PDA

View Full Version : Surprising/Misleading head-to-heads?


selesfan!
Dec 27th, 2006, 11:14 AM
Which head-to-head's are you surprised by? I'm surprised that KLindsay leads Monica 10-3.

Also, which head-to-head's do you think are misleading? I think the Davenport-Sharapova head-to-head is surprising. Lindsay has actually won one more total game than Maria in their head-to-head, despite Maria leading their head-to-head 4-1. It just goes to show how close all of Maria's wins were, and how much lindsay dominated Maria in her lone win.

LUXXXAS
Dec 27th, 2006, 12:00 PM
most surprising for me:
Venus Williams leads JHH 7-1 :eek: and JHH won their FIRST meeting :eek: since then Venus won 7 matches in a row :bolt:

LUXXXAS
Dec 27th, 2006, 12:01 PM
Serena leads Momo 10-2 :lol:

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 27th, 2006, 12:07 PM
Which head-to-head's are you surprised by? I'm surprised that KLindsay leads Monica 10-3.

Also, which head-to-head's do you think are misleading? I think the Davenport-Sharapova head-to-head is surprising. Lindsay has actually won one more total game than Maria in their head-to-head, despite Maria leading their head-to-head 4-1. It just goes to show how close all of Maria's wins were, and how much lindsay dominated Maria in her lone win.

more like it shows of how much that win was a fluke.

SilK
Dec 27th, 2006, 01:04 PM
Kournikova leading Capriati :D

TonyP
Dec 27th, 2006, 02:22 PM
Two Hingis head to heads always surprised me.

HIngis 18-2 record over Arantxa Sanchez Vacario. Remember, ASV actually won her fourth slam, the '98 French Open, in the middle of Martina's run, yet the Spaniard found it almost impossible to beat the Swiss Miss.

The other is Martina's 16-5 record against Monica Seles (including Hopman Cup). Again, Seles was still a top player, having won the AO in '96, but Hingis clobbered her at the end of that year and went on to dominate her. She even delivered a double bagel to Monica, maybe the only one in Monica's career for all I know.

The two were good friends and even briefly played doubles together, beating the Williams sisters, but Monica rarely seemed to find the answer to Martina.

cartmancop
Dec 27th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Venus/JHH is interesting, but of course they never seem to meet up in tourneys in the last few years...

Serena leads Davenport heavily I believe, which seems strange b/c Lindsay is leading or even with several top players like Vee, etc.

goldenlox
Dec 27th, 2006, 03:14 PM
Justine 12-1 Sveta sticks out to me. I saw the one Sveta win in 2004.

markhingis
Dec 27th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Martina won every of 15 or more matches against Sandrine Testud,however most of them went to 3 sets and the score in the decider was sth like 6-4,7-5 or 7-6 . But Martina owns her :)

selyoink
Dec 27th, 2006, 04:26 PM
Justine 12-1 Sveta sticks out to me. I saw the one Sveta win in 2004.

I agree with this one. They have played quite a few close matches but its always Justine that comes away with the win.

thrust
Dec 27th, 2006, 04:34 PM
Most of the Venus wins against Justine came before Justine reached her peak. Martina^s wins against Seles were after Monica came back from the stabbing. Monica played well when she first came back, but soon after injuries and weight problems overcame her. Monica was severly injured the day of that bagel performance. She should not even played the match, especially after the first set, as it was obvious she could barely move. It was very painful to watch that match.

Leo_DFP
Dec 27th, 2006, 04:51 PM
more like it shows of how much that win was a fluke.

Actually it shows how much that win was not a fluke.

TeamUSA#1
Dec 27th, 2006, 04:53 PM
Capriati's H2H with Davenport is shocking to me and misleading. Jen just moves so much better than Lindsay, but has a 3-10 record against her. This head2head should have been more like 5-5. I think it is misleading because a good bulk of Lindsay's wins came when Jen had not completed her comeback yet and also because most of those wins were in 3 close sets.

crazyroberto6767
Dec 27th, 2006, 04:56 PM
Stevenson leading Capriati 3-2 is surprising to me, especially since Alex won 3 of 4 when Capriati was top-3 in 2002.

iPatty
Dec 27th, 2006, 04:57 PM
Venus/Patty. They always seem to have three set matches, but Venus always comes out with the win. :sad:

goldenlox
Dec 27th, 2006, 05:23 PM
Lindsay 7-0 Nadia

le bon vivant
Dec 27th, 2006, 06:00 PM
Serena leads Momo 10-2 :lol:

How is that surprising or misleading? ;)

<Sven>
Dec 27th, 2006, 06:09 PM
How is that surprising or misleading? ;)
I'm not Serena's number one fan, but I was wondering the same thing :p

new-york
Dec 27th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Venus/Patty. They always seem to have three set matches, but Venus always comes out with the win. :sad:

they had four straight sets matches & four three setters.

Patty never won more than 2 games in a three setter final set vs Venus. :shrug:

hablo
Dec 27th, 2006, 06:33 PM
Mauresmo vs Capriati :
7-4

never did get that head to head :angel:

sfselesfan
Dec 27th, 2006, 06:53 PM
most surprising for me:
Venus Williams leads JHH 7-1 :eek: and JHH won their FIRST meeting :eek: since then Venus won 7 matches in a row :bolt:

Not the least bit shocking or misleading.

