think she's going to go to Melbourne seeded to meet Clijsters/Sharapova in the round of 16???

I'm still confident of a top 8 finish, she should try to defend Zurich atleast, as she owns that event and I'm sure she'll get a nice cheque for showing up, I definitely think she'll play two events atleast between NY and the YEC, if nothing else than for the cash, I mean, that pottery barn isn't going to buy itself ;)

jacs
Apr 16th, 2006, 04:34 AM
I actually think Nadia has a decent shot at the French this year.

Frederic
Apr 17th, 2006, 09:38 AM
Well, I don't care about the ranking. The most important thing is Lindsay's health!!! I really hope she'll be back and be eager to beat the higher ranked players!! Well, at least Petrova and Amelie!! About Petrova, she's got 2 gran slam semifinals and not one, but doesn't really matter compared to Lindsay's record...

:inlove:
Apr 17th, 2006, 10:42 AM
I actually think Nadia has a decent shot at the French this year.

I think so too...And that scares me.

lindsayno1
Apr 17th, 2006, 10:34 PM
i just wish lindsay, kim, the WS etc wud sort themselves back. The rankings atm are stupid

mike/topgun
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:39 AM
The way that it's gonig atm makes me sick of womens tennis more than the mens with all the Federers&Nadals. The WTA ranking does not show the strength and ability of players to win slams it's just something that counts useless points and makes the seeding system probably more ridiculous than ever. All the GS champs from past 5 years are struggling to get themselves on the track again...I don't think that getting rid of quality points in the womens circuit was a good move either... On the mens side it works properly - there's no difference between winning Valencia (beat JCF, Safin etc) and some other tourneys like Las Vegas this year. Still in the WTa - Nadia winning all the Linz, AI and even Charleston with the weak field is not the same...as it'd be if the best players showed up there and didn't fail to handle it physically like JHH in IW and Charleston...

liuxuan
Apr 29th, 2006, 05:00 PM
The only times I can remember Wimbledon tampering the seeds without the protected ranking rules was in 1999 when they made Graf #2 seed (while ranked three) and bumped Linzi down. They also gave Serena top ranking and quite rightly so in 2004.

Frederic
Apr 30th, 2006, 03:36 PM
Lindsay'sranking isn't really good... I hope she will be able to improve it soon... It would be annoying not to see her at the YEC...

Andrew..
May 2nd, 2006, 12:26 PM
Lindsay will be back up to #6 next week.

If she can do well at Istanbul/RG, she could get a top four seed at Wimbledon.

lindsayno1
May 2nd, 2006, 02:46 PM
sweet!!

LindsayRulz
May 3rd, 2006, 12:39 AM
:aparty:

Ty-Ty
May 3rd, 2006, 02:02 AM
Ugh. I have this irking feeling Lindsay's just going to miss the cut and be seeded five.

LindsayRulz
May 3rd, 2006, 02:39 AM
I feel like no matter her ranking will be, she will have a hard draw

I will stop watching tennis when Nadia is in the top four.

It's bad enough she's ahead of Lindsay.

She is 4... :tape:

sweet_angel23
May 3rd, 2006, 03:09 AM
whoa!! she's currently in number 7.
men, i have to really catch up on waht's happening..

lindsayno1
May 3rd, 2006, 08:12 AM
its only cos shes done sod all!

The Daviator
May 3rd, 2006, 09:45 AM
Nice, hopefully Justine will stay out of the top 4, so we will avoid meeting her in the 1/4s...

mike/topgun
May 3rd, 2006, 01:48 PM
Nice, hopefully Justine will stay out of the top 4, so we will avoid meeting her in the 1/4s...
You mean that hopefully JHH will stay in the same range like 1-4m or 5-8 as Lindsay so they coudn't meet before semis ;)

I've done some sums and look
Momo has 3511 pts and has to defend 438 points before Wimbledon
Kim has 2895 pts and has to defend 421 before Wimbledon
Maria has 2753 pts and has to defend 529 points before Wimbledon
Nadia( :tape: ) has 2530 pts and has to defend 596 pts before Wimbledon
JHH has got 2498 pts and has to defend 1195!!! pts before Wimbledon
Mary has 2386 pts and has to defend 576 pts before Wimbledon
Lindsay has 2254 pts and has to defend only 174 points before Wimbledon
what means mrs Leach is in a good position to regain top 4 ranking
I am sure that if Lindsay cures her back - even temporarily - gets fit and plays in Istanbul and RG she will get back to top 4 - based on current situation on tour :rolleyes:

