PDA

View Full Version : Was Myskina winning Roland Garros 2004 the strangest Grand Slam win ever?


Dementieva Serve
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:49 AM
Ok before I actually talk about this I just want to say one thing. I am not discrediting Myskina because I like her and she definitely 100% deserves to have won the 2004 Roland Garros title. I am just saying that it was a bit strange looking at her claycourt record in 2004 and her career, the opponents she played etc.

Anyway ...

If you look at Myskina French Open record If you look at her 2004 claycourt record prior to Roland Garros you will see that she only won one match and that was against a qualifier.

Her career Roland Garros record prior to 2004 was 1-4 ...

She benefited from several absences of players as well as players returning from injury such as Kim Clijsters being absent, Justine Henin-Hardenne being upset in the 2RD (probably due to her illness), Serena Williams fairly recently returning from injury, Amelie Mauresmo beaten by Elena Dementieva in QF etc.

Myskina had to come from a set down against Alicia Molik in the 1RD. In the next two rounds she came up against players ranked 68 and 70. In the 4RD she saved a match point against Svetlana Kuznetsova, Venus Williams had recently come off an injury, she beat Capriati easily in the SF after Capriati had thrashed Myskina just a couple of weeks before on clay. In the final Dementieva was incredibly nervous and Anastasia took complete advantage of it.

I say well done to Anastasia after all this she still managed to win Roland Garros 2004 :worship:

Billabong
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:02 AM
Maybe it was the strangest, but it is among my favorite Grand Slam victories ever:worship:!!! Nastya's wins from the 4th round were very impressive. Venus Williams had not lost a match on clay that season (she had won 2 or 3 clay tournaments not long before), and Capriati was coming off a great win over Serena in the quarters. Both Venus and Capriati played a horrible match against Nastya, but Nastya was simply SO consistent, she really believed in herself and it really made the difference I think. She was patient, solid and strong to win the whole thing, and you've got to give her credit for that:worship:!

Elenarulez
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Yeah, it was one of the strangest Grand-Slam-wins in my opinion, but her victory was well-deserved ... although I wanted Elena to win the whole thing :)

A'DAM
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:06 AM
No Majoli RG was

LoveFifteen
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:18 AM
No Majoli RG was

Why, Martina, why? :bigcry:

Martian Willow
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:20 AM
Yeah, she was barely ranked in the top-50 when she won, whereas Nastya was firmly in the top-10:)

Majoli was seeded #9.

dybbuk
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:20 AM
no. I think Mauresmo's Aussie is up there. three retirements, back-to-back in the semi's and final.

Tenis Srbija
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:22 AM
No...

MLF
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:25 AM
No Majoli RG was

No, Majoli was always considered a very good prospect, she was just a little shy of hard work. Even though she was ranked highly at the time I'd say Martinez winning Wimbledon in 1994 was more surprising than Myskina winning Roland Garros.

lilimi
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:29 AM
the funny thing is that since march 2004 i was telling my family that nastya would won the French Open and that she would beat another russian. they were like 'of course, anastasia who?'. but when the final came they were like 'OMG'!:lol:

Billabong
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:30 AM
Majoli was seeded #9.

Oops, you're right:) thanks for the correction;)

Fire_Fox
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:34 AM
Of course no! I think Nastya was the best on that period.

But Dementieva than defeted all potential favourites.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Of course no! I think Nastya was the best on that period.

But Dementieva than defeted all potential favourites.

Davenport and Mauresmo? The favourites at the French Open?
:lol:

Fire_Fox
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:46 AM
Davenport and Mauresmo? The favourites at the French Open?
:lol:

Yes! & Paula Suarez too!:)

goldenlox
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:46 AM
Nastya had finished 2003 winning Leipzig and Moscow.
She made the 2004 AO quarters and IW semis..
so she was playing like she was near the top 5.

So I don't think it was stranger than Sveta's USO.
You need luck, and to peak in week 2.

MyskinaManiac
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:59 AM
I think that Nastya just struck some huge form... it happens sometimes. She never had a walk over, or retirements. In my opinion, she won that slam fair and square, she never had one easy match (apart from that thrashing she delt to 'I can't serve' Elena D.). Not a surprise, she had reached her peak... the rest of the year proves that her form wasn't all that fleeting despite it currently appearing that way.