SF

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:18 PM
Dulko leads Dementieva 2-0

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:27 PM
This one is infamous, nevertheless always strikes me: Graf leads Tauziat 21-0 with Nathalie never even getting to the tiebreak :tape: :lol:

Derek.
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:27 PM
Hantuchova vs. Mauresmo 3-2 :p

S-T-E-V-E
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:28 PM
Angelika Roesch - Elena Dementieva 3-0 :)

Carsten
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Lindsay 7-0 Nadia

I think that's just a pretty normal H2H ;)

matthias
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:36 PM
Angelika Roesch - Elena Dementieva 3-0 :)


:tape: :lol: :help: makes Angie look like a former top10 player

The Daviator
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:41 PM
I wish Venus and Justine would play again already, it'll be 4 years since they've last played in January, strange for two top players :eek:

spencercarlos
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Capriati's H2H with Davenport is shocking to me and misleading. Jen just moves so much better than Lindsay, but has a 3-10 record against her. This head2head should have been more like 5-5. I think it is misleading because a good bulk of Lindsay's wins came when Jen had not completed her comeback yet and also because most of those wins were in 3 close sets.

That statement is actually ridiculous.
- First Jennifer can move so much better than Lindsay, but Lindsay´s serve is also so much better than Jennifer, in fact Jennifer´s serve was below average with a lot of double faults, and not nearly as powerful as Davenport. And off the ground Lindsay is simply better, more consistent. Let alone to see that Davenport even leads Jennifer on clay 2-0 which says a lot.

-See head to head for a fact.
1997-01-06 Sydney Hardcourt SF Capriati 2-6 6-4 6-2
1997-02-17 Oklahoma City Indoor Hardcourt QF Davenport 6-3 6-4
1999-05-24 Roland Garros Clay R16 Davenport 6-2 6-3
2000-01-17 Australian Open Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-2 7-6(4)
2000-02-28 Scottsdale Hardcourt R16 Davenport 3-6 6-2 6-3
2000-06-26 Wimbledon Grass R16 Davenport 6-3 6-3
2001-01-15 Australian Open Hardcourt SF Capriati 6-3 6-4
2001-02-26 Scottsdale Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-4 6-7(2) 6-1
2001-10-15 Zurich Indoor Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-1 5-7 6-2
2003-03-03 Indian Wells Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-4 4-6 6-4
2003-04-14 Amalia Island Clay SF Davenport 6-3 5-7 6-2
2003-08-18 New Haven Hardcourt F Capriati 6-2 4-0 ret

Capriati won the first meeting in 97, coming off a strong end up 1996 with close losing matches to Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, wins over Seles, Maleeva, Sabatini, Raymond, Zvereva, and a Tier II final, and QF of TIer I to end 1996. Starting 97 in Sydney with wins over Rubin, Frazier, Davenport and taking Hingis, who was about to win the Australian Open, to three sets.
It´s very clear that Jennifer was playing solid tennis probably top ten tennis during October 1996-early January 1997.

They only played 3 times before Capriati started to show that she was GS champion material and head to head from those 3 matches only has Lindsay 2-1, from then on they played from the Australian Open 2000 to onwards.
Davenport leads Capriati 2-1 in her so called best year on tour.
Davenport lead Caprati 2-1 in 2003.

Going by that even after Capriati started to win grand slams Lindsay lead Jennifer 4-2 (one loss include a retirement because of injury), still based on that head to head for 12 matches should be around 8-4, and not 5-5 as you try to imply, this is simply because Jennifer NEVER had an even head to head with Davenport on any year.

Lulu.
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:47 PM
Serena leads Momo 10-2 :lol:


Thats not suprising. Serena is better

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:48 PM
#94 leads Top 10:

48-16

leads 2006 Major Winners:
17-7

:eek::worship::cool:;)

Filippo-Nastya
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:49 PM
This one is infamous, nevertheless always strikes me: Graf leads Tauziat 21-0 with Nathalie never even getting to the tiebreak :tape: :lol:

Oh my God, Steffi has been my nightmare for many years. I was a big fan of Jana Novotna.......H2H Graf leads Novotna 30-4. :help: :tape: :sad: :sad:

eugreene2
Dec 27th, 2006, 07:56 PM
That would be my 11-0 HTH against Roddick in SCT2.

TeamUSA#1
Dec 27th, 2006, 08:46 PM
That statement is actually ridiculous.
- First Jennifer can move so much better than Lindsay, but Lindsay´s serve is also so much better than Jennifer, in fact Jennifer´s serve was below average with a lot of double faults, and not nearly as powerful as Davenport. And off the ground Lindsay is simply better, more consistent. Let alone to see that Davenport even leads Jennifer on clay 2-0 which says a lot.