MH0861
May 4th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Honestly, it's not the end of the world - I mean, if Lindsay has to be 5-8 at Wimbledon, I'm hoping Nadia will stay in the top 4. Drawing Petrova in the QFs and Mauresmo in the SFs would be a perfect draw. Lindsay had some horrible draws when she was #1 in the world so we'll just have to see.

lindsayno1
May 4th, 2006, 05:39 PM
haha petrova in qf and momo in semis would be perfect. but u know its gonna be kim in the semis and sharapoohead in the quarters ;)

Golinds
May 4th, 2006, 07:40 PM
What ranking is Lindsay currently? I havnt been following for ages and have lost track.

lindsayno1
May 4th, 2006, 08:01 PM
7 but apparently she will be 6 next week.

i cant believe how many ppl are injured/playing poorly of late!

The Daviator
May 5th, 2006, 10:23 AM
You mean that hopefully JHH will stay in the same range like 1-4m or 5-8 as Lindsay so they coudn't meet before semis ;)

I've done some sums and look
Momo has 3511 pts and has to defend 438 points before Wimbledon
Kim has 2895 pts and has to defend 421 before Wimbledon
Maria has 2753 pts and has to defend 529 points before Wimbledon
Nadia( :tape: ) has 2530 pts and has to defend 596 pts before Wimbledon
JHH has got 2498 pts and has to defend 1195!!! pts before Wimbledon
Mary has 2386 pts and has to defend 576 pts before Wimbledon
Lindsay has 2254 pts and has to defend only 174 points before Wimbledon
what means mrs Leach is in a good position to regain top 4 ranking
I am sure that if Lindsay cures her back - even temporarily - gets fit and plays in Istanbul and RG she will get back to top 4 - based on current situation on tour :rolleyes:

Nope, if JuJu and Linds are in the 5-8 range together then they can't meet in the 1/4s :p

I wonder if it's at all possible for her to get back to #1, I know it doesn't mean much now that she's had it for so long, but I'd love her to pass the 100-week mark...

The Daviator
May 5th, 2006, 10:27 AM
haha petrova in qf and momo in semis would be perfect. but u know its gonna be kim in the semis and sharapoohead in the quarters ;)

:lol:

The only one she needs to steer well clear of is JuJu, anyone else is winnable I feel, or atleast the match will be competitive, although I agree that a meeting with Sharpie would not be be good considering Lindsay's record against her :tape:

Frederic
May 5th, 2006, 02:16 PM
By the way, I'm glad Lindsay improved her record against Conchita Martinez before this one retired... Great job...
Lindsay should be careful of Venus... I know that some people can laugh about that, but I was laughing before Wimbledon's final, I was sure Lindsay would have won, but everyone know what happened...

mike/topgun
May 5th, 2006, 03:31 PM
Nope, if JuJu and Linds are in the 5-8 range together then they can't meet in the 1/4s :p

I wonder if it's at all possible for her to get back to #1, I know it doesn't mean much now that she's had it for so long, but I'd love her to pass the 100-week mark...
I know, that's what i posted before :p
Get back to where she belongs, I mean top 4 atm is quite possible due to inconsistency of other top players.
I saw Vee Vs Marti (2nd round!!! in Warsaw) and looks like da Queen is slowly coming back from "the injury/outta-form" state to her normal disposition, so she's a threat definitely...Of course, if she stays healthy til Wimbledon, or even summer hardcourt swing:tape:

Andrew..
May 5th, 2006, 05:54 PM
No, she's not. That was easily one of the worst women's matches of this year. Any decent top twenty player could have beaten Venus yesterday. Marti is still a mental weakling against Venus. Kind of like some other player.

GrandSlam05
May 5th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Marti is still a mental weakling against Venus. Kind of like some other player.
:sad: And I just don't get it.
When did it happen for Lindsay? I figured it was probably when she lost to QV at the two GS finals in 2000?
What about Martina?

Andrew..
May 5th, 2006, 07:19 PM
It started in 2000, but I don't care about that. What bothers me is that she STILL has undue respect for Venus' game, that almost every other player has lost. It's really frustrating.

GrandSlam05
May 5th, 2006, 07:30 PM
It started in 2000, but I don't care about that. What bothers me is that she STILL has undue respect for Venus' game, that almost every other player has lost. It's really frustrating.

How often do you think pro tennis players see therapists for shit like that?