RJWCapriati
Dec 20th, 2006, 12:43 PM
It began very normal....the top players moving through.....then when Myskina....who had an awful record on clay and still does.......ended Williams match win streak of 17 I believe......it got weird. Next, she defeated the 2001 champion Capriati.......very easily.....and finally defeated the extremely nervous Dementieva with the loss of only 3 games......a very odd slam in terms of Myskina to say the least.

Philip
Dec 20th, 2006, 02:02 PM
I think the strangest was Capriati winning in Aus for the first time.
Nobody expected that... especially since Henrieta nearly ousted her in the 1st round! :)

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 20th, 2006, 02:45 PM
Nastya played some awesome tennis in that 2004 RG.
some of the stuff in her semi vs Capriati was just joy to behold.

goldenlox
Dec 20th, 2006, 03:27 PM
Anastasia was POY for 2004

http://www.brooklynantiques.com/Tennis/Images/myskina_2004.jpg

http://img157.echo.cx/img157/7615/u704p6t12d1591750f44dt20050601.jpg

terjw
Dec 20th, 2006, 07:02 PM
No.

How about Conchita Martinez winning Wimbledon of all slams in 94. Up till then she thought "grass is for cows".

frenchie
Dec 20th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Great great memories.

Nastya just dominated this slam. She played incredibly smart clay-court tennis

Wayn77
Dec 20th, 2006, 08:40 PM
NO - Myskina was magnificent throughout the tournament and deserved the title.

Just a shame it was such a lousy error-strewn final.

frenchie
Dec 20th, 2006, 08:44 PM
NO - Myskina was magnificent throughout the tournament and deserved the title.

Just a shame it was such a lousy error-strewn final.

Nastya is not to blame here:p
Nastya played great too during the final. That set point in the first:drool:

saki
Dec 20th, 2006, 08:47 PM
No, Nastya was a top player who had beaten the other top players before.

Amelie's AO is far more bizarre - only having to finish four matches. Has anyone ever had that many opponents retire against them in a GS?

Wayn77
Dec 20th, 2006, 08:51 PM
Nastya is not to blame here:p
Nastya played great too during the final. That set point in the first:drool:

Didn't say she was: but both girls were nervy and ElenaD's serving on the day was well ... embarrasing.
In the eyes of most casual fans, Msykina's Slam is considered a bit of a one-off fluke based on a mediocre final - which is a shame considering how well she played during the fortnight.

goldenlox
Dec 20th, 2006, 08:56 PM
Didn't say she was: but both girls were nervy and ElenaD's serving on the day was well ... embarrasing.
In the eyes of most casual fans, Msykina's Slam is considered a bit of a one-off fluke based on a mediocre final - which is a shame considering how well she played during the fortnight.That's not Myskina's fault. She gave up no more than 2 games in a set in her semi and final.

Nacho
Dec 20th, 2006, 09:02 PM
No.

How about Conchita Martinez winning Wimbledon of all slams in 94. Up till then she thought "grass is for cows".

Conchita reached the Wimbledon semis in 93 so it wasn't THAT strange

tennismaster8820
Dec 20th, 2006, 09:04 PM
It was a strange tournament, yes, but Myskina winning Roland Garros is not so strange as Martinez winning Wimbledon!

Corswandt
Dec 20th, 2006, 09:05 PM
In the eyes of most casual fans, Msykina's Slam is considered a bit of a one-off fluke based on a mediocre final - which is a shame considering how well she played during the fortnight.

There's a difference between saying Nastya's win was undeserved (which it wasn't) and saying it was a one-off fluke (which it was - Nastya didn't reach another SF at a Slam before or since).

switz
Dec 20th, 2006, 09:12 PM
it was strange but Myksina played extremely well and unfortunately her opponents from the quarters on played extremely badly. I suspect even if they played well though Myskina would have had a good shot at the title given the form she was in those two weeks.

Wayn77
Dec 20th, 2006, 09:17 PM
That's not Myskina's fault. She gave up no more than 2 games in a set in her semi and final.

Let's just say I remember the media here in the UK being underwhelmed and rather uncomplimentary at Myskina's 2004 triumph. Prejudiced no doubt by the then not particularly stellar name finalists, and the average quality of the contest in the showpiece itself. Easy targets I suppose - how many crap finals have we seen over the years? Loads. I was delighted with Nastya's triumph - because of how well she played over the two weeks, and the big scalps she took on the way.