-See head to head for a fact.
1997-01-06 Sydney Hardcourt SF Capriati 2-6 6-4 6-2
1997-02-17 Oklahoma City Indoor Hardcourt QF Davenport 6-3 6-4
1999-05-24 Roland Garros Clay R16 Davenport 6-2 6-3
2000-01-17 Australian Open Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-2 7-6(4)
2000-02-28 Scottsdale Hardcourt R16 Davenport 3-6 6-2 6-3
2000-06-26 Wimbledon Grass R16 Davenport 6-3 6-3 2001-01-15 Australian Open Hardcourt SF Capriati 6-3 6-4
2001-02-26 Scottsdale Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-4 6-7(2) 6-1
2001-10-15 Zurich Indoor Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-1 5-7 6-2
2003-03-03 Indian Wells Hardcourt SF Davenport 6-4 4-6 6-4
2003-04-14 Amalia Island Clay SF Davenport 6-3 5-7 6-2 2003-08-18 New Haven Hardcourt F Capriati 6-2 4-0 ret

Capriati won the first meeting in 97, coming off a strong end up 1996 with close losing matches to Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, wins over Seles, Maleeva, Sabatini, Raymond, Zvereva, and a Tier II final, and QF of TIer I to end 1996. Starting 97 in Sydney with wins over Rubin, Frazier, Davenport and taking Hingis, who was about to win the Australian Open, to three sets.
It´s very clear that Jennifer was playing solid tennis probably top ten tennis during October 1996-early January 1997.

They only played 3 times before Capriati started to show that she was GS champion material and head to head from those 3 matches only has Lindsay 2-1, from then on they played from the Australian Open 2000 to onwards.
Davenport leads Capriati 2-1 in her so called best year on tour.
Davenport lead Caprati 2-1 in 2003.

Going by that even after Capriati started to win grand slams Lindsay lead Jennifer 4-2 (one loss include a retirement because of injury), still based on that head to head for 12 matches should be around 8-4, and not 5-5 as you try to imply, this is simply because Jennifer NEVER had an even head to head with Davenport on any year.

wtf!....
First of all Jen's serve is not as good as Lindsay's, but it wasn't a piece of shit either. It def. was not below average. She def. was top 10 in serves when she was playing.

Jen's groundies were right there with Lindsay's-- both have some of the best groundies in the game ever.

They did NOT play 3 times before Jen started to show that she was GS champion material.... they played 4 times, one of them being the 1999 French Open where Jen was ranked #53 and Lindsay ranked #2. The other times Lindsay was ranked #2 or #1 and Jen was barely top 20.


And like I said in my original post, their matches after 2000 were all 3 setters that Lindsay won... very close.
I know Jen NEVER had an even h2h... that is why it is shocking to me and misleading.. Jen is a better player than a 3-10 record against Lindsay. It SHOULD have been more even.....

Europe rocks
Dec 27th, 2006, 10:37 PM
Krasnoroutskaya lead Clijsters 1-0

OK, it was only one match, but if Lina doesn't return and Kimmie does return, that will be layed in concrete :)

Dominic
Dec 27th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Lindsay 7-0 Nadia

That looks ok to me

saki
Dec 27th, 2006, 11:42 PM
I wish Venus and Justine would play again already, it'll be 4 years since they've last played in January, strange for two top players :eek:

Venus isn't a top player. She hasn't played many of the top 10 very recently because she just hasn't been getting far enough in tournaments.

I think both the Venus and Serena head to heads against Justine are somewhat misleading. The Venus one because they haven't played for so long and the Serena one because most of their matches were on clay. If Justine had got a crack at the Venus who was losing to Pironkova/Sprem/Raymond/Sesil etc, she'd have evened up that head to head and, if Serena had got to play Justine more on grass/hard in '02-'03, it would be more in Serena's favour.

blumaroo
Dec 28th, 2006, 12:04 AM
Lindsay's h2h with Elena Dementieva.
Isn't it like 10-5 or 10-6. Considering Lindsay's records against nonslamwinning top players it should have been something like 10-3. Especially because Elena's game should fit her.
And the Venus-Justine h2h is obviously the most misleading. And the Kim-Serena h2h should be more even.

spencercarlos
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:18 AM
wtf!....
First of all Jen's serve is not as good as Lindsay's, but it wasn't a piece of shit either. It def. was not below average. She def. was top 10 in serves when she was playing.

Jen's groundies were right there with Lindsay's-- both have some of the best groundies in the game ever.

They did NOT play 3 times before Jen started to show that she was GS champion material.... they played 4 times, one of them being the 1999 French Open where Jen was ranked #53 and Lindsay ranked #2. The other times Lindsay was ranked #2 or #1 and Jen was barely top 20.


And like I said in my original post, their matches after 2000 were all 3 setters that Lindsay won... very close.
I know Jen NEVER had an even h2h... that is why it is shocking to me and misleading.. Jen is a better player than a 3-10 record against Lindsay. It SHOULD have been more even.....
Jennifer´s serve was definely not among the top ten and was not acording to her game at all, definetly you seem to forget the huge amount of double faults she used to make especially on important points.


I was definetly not counting Australian Open 2000 as a match where Jennifer was still on her way back do you? :lol: So Capriati took more than 4 years to get back into tennis? :tape: Still i took those early 1997-2000 matches out of your delusional "should be 5-5 theory".

The stats are not misleading, it only shows simply that Davenport had the game to beat Capriati in a consistent basis, lets not even mention that Lindsay beat Capriati on their only two meetings on clay, and don´t come here and tell me that Jennifer was still on her way back when she had just won a Tournament in 1999 on clay, even a young and upcoming Henin gave Lindsay a much tougher challenge at Roland Garros 1999.

You were too quick to point out that Davenport had a bulk of wins in the early head to head matches, and that the latter matches suggested that the head to head should have been something like 5-5, all of this ONLY because Jennifer also moved way better than Lindsay... wrong.
The latter matches suggest that Lindsay would be something like 8-4, but nowhere near 5-5 or even as you said.