The Daviator
May 5th, 2006, 08:03 PM
Lindsay didn't flake in the third set breaker in Stanford :p

Up until Wimbledon, Lindsay won 4 straight times, and still leads 14-13, you're not going to win every match against Venus, especially on grass, which she's an alright player on if you haven't already noticed ;)

GrandSlam05
May 5th, 2006, 08:11 PM
Lindsay didn't flake in the third set breaker in Stanford :p

Up until Wimbledon, Lindsay won 4 straight times, and still leads 14-13, you're not going to win every match against Venus, especially on grass, which she's an alright player on if you haven't already noticed ;)
Well, the back thing didn't help either.
However, I still think she has a better fighting attitude in tier 2's than she does in slams, and that drives me nuts.

Andrew..
May 5th, 2006, 08:12 PM
Lindsay didn't flake in the third set breaker in Stanford :p

Up until Wimbledon, Lindsay won 4 straight times, and still leads 14-13, you're not going to win every match against Venus, especially on grass, which she's an alright player on if you haven't already noticed ;)
I knew someone would say "But she won four straight against Venus!" That's great, but let's review.

Stanford 04 was the first "big" match Lindsay won in a while. It was a fun match to watch. But was the quality that great? Not really. Venus had a ridiculous amout of UE's, and it was still 7-6 in the third. Moving onto LA, Lindsay looked dead at the beginning of that match. I remember watching that like, WTF. US Open, Lindsay was obviously the hottest player on tour at that point, and it was still just too close. AI, probably one of the funniest matches I've ever seen. Venus just imploded on herself. Venus didn't play that well in any of the above matches, but they were still unnecessarily close. And that entire time, Lindsay gave the "Venus is a great player. I wish I was half as good as she is..." speech, which makes me cry.

Venus was a great player in her prime. She hasn't been there in over three years. As I said, Lindsay still has undue respect for Venus' game. She looks at the Venus of today like she looks at the Venus of 2001. Lindsay's issues with her are all mental at this point.

mike/topgun
May 5th, 2006, 08:27 PM
However, Hingis Vs Williams was full of UFE, but it was also full of great rallies and I don't think it was a bad match at all - it was very exciting and with all the drama they both bring really unpredictable. Williams after the match confirmed she was suffering during the most part of the 3rd set, and only tried to stay in the game til the last ball, but she didn't mean to get off the court or give it away to Marti - who played well, but then all those old demons returned I guess...she cannot think of getting to the very top again, if she's not taking advantage over an injured Venus.
I know what I saw Andrew, and I was impressed comapring to her AO loss to Pironkova and last years USO f.e. Today QV lost to Sveta and that's not a surprise at all.
Remember Venus is a 3 time Wimbledon champ and twice a finalist there, so she's always a threat for anyone...Marti had a "bad day" - just happens...she was blown off the court by Vees power game in the end of second and beginning of the 3rd especially, so I don't see why you could call it a one of the worse matches on tour this year...I mean AO final was worse, Antwerp final was worse...also IW and Miami finals were worse;) not mentioning last couple of events where Nadia won "in style":p

mike/topgun
May 5th, 2006, 08:31 PM
I do agree that Lindsay and Martina have way to big respect for QVee since she hasn't been in her top form in 3 years, apart from Wimbledon '05 obviously :rolleyes:

The Daviator
May 5th, 2006, 09:38 PM
I knew someone would say "But she won four straight against Venus!" That's great, but let's review.

Stanford 04 was the first "big" match Lindsay won in a while. It was a fun match to watch. But was the quality that great? Not really. Venus had a ridiculous amout of UE's, and it was still 7-6 in the third. Moving onto LA, Lindsay looked dead at the beginning of that match. I remember watching that like, WTF. US Open, Lindsay was obviously the hottest player on tour at that point, and it was still just too close. AI, probably one of the funniest matches I've ever seen. Venus just imploded on herself. Venus didn't play that well in any of the above matches, but they were still unnecessarily close. And that entire time, Lindsay gave the "Venus is a great player. I wish I was half as good as she is..." speech, which makes me cry.

Venus was a great player in her prime. She hasn't been there in over three years. As I said, Lindsay still has undue respect for Venus' game. She looks at the Venus of today like she looks at the Venus of 2001. Lindsay's issues with her are all mental at this point.