Ben.
Dec 20th, 2006, 09:19 PM
To me Nastya's win at RG in 2004 wasn't that strange to me. It wasn't a complete shock to me when she won it cause at that time she was ranked
No.5 & in solid consistent form. I believed that she had the potential to win a slam title that year come to think of it.

She earnt that title fair & square. She beat the likes of Sveta, Venus, Capriati & Lena D which they were not easy opponents to to win a slam title against I believe. Nastya won that title due to her extraordinary consistency which is a trademark that she posseses. That's what also got to No.2 in the world at some point so therefore not only is she extremely consistent but also deceptive in her play which is a good tool to have in the game.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 20th, 2006, 09:26 PM
Her win was strange considering that Roland Garros was her absolutely worst Slam at the time. I mean maybe if she was destined to win a Slam she "should" have won Australian Open which she always plays good. But when you're looking at the level of her game in Paris you realise it has happenned to be her Slam to win.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:10 PM
To me Anastasia played perfect tennis against the opponents she faced. They hit hard and mostly weren't joyful they were playing on clay.
Myskina just kept the ball back scraped to win that extra point and venus,jennifer,svetlana got tired and or tense.
Good on her

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:21 PM
Myskina wasn't scraping. She was hitting very flat and (which is more important) very deep and both Venus and Sveta didn't have enough patience to construct their points. But Capriati's match was different. Jennifer played very passive, the only thing she was doing is defending if not retrieving while Myskina was just blasting her off court.

The Daviator
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:21 PM
No, it was one of the most impressive though :worship:

hingisGOAT
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:22 PM
yeah im sorry but anyone who is saying that she won because her opponents played poorly or whatever doesn't understand tennis

venus williams and elena dementieva in particular play fairly one-dimensional high-risk games, myskina at the time was making like zero unforced errors and moving very well, venus and elena never stood a chance against her that week on clay no matter how well they played

goldenlox
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:22 PM
Yeah, she played very smart clay court tennis.
Venus and Jennifer didn't show patience.
Jennifer, in her USO semi with Lena, changed her style during that match.
But at RG, Myskina just let her opponents make those sloppy UE's all match.

tonythetiger
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:52 PM
Yes, it was very strange. She greatly benefitted from the rain that had soaked the court and greatly reduced the speed of the ball in her match against Venus. Venus had that trophy in her hands when she totally mis-predicted Myskina.

I also think Kuznetsova (sp) was a strange US Open win. She benefited from a depleted field.

Drake1980
Dec 20th, 2006, 10:55 PM
I think maybe Majoli in'97 was more wild!

saki
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:01 PM
Myskina is a pretty aggressive player. She hits a lot of winners. She's quick and has great anticipation but she's no more defensive a player than Justine is.

I cannot understand why Myskina's GS win, beating good players, is considered more 'strange' than winning a GS with three of your opponents retiring.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 20th, 2006, 11:48 PM
Myskina is a pretty aggressive player. She hits a lot of winners. She's quick and has great anticipation but she's no more defensive a player than Justine is.

I cannot understand why Myskina's GS win, beating good players, is considered more 'strange' than winning a GS with three of your opponents retiring.

Amelie won not just because her opponents weren't be able to finish the matches. She was demolishing Krajicek and Henin before they retired and was leading Clijsters with break before Kim got injured and later this year defeated her two more times. The only thing that makes that road to the title strange is Henin's unsportsmanlike retirement. But Mauresmo has nothing to do with it.

LudwigDvorak
Dec 21st, 2006, 01:59 AM
2004 in general had a "depleted" field. But I figure if Mauresmo and Davenport were around (and who beat them at the 2004 Roland Garros?) and Capriati (who beat her at the US Open?), all great players, were around, it wasn't so utterly depleted. Venus, Serena, and J2H were still competing.

But, like someone said before, you can't discredit someone winning a Grand Slam because someone didn't show up in the final or semifinal. To win a Slam takes a hell of a lot more grit than half the people here possess, I'm sure. Henman never made it past a semifinal for a reason.

That said, I hate Kuznetsova and Myskina won their Slams due to who was their opponent in the final. Sigh.

I personally think it's weird Dementieva hasn't made it past the fourth round before or after 2004 at the French as well, so it's a two-can-tango game there.