Davenport is better than her lame record vs Serena, but it´s Serena´s fault that she has an style that counteracts Davenport the most and makes her game look less effective.

iPatty
Dec 28th, 2006, 04:36 AM
they had four straight sets matches & four three setters.

Patty never won more than 2 games in a three setter final set vs Venus. :shrug:



:ras:

TeamUSA#1
Dec 28th, 2006, 01:52 PM
Jenniferīs serve was definely not among the top ten and was not acording to her game at all, definetly you seem to forget the huge amount of double faults she used to make especially on important points.


I was definetly not counting Australian Open 2000 as a match where Jennifer was still on her way back do you? :lol: So Capriati took more than 4 years to get back into tennis? :tape: Still i took those early 1997-2000 matches out of your delusional "should be 5-5 theory".

The stats are not misleading, it only shows simply that Davenport had the game to beat Capriati in a consistent basis, lets not even mention that Lindsay beat Capriati on their only two meetings on clay, and donīt come here and tell me that Jennifer was still on her way back when she had just won a Tournament in 1999 on clay, even a young and upcoming Henin gave Lindsay a much tougher challenge at Roland Garros 1999.

You were too quick to point out that Davenport had a bulk of wins in the early head to head matches, and that the latter matches suggested that the head to head should have been something like 5-5, all of this ONLY because Jennifer also moved way better than Lindsay... wrong.
The latter matches suggest that Lindsay would be something like 8-4, but nowhere near 5-5 or even as you said.

Davenport is better than her lame record vs Serena, but itīs Serenaīs fault that she has an style that counteracts Davenport the most and makes her game look less effective.

Such bull shit... :help:

Jen had a problem with double faults for a short period of time from April 2001 until Feb 2002.

Yes it took Jen more than 4 years to make her way back. She didn't play on the tour for 2.5 years, and then after a fairly successful 1996, she spent most of 1997 and 1998 injured or recovering from injury. She played very little during those years. It wasn't until spring of 1999 that she was healthy and able to build her game back. And no, she was not back to top flight tennis until AO 2001. And the fact remains, they played 6 of their 13 matches before Jen was a top player again--- almost 50%.

And what is your obsession with the clay court wins? The 1999 win is not that suprizing, Jen was barely top 20, and Davenport was #2 in the world. The Amelia Island win is a bit more of a shocker, since it was in 2002, but green clay is super fast compared to the red clay,--- it is almost like playing on hard court or carpet. And again, it was a close 3 setter.

And finally, my point was given the # of matches played before 2001 and all the close 3 setters after, it is a bit of a lopsided H2H. I feel that Jen should have had more of a 5-5 or 4-6 record against Lindsay.... AGAIN, just my OPINION... but obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word OPINION :rolleyes:

spotsyboy
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:19 PM
I always liked this one, for some reason (not that I don't like Jennifer, but because of that year that Jelena Dokic called Rita a "nobody" player :)

Kuti Kis leads Capriati 2-0 :)

jamesuk
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:24 PM
All these teensy head to head total reminds you of how amazing the 37 - 43 h2h total between Chris and Martina really is.


Regarding the Sanchez Hingis total, correct me if I am wrong, but I am SURE she made a reference to herrivalry with Hingis while commentating on her Round Robin match v MAuresmo this year. She said that at first it was hard to play her but then she learnt how to do itand was then able to beat her. It was something like that I think, but whatever it was it was certainly misleading to anyone who doesnt follow tennis thatr much, as it made me think "Who are you kidding Arantxa?!" Awful commentating too by the way.

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:40 PM
Such bull shit... :help:

but green clay is super fast compared to the red clay,--- it is almost like playing on hard court or carpet. And again, it was a close 3 setter.



now thats :bs:
:tape:
its diff but not that much, plus in the US they use a faster ball which makes more of a diff.

416_Man
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:44 PM
LMFAO Someone comparing green clay to carpet. *death*

Munich
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:45 PM
Dulko H2H vs Dementieva and Petrova :o

rrfnpump
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:50 PM
Kournikova v Schnyder 4-1 :lol:

Nagyova v Schnyder 5-2 :p

TTomek
Dec 28th, 2006, 02:53 PM
and Roesch vs Dementieva is 3-1 ont 3-0 :p

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 28th, 2006, 03:00 PM
Kournikova v Schnyder 4-1 :lol:


Nope!

It's 4-0! :p :bounce:

Schnyder won only on ITF tournament playing against 14-years old Kournikova.

Since Anna turned pro she won four consecutive matches, all on clay, with bagelling Patty three times! :bounce:

TTomek
Dec 28th, 2006, 03:05 PM
Nope!

It's 4-0! :p :bounce:

Schnyder won only on ITF tournament playing against 14-years old Kournikova.

Since Anna turned pro she won four consecutive matches, all on clay, with bagelling Patty three times! :bounce:

it's 4-1 and it will be so always!!!

AnnaK_4ever
Dec 28th, 2006, 04:06 PM
it's 4-1 and it will be so always!!!

If the win over 14 years old girl means so much for you then ok, it's 4-1 ;)
And, you know, 4-0 or 4-1... the fact is Anna owns Patty :devil:

TeamUSA#1
Dec 28th, 2006, 05:38 PM
now thats :bs:
:tape:
its diff but not that much, plus in the US they use a faster ball which makes more of a diff.