To be fair Andrew, you'd probably find some way to critique Lindsay if she beat Venus 6-1 6-1, how was the match at the US Open 'unnecessarily close'? Lindsay wasn't broken the entire match, she held things up at her end, she can't make Venus not serve well, also, I saw the Stanford match, and I thought the quality was extremely high actually, everyone says 'but Venus hit a lot of errors' :rolleyes: this is Venus Williams, she can't get through a match without making a bucketful of errors, it's the nature of her game, find me one Venus match where she hasn't donated a huge amount of errors to her opponent, finally, it doesn't matter that she won by a 'close' scoreline, she still won, and has done so 14 times, take a look at Henin's record with Venus and then criticize Lindsay...

Venus has been given that respect because it's a fact, on grass atleast, the only person that's been able to beat her on grass since 1999 is her sister and Sprem, with some help from the chair umpire might I add...

Andrew..
May 5th, 2006, 09:53 PM
Why are we talking about Venus on grass. Yes, she can be a great player on it. But let's reflect on what she's done on other surfaces since 2003. One bullshit clay run in 2004, which ended with a must-see loss to Nastya.

There is not one reason for Lindsay or Martina to feel intimidated by Venus anymore. Not one.

dav abu
May 5th, 2006, 11:09 PM
I agree completely there is no reason for either player to have any hang ups about Venus.

Frederic
May 6th, 2006, 08:02 PM
I agree with you Andrew, didn't do well since 2003, but she can be unpredicable on grass though, especially when her opponent gives her a chance to go back in the match... And it may be possible that the matches she won was due to a mental issue from Martina, and from Lindsay, who were in the top with Venus in the beginning, and who could see how dominant Venus was.
About the loss against Sprem in Wimbledon, that was an amazing match. Honestly, Carolina played one of the greatest tennis I've ever seen. Nearly every shots on the lines...
By the way, umpiring was a problem against Carolina, but did you notice the over rule from the chair umpire during the final of Wimbledon last year? in the second set, that was absolutely untolerable!

MH0861
May 7th, 2006, 07:41 PM
Why are we talking about Venus on grass. Yes, she can be a great player on it. But let's reflect on what she's done on other surfaces since 2003. One bullshit clay run in 2004, which ended with a must-see loss to Nastya.

There is not one reason for Lindsay or Martina to feel intimidated by Venus anymore. Not one.

I know it's only a Hong Kong exhibition, but Lindsay did beat Venus 6-3 6-1 there, so it's atleast a good sign, if nothing else. Yes, those matches in 04/05 were close, but atleast she didn't give up and hand the match to Venus - which is something she probably would've done in the past. She lost the Wimbledon final - but I for one was proud of her for making it 9-7 in the third, whereas 9 out of 10 times in the past it would have been a 6-1 final set.

I don't know, I think you should give Martina a break, too - it was her first time playing Venus in AGES, and when she left the game Venus was still an elite player in the game. When you get your ass kicked over and over by the same player throughout your career, it's a little hard to get over that mental hurdle right away, even if that person isn't playing their best. The Karolina Sprem's and Pirnokova's of the world can go into a match against Venus with a free mind and not be intimidated, but I think it's another story for Lindsay and Martina.

mike/topgun
May 7th, 2006, 08:19 PM
That's a good point MHO861.

Elldee
May 8th, 2006, 11:47 AM
The '04 Stanford final was not high quality at all... Lindsay was passive for the majority of the time; tight scoreline, boring match. Lindsay had LOADS of breakpoints in Venus' opening service game and did nothing... by the US Open she was the twice the player she was at Stanford.

GrandSlam05
May 8th, 2006, 01:34 PM
The '04 Stanford final was not high quality at all... Lindsay was passive for the majority of the time; tight scoreline, boring match. Lindsay had LOADS of breakpoints in Venus' opening service game and did nothing... by the US Open she was the twice the player she was at Stanford.
I agree I have seen only parts of each match. At Stanford, she seemed to just push shots towards Vee's forehand, waiting for errors, but really not doing much. By USO, she was really ripping it.

The Daviator
May 9th, 2006, 12:52 PM
There wasn't a single break of serve in the third set in Stanford, in my opinion, that constitutes high quality in a tennis match...