Dementieva Serve
Dec 21st, 2006, 02:04 AM
Does anybody think Myskina can win another Grand Slam? I think it is unlikely but you never know ...

Wayn77
Dec 21st, 2006, 02:10 AM
There's a difference between saying Nastya's win was undeserved (which it wasn't) and saying it was a one-off fluke (which it was - Nastya didn't reach another SF at a Slam before or since).

I didn't say undeserved or fluke - far from it.
It was portrayed as such in the media, because of the poor quality showpiece final. Their is no such thing as a fluke Slam. Myskina played superbly to win it in 2004. She hasn't been able to repeat since - so what?

LudwigDvorak
Dec 21st, 2006, 02:15 AM
Myskina is a damn good player, even still. Many of her losses in 2006 were tough three setters. Aside from the US Open, she did well at the Slams this year, particularly Wimbledon. She might win Wimbledon one day, you never can tell (c'est la vie say the old folks).

SvetaPleaseWin.
Dec 21st, 2006, 03:50 AM
for me it wasnt strange that myskina won it but the way she won it was strange. after saving a mp against sveta, her last 3 opponents gave her the matches by making so many errors-i know she can only play whats on the other side of the net but still it was strange. myskina is definetly a player worthy of a grand slam, just for her lob and passing shots alone

urock34
Dec 21st, 2006, 03:56 AM
Does anybody think Myskina can win another Grand Slam? I think it is unlikely but you never know ...
if she does it will be either in australia or wimbledon but now there are so many other players that decrease her chances its almost impossible

Stamp Paid
Dec 21st, 2006, 04:15 AM
No, it wasnt strange at all. Venus wasn't patient and made too many errors, Jennifer was being her usual passive/defensive baseliner self but Myskina was aggressive and gave her no errors, (unlike Serena) and of course Lena was going to fall apart in her first ever slam final. Myskina played very well in her QF and SF.

SAEKeithSerena
Dec 21st, 2006, 04:41 AM
nah. svetlana's US OPEN title was pretty random

selyoink
Dec 21st, 2006, 04:46 AM
It was certainly a surprise that Nastya won Roland Garros. Her clay results prior and after certainly wouldn't indicate a grand slam win clay. A hardcourt slam would've seemed more likely. But Nastya was obviously deserving of the win. She came through a very tough draw and played excellent the whole way.

ttaM
Dec 21st, 2006, 05:12 AM
It was a surprise, but Roland Garros is by far the slam to see the unexpected happen fairly often.

I agree with those who said Martinez winning Wimbledon in '94 was stranger. Considering Graf and Navratilova had dominated the event from '82-'93, and Martinez was up against one of them in the final :eek:

RR-87
Dec 21st, 2006, 05:16 AM
I'd say Momo's Australian Open was way stranger with 3 W/O :rolleyes:

rocksania
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:21 AM
it is strange bcoz the way she plays now it does not seem that she had even won a tournament she is playing below par and i dont wats the real reason though..

Dementieva Serve
Dec 21st, 2006, 07:26 AM
If Nastya is to win another slam, she has to get herself out of this slump first ...

saki
Dec 21st, 2006, 09:04 AM
Amelie won not just because her opponents weren't be able to finish the matches. She was demolishing Krajicek and Henin before they retired and was leading Clijsters with break before Kim got injured and later this year defeated her two more times. The only thing that makes that road to the title strange is Henin's unsportsmanlike retirement. But Mauresmo has nothing to do with it.

Three W/Os to win a slam is pretty damn strange, no matter how you slice it. She deserved it because she was the last one standing but, to argue that there was nothing strange at all about that win, is just plain rubbish.

We will never know whether Kim or Justine would have beaten her. They might have done, they might not have done, either way not having to finish either your SF or your F is not exactly normal.

goldenlox
Dec 21st, 2006, 01:01 PM
Myskina's win wasn't the most strange because she came in as an improving player who had her best year in 2003.
I think there are some AO winners who were never in top 10.

Mina Vagante
Dec 21st, 2006, 01:12 PM
no i didnt think it was that strange, the US open 04 draw seemed weird to me.

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 21st, 2006, 01:14 PM
It's very strange to see the names of Barbara Jordan and Chris O'Neil amongst Grand Slam champions. Both of them barely made it to the Top 50 in the rankings and never won the other WTA tournament.