Thanks for making my point even stronger... green clay is differnt as you say (much faster and harder than red clay)

AND

they use a faster ball in the US, which is were Davenport def. Capriati (Amelia Island) in 2002:wavey:

iamhe
Dec 28th, 2006, 05:52 PM
Venus leads Justine 7-1 is a big surprising & misleading head-to-head to me

Tenis Srbija
Dec 28th, 2006, 05:57 PM
Anna Chakvetadze leading Jelena Janković 4-1 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o

vwfan
Dec 28th, 2006, 06:19 PM
most surprising for me:
Venus Williams leads JHH 7-1 :eek: and JHH won their FIRST meeting :eek: since then Venus won 7 matches in a row :bolt:what's misleading about that! Venus spanked JHH every time and pulled a win out on JHH's favorite surface. When they met, Venus dominated.

It would be interesting to see how they match up now.

goldenlox
Dec 28th, 2006, 09:11 PM
Lindsay 7-0 Nadia
Nadia won 1 set 7-6(6)

Tenis Srbija
Dec 28th, 2006, 09:46 PM
Why is Lindsay against Nadia 7-0 suprising???
There a lot of players that have won the first set against someone, but not defeating him ever...

StarDuvallGrant
Dec 28th, 2006, 10:24 PM
Venus leads Justine 7-1 is a big surprising & misleading head-to-head to me

I can't imagine how showing up to a match and winning is surprising or misleading. It is what it is, a win.

Tenis Srbija
Dec 28th, 2006, 10:32 PM
I can't imagine how showing up to a match and winning is surprising or misleading. It is what it is, a win.

It looks like you don't understand what suprising/misleading H2H means!
It's not suprising to player win a match, but it is suprising that Lindsay has done it 10 times against Monika, while Monika won just three! Got it now? :)

StarDuvallGrant
Dec 28th, 2006, 10:52 PM
It looks like you don't understand what suprising/misleading H2H means!
It's not suprising to player win a match, but it is suprising that Lindsay has done it 10 times against Monika, while Monika won just three! Got it now? :)

The definition for surprise (since you seem to be unaware of it):

-to strike with wonder or amazement especially because unexpected

and misleading

- to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

There is nothing surprising or misleading about Venus having such a record against Justine :)

Tenis Srbija
Dec 28th, 2006, 11:14 PM
Don't take everything from word to word. :)

That H2H is very suprising...But that's just cause they two haven't played lately...

In your's opinin, it's nothing "funky" that Vee seems to be the better player than JuJu :lol: :haha:

StarDuvallGrant
Dec 28th, 2006, 11:21 PM
In your's opinin, it's nothing "funky" that Vee seems to be the better player than JuJu :lol: :haha:

Of course :lol: Venus is a better player than Justine and that's why it's not surprising she has such a lead :)

Tenis Srbija
Dec 28th, 2006, 11:22 PM
Of course :lol: Venus is a better player than Justine and that's why it's neither surprising nor misleading :)

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

You are funny person...Good for you :wavey:

StarDuvallGrant
Dec 28th, 2006, 11:25 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

You are funny person...Good for you :wavey:

Of course, I'm happy with Venus' h2h :yeah:

switz
Dec 28th, 2006, 11:37 PM
If the win over 14 years old girl means so much for you then ok, it's 4-1 ;)
And, you know, 4-0 or 4-1... the fact is Anna owns Patty :devil:

well 3 of Anna's wins over Patty came when she was being coached by a crazy German who made her drink 100 litres of orange juice a day so it wasn't exactly that much of an achievement to beat her ;)

Let's call it 1-0 Anna.

Tenis Srbija
Dec 28th, 2006, 11:49 PM
well 3 of Anna's wins over Patty came when she was being coached by a crazy German who made her drink 100 litres of orange juice a day so it wasn't exactly that much of an achievement to beat her ;)

Let's call it 1-0 Anna.

This is sooo funny thread. No one admmits nothing :p :D

bmwofoz
Dec 29th, 2006, 04:09 AM
Davenport over Capriati isn't surprising to me. whenever they played I felt when Lindsay was switched on was just too big and strong for Jennifer.

Capriati had a very good serve, which did let her down from time to time, but at least she always went for her serve, unlike some whom just roll the ball into the court.

One that is interesting is Hingis v Martinez, While I haven got the numbers infront of me but Martinez won all there early matches, then Hingis won all the rest.

selyoink
Dec 29th, 2006, 04:27 AM
The Henin-Hardenne/Clijsters head-to-head is very misleading in my opinion. The head-to-head is 12-10 for Justine which is closer than one would expect considering Justine has won the majority of their matches in slams.

cartmancop
Dec 29th, 2006, 05:37 AM
I love how everyone jumps in to rationalize why their fave could possibly lose a match :lol: It's been entertaining to read @ 1:30 in the a.m. :)

*Venus leading Monica 9-1 looks odd, not that she's won so many, but how one-sided so many of the victories were. To be fair to Monica though, this was after her comeback and most of these were played in Vee's peak 00-02... I remember the 1 Seles win @ the 02 AO in the Qtrs. I was sooo sure Vee was gonna win that one :(

cartmancop
Dec 29th, 2006, 05:39 AM
The Henin-Hardenne/Clijsters head-to-head is very misleading in my opinion. The head-to-head is 12-10 for Justine which is closer than one would expect considering Justine has won the majority of their matches in slams.