MH0861
May 9th, 2006, 02:17 PM
It doesn't matter how high the quality was, anyway. To me, what was important was that she pulled it out. I'm sure Lindsay doesn't sit around and go "Oh, I played such an awful match at Stanford in 2004" or vice versa.. she remembers how she stayed strong mentally and pulled out an extremely close match. It did wonders for her confidence.

mike/topgun
May 9th, 2006, 02:30 PM
I saw only third set, so I can't say really how it went, but it was an extremely important match for Davenport. She beat Venus for the first time since Linz 2000 final, if I remember correctly. Lots of briliant shots( FH short cross winners, BH dtl and some of the fastest rallies that you could see in 2004) and Lindsay was so focused on every point...she wanted it badly and she won...not mentioning the serve which started to work really properly at Wimbledon and she managed to continue it throughout next 12 months;). It was a match of high drama and prestige for both...It was the begining of Lindsays return to the top after 2 years wasted with chronic injuries...Definitely a great match, and quality could be compared to AI '05 QF;)Then I think she gave her best just to check if she's still the player she was back in 98-2000, if she had the inner "fire" to win slams...imho Lindsay wanted to give it there just another/last try , and I'm quite sure that, if she hadn't been so succesfull in the summer of 2004 she would have retired earlier.

GrandSlam05
May 9th, 2006, 05:33 PM
I saw only third set, so I can't say really how it went, but it was an extremely important match for Davenport. She beat Venus for the first time since Linz 2000 final, if I remember correctly. Lots of briliant shots( FH short cross winners, BH dtl and some of the fastest rallies that you could see in 2004) and Lindsay was so focused on every point...she wanted it badly and she won...not mentioning the serve which started to work really properly at Wimbledon and she managed to continue it throughout next 12 months;). It was a match of high drama and prestige for both...It was the begining of Lindsays return to the top after 2 years wasted with chronic injuries...Definitely a great match, and quality could be compared to AI '05 QF;)Then I think she gave her best just to check if she's still the player she was back in 98-2000, if she had the inner "fire" to win slams...imho Lindsay wanted to give it there just another/last try , and I'm quite sure that, if she hadn't been so succesfull in the summer of 2004 she would have retired earlier.
As soon as I read "quality could be compared to 05 AI qf", I immediately broke out in laughter. :lol: :tape:

Andrew..
May 9th, 2006, 05:44 PM
Definitely a great match, and quality could be compared to AI '05 QF;)
Lolz. You lost your credibility right there.

mike/topgun
May 9th, 2006, 06:18 PM
Lolz. You lost your credibility right there.
Why...?No, serious I'm not clever enough to get what you're refering to.
Was it higher quality in AI or am I just being a victim of your ironic sense of humour :lol: ...No, I mean - why?
:wavey:

GrandSlam05
May 9th, 2006, 06:33 PM
Why...?No, serious I'm not clever enough to get what you're refering to.
Was it higher quality in AI or am I just being a victim of your ironic sense of humour :lol: ...No, I mean - why?
:wavey:
Mike, AI was hilarious, but very low quality. Vee was on fire in the 1st set, but during the 2nd set she couldn't even keep the ball in play at all. The 3rd set was average, but Vee went thru horrible patches of UE's.

mike/topgun
May 9th, 2006, 06:51 PM
OK, so that's what I meant GrandSlam05;) those great bh short cross "winners" which Lindsay hit in the very first game of the match:p
I enjoy watching hilarious matches won by Lindsay...I'd add to the list a great great match, a hard fought victory for Davenport in YEC '04 - against a certain player actually called Williams;)weird...

GrandSlam05
May 9th, 2006, 07:59 PM
OK, so that's what I meant GrandSlam05;) those great bh short cross "winners" which Lindsay hit in the very first game of the match:p
I enjoy watching hilarious matches won by Lindsay...I'd add to the list a great great match, a hard fought victory for Davenport in YEC '04 - against a certain player actually called Williams;)weird...
I didn't get to see that one. :mad:

mike/topgun
May 9th, 2006, 09:43 PM
It was another "low quality victory" over an old rival...it was hilarious, mainly cos Ree needed just one set to book her place in the semis, and she took the 1st - then she lost intrest, she pretended like she was fighting, but Lindsay got it clearly on her favour at the end:p...I'm not sure, but it could have been the match which handed Lindsay the season ending n#1 rank;)

GrandSlam05
May 10th, 2006, 02:59 PM
It was another "low quality victory" over an old rival...it was hilarious, mainly cos Ree needed just one set to book her place in the semis, and she took the 1st - then she lost intrest, she pretended like she was fighting, but Lindsay got it clearly on her favour at the end:p...I'm not sure, but it could have been the match which handed Lindsay the season ending n#1 rank;)
I dunno, I didn't watch, but I read that Ree beating Momo really helped Linds get no. 1

mike/topgun
May 10th, 2006, 04:10 PM
yeah, i think you're rightSerena helped Lindsay to secure n#1 spot by beating chokomomo