I agree, it seems everytime they met in a match that 'meant anything' JHH always came through, I think she leads 5-2 in GS meetings...

So Disrespectful
Dec 29th, 2006, 06:37 AM
Miroslava Vavrinec leads JHH 1-0 (I think!)

spencercarlos
Dec 29th, 2006, 09:09 AM
Jen had a problem with double faults for a short period of time from April 2001 until Feb 2002.

What a delusional? Did you actually followed Jennifer during her 1999 Usopen Run to the 4th round? Her serve was a problem there, but it was even more notable in 2000, watch her comedy of double faults (8 faults in a row) in her match against Van Roost at the Australian Open 2000, at the Usopen as well, at Roland Garros in her losing effort to Zuluaga, 2000 Zurich serve comedy with Anna Kournikova as well, and i am only talking about the matches i got to see which were not many, when you tell that was only a 2001-2002 period struggle, the i realize you are more delusional than i thought.


Yes it took Jen more than 4 years to make her way back. She didn't play on the tour for 2.5 years, and then after a fairly successful 1996, she spent most of 1997 and 1998 injured or recovering from injury. She played very little during those years. It wasn't until spring of 1999 that she was healthy and able to build her game back. And no, she was not back to top flight tennis until AO 2001. And the fact remains, they played 6 of their 13 matches before Jen was a top player again--- almost 50%.

2001 Jennifer got a grand slam final and eventually a grand slam win, which was far more than she had achieved in the past, to say 2001 just marked her way back its ridiculous :rolleyes: .
Yet again to say that 2001 Australian Open made Jennifer "a top player again", it´s even more nuts, Capriati was already a top player "again" when she reached semifinals of the 2000 Australian Open, qualified for the Chase Champs that year, etc.

But still 2001 head to head is 2-1 in favor of Lindsay, which again suggest a head to head score similar to an 8-4 based on that rate. Sorry can´t see the 5-5 thing :sad:
:wavey:

she spent most of 1997 and 1998 injured or recovering from injury. She played very little during those years.

Still Caprati played 23 tournaments combined during these two years, she played few events but was not like she was barely playing. Plus her injury took her out from May 1997 to August 1997, beyond that she never took more than a month off between one event and another. She was then either stupid playing injured, or again your 2 year injury theory from 1997-1998 is not true yet again another wrong stat manipulation you want to present everybody.

BTW i have to say that I know Capriati was injured in 1997, but her main problem was in herself mostly, she found trouble getting her groove and getting her a working team to start up things again.

AGAIN, just my OPINION... but obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word OPINION :rolleyes:
See? Now that you finally admited that it was your F. opinion and not an assumption based on "a bulk of early head to head wins from Davenport", which in fact brought numbers to your argument and "based" opinion, which i respect, but then don´t talk BS about the head to head matches because its not true. Dont bring numbers to the conversation then.

athake
Dec 29th, 2006, 02:00 PM
most surprising for me:
Venus Williams leads JHH 7-1 :eek: and JHH won their FIRST meeting :eek: since then Venus won 7 matches in a row :bolt:

:)
Venus leads JH 6-1 and leads JHH 1-0; 2 diff name, 2 diff player.
So 7-1 means nothing for new Justine...


Miroslava Vavrinec leads JHH 1-0 (I think!)

:)) its something like, "i defeated Kasparov once when he was so sick and never played again but keep on saying i am clever and a better Chess player than Kasparov"...

Geertvg
Dec 29th, 2006, 02:44 PM
Kremer is tied with Clijsters!!

1-1.

Before Hasselt 06 it was 1-0 Kremer!! :^)

SilK
Dec 29th, 2006, 03:06 PM
Nope!

It's 4-0! :p :bounce:

Schnyder won only on ITF tournament playing against 14-years old Kournikova.

Since Anna turned pro she won four consecutive matches, all on clay, with bagelling Patty three times! :bounce:

I love Anna... but really, those three bagels have little to do with Anna owning Patty. It's more Patty hating Anna so much she simply gave up at a certain point in her matches with Anna. That's called tanking... Patty was good at it! :tape: :o

Hachiko
Jan 9th, 2007, 10:44 AM
Ivanovic leads Golovin 5-0. You would think it would be a bit more even.

*Jool*
Jan 9th, 2007, 11:35 AM
.

One that is interesting is Hingis v Martinez, While I haven got the numbers infront of me but Martinez won all there early matches, then Hingis won all the rest.

I think it's something like 10/3 , martinez winning the first two 60 61 and 62 63 in 1996 , and thx God, she won one of the last ones in Berlin 2000 .


Dechy leading Shaughnessy something like 7/0 intrigues me .

TeamUSA#1
Jan 9th, 2007, 02:33 PM
What a delusional? Did you actually followed Jennifer during her 1999 Usopen Run to the 4th round? Her serve was a problem there, but it was even more notable in 2000, watch her comedy of double faults (8 faults in a row) in her match against Van Roost at the Australian Open 2000, at the Usopen as well, at Roland Garros in her losing effort to Zuluaga, 2000 Zurich serve comedy with Anna Kournikova as well, and i am only talking about the matches i got to see which were not many, when you tell that was only a 2001-2002 period struggle, the i realize you are more delusional than i thought.

Well, she may have had some trouble back then with her serve, but it was more noticeable in the 01-02 period, as she was a top 4 player in the world, and she worked very hard to improve her serve, which she did. It was much better in the end of 2002 and going forward. By 2004 she was hitting 1st serves as fast as 119 mph and rarely double faulting and winning a good % of her 2nd serves

2001 Jennifer got a grand slam final and eventually a grand slam win, which was far more than she had achieved in the past, to say 2001 just marked her way back its ridiculous :rolleyes: .
Yet again to say that 2001 Australian Open made Jennifer "a top player again", it´s even more nuts, Capriati was already a top player "again" when she reached semifinals of the 2000 Australian Open, qualified for the Chase Champs that year, etc.

Ok, WHATEVER:rolleyes: She had one good showing at a slam in 2000, got out of shape for most of the year, and didn't get back into shape until the end of the year, where she won 1 smaller title and was only in the top 20. To me, and everyone else, that is way below Jen's ability, and not indicitive of a top player. A top player is in the top 10 and is considered a threat to win a major. At that time, while she impressed by getting to the AO SFs, no one thought of her as threat to win a major.

But still 2001 head to head is 2-1 in favor of Lindsay, which again suggest a head to head score similar to an 8-4 based on that rate. Sorry can´t see the 5-5 thing :sad:
:wavey:


Still Caprati played 23 tournaments combined during these two years, she played few events but was not like she was barely playing. Plus her injury took her out from May 1997 to August 1997, beyond that she never took more than a month off between one event and another. She was then either stupid playing injured, or again your 2 year injury theory from 1997-1998 is not true yet again another wrong stat manipulation you want to present everybody.

BTW i have to say that I know Capriati was injured in 1997, but her main problem was in herself mostly, she found trouble getting her groove and getting her a working team to start up things again.

Well, it is very hard to get your groove going, when YOU ARE INJURED ON AND OFF FOR 2 YEARS!!!!! How dumb are you??? Playing 53 matches across 2 years is NOTHING! Do you even play tennis? If you did, you would know that it is common for a player aggrevate a recent injury and send you backwards yet again. And you have your facts wrong YET AGAIN.... she didnt play a match until March 29th in 1998.. she missed the 1st 3 months of the year DUE TO INJURY:rolleyes: What I have presented are the FACTS, check her profile at wtatour.com


See? Now that you finally admited that it was your F. opinion and not an assumption based on "a bulk of early head to head wins from Davenport", which in fact brought numbers to your argument and "based" opinion, which i respect, but then don´t talk BS about the head to head matches because its not true. Dont bring numbers to the conversation then.

This whole thread is an OPINION you idiot. That was my whole point. My numbers were SPOT ON, and I stand behind my rationale for why I think the head to head is SUPRISING.... Jen is too good of player to have a 3-10 record against Davenport...... and that 6 of their 13 matches were played before Jen TRUELY made it back to top player level, and that after 2001 WHEN SHE WAS A TOP PLAYER AGAIN, she won 2 of thier six encounters, and the other 4 were all close 3 setters. BASED ON THOSE FACTS, I am SUPRISED that the H2H isn't closer. Can you follow that or is it too advanced for you???:rolleyes:

Dave.
Jan 9th, 2007, 03:28 PM
Lindsay is a much better player than Jennifer and it isn't really a surprise to see such a one-sided H2H 9-3 (really 9-2).

Lindsay has a much better serve than Jennifer. It is more powerful, way more accurate, alot more variety and hardly ever double faults. Lindsay can volley very well, Jennifer can't. Lindsay's groundies are better aswell. You could go as far as to suggest their forehands are the same, but there is no competition on Lindsay's backhand. Lindsay also returns better than Jennifer and has an overall more well-rounded game.

Lindsay proved she is the better player time and time again. She beat Jennifer on all surfaces, even on clay twice. The F.O. 99 win was a good win for Lindsay as Jennifer was in full swing coming in from winning Strasbourg. The Amelia Island win for Lindsay was even better considering it was in Lindsay's worst year on tour. Jennifer was once again in form having just reached the Miami final. The clay at Amelia Island may be a fraction faster, but there isn't any drastic difference. Anyway, to round off my point, Lindsay time and time again beat Jennifer when they were both playing well. Monica Seles didn't play for a whole two years having been stabbed yet she came back straight away to win Montreal and reach the US Open final. Straight after she won the A.Open. It didn't take Jennifer a whole 4 years to fully come back!!

spencercarlos
Jan 9th, 2007, 04:56 PM
Well, she may have had some trouble back then with her serve, but it was more noticeable in the 01-02 period, as she was a top 4 player in the world, and she worked very hard to improve her serve, which she did. It was much better in the end of 2002 and going forward. By 2004 she was hitting 1st serves as fast as 119 mph and rarely double faulting and winning a good % of her 2nd serves
Yeah for sure 2004 the year where Capriati impressed the tennis world by her huge and improved serve :lol: And 0 double faults on crucial points :tape:

[I][COLOR="red"]Ok, WHATEVER She had one good showing at a slam in 2000, got out of shape for most of the year, and didn't get back into shape until the end of the year, where she won 1 smaller title and was only in the top 20. To me, and everyone else, that is way below Jen's ability, and not indicitive of a top player. A top player is in the top 10 and is considered a threat to win a major. At that time, while she impressed by getting to the AO SFs, no one thought of her as threat to win a major.
Ok then by your standards reaching semifinals of a grand slam does not make a player be "top player is in the top 10 and is considered a threat to win a major" category quoting yourself... Then shamely Capriati was a top player for only 2 years 2001, and 2002 :lol: :tape: Too bad Jennifer :sad:

[I][COLOR="red"]Well, it is very hard to get your groove going, when YOU ARE INJURED ON AND OFF FOR 2 YEARS!!!!! How dumb are you??? Playing 53 matches across 2 years is NOTHING! Do you even play tennis? If you did, you would know that it is common for a player aggrevate a recent injury and send you backwards yet again. And you have your facts wrong YET AGAIN.... she didnt play a match until March 29th in 1998.. she missed the 1st 3 months of the year DUE TO INJURY What I have presented are the FACTS, check her profile at wtatour.com
The point is that she was not OFF and ON because of injuries, her ONLY injury during that period came in April when she "sprained her ankle", you as "a fan" of hers should know that. Mostly her OFF and ON from August 1997until pretty much 1999 was within herself struggles, with her working team and with her mind, not because she was having injuries... .
Here the WTATOUR profile, does not even mention her 1997 injury, which she in fact had and sprained ankle.
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/PlayerBio2.asp?PlayerID=30200


[I][COLOR="red"]This whole thread is an OPINION you idiot. That was my whole point. My numbers were SPOT ON, and I stand behind my rationale for why I think the head to head is SUPRISING.... Jen is too good of player to have a 3-10 record against Davenport...... and that 6 of their 13 matches were played before Jen TRUELY made it back to top player level, and that after 2001 WHEN SHE WAS A TOP PLAYER AGAIN, she won 2 of thier six encounters, and the other 4 were all close 3 setters. BASED ON THOSE FACTS, I am SUPRISED that the H2H isn't closer. Can you follow that or is it too advanced for you???:rolleyes:
Once again i don´t care what you believe about the head to head, the reason why i jumped on you was because you stated that latest numbers showed that head to head should be around 5-5, only because Davenport had a "bulk" of wins in the early head to head meetings. Once again do the math is not difficult 8-4 (as proyection of 4-2 head to head for Davenport in 2001 and 2003) is very different from 5-5.

TeamUSA#1
Jan 9th, 2007, 09:32 PM
Yeah for sure 2004 the year where Capriati impressed the tennis world by her huge and improved serve :lol: And 0 double faults on crucial points :tape:

I saw every match she played in 2004 and have almost all of them on tape as well.... Even the tennis commentators commented on how her serve was much improved. I can tell you she was not serving multiple double faults in a match, the speed on her 1st serve was up, she was getting more aces/free points with her serve, and her 2nd serve was much more affective

Ok then by your standards reaching semifinals of a grand slam does not make a player be "top player is in the top 10 and is considered a threat to win a major" category quoting yourself... Then shamely Capriati was a top player for only 2 years 2001, and 2002 :lol: :tape: Too bad Jennifer :sad:

One good result in a slam over a 3 of years does not make you a top player-- it is more of a fluke. Capriati was a top 10 player and a top player from 1990 to 1993 and then again from 2001 through 2004, when she won 3 slams and was a top 10 player the whole time. That's the difference

The point is that she was not OFF and ON because of injuries, her ONLY injury during that period came in April when she "sprained her ankle", you as "a fan" of hers should know that. Mostly her OFF and ON from August 1997until pretty much 1999 was within herself struggles, with her working team and with her mind, not because she was having injuries... .
Here the WTATOUR profile, does not even mention her 1997 injury, which she in fact had and sprained ankle.
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/PlayerBio2.asp?PlayerID=30200
whatever..... she was injured on and off for both seasons. I have followed her career since 1990 and she had several injuries during that time.... ankle, wrist, back, hamstring She missed from May 1997 through August 1997, and January 1998 through March of 1998 with serious injuries plus missed several other months in between with smaller injuries... Yes she had confidence issues as well during that time, but it is hard to build your confidence when you cant play consistenly because you are injured.


Once again i donīt care what you believe about the head to head, the reason why i jumped on you was because you stated that latest numbers showed that head to head should be around 5-5, only because Davenport had a "bulk" of wins in the early head to head meetings. Once again do the math is not difficult 8-4 (as proyection of 4-2 head to head for Davenport in 2001 and 2003) is very different from 5-5.

Despite your endless ranting, the fact remains that 6 ot their 13 encounters came during the period of Jen's career where she was not the same player of 1990-93 or 2001-2004. Had she been at those levels duing the 1st 6 matches these 2 had, I think the H2H would have been a lot closer... that's all I'm saying is why it is suprizing or misleading to me.....:rolleyes:

spencercarlos
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:40 AM
Despite your endless ranting, the fact remains that 6 ot their 13 encounters came during the period of Jen's career where she was not the same player of 1990-93 or 2001-2004. Had she been at those levels duing the 1st 6 matches these 2 had, I think the H2H would have been a lot closer... that's all I'm saying is why it is suprizing or misleading to me.....:rolleyes:
Ah ok that´s another language, which i definetly support this time, for the first 6 matches Lindsay is like 5-1, a gap which for sure got closer when Jennifer was in her top period 2001-2004, but never got even at any period.

Head to head aside Lindsay is hugely a much more acomplished tennis player than Capriati. And probably its a shame that these two having the same age and potential, just met 12 times. Jennifer had too much off court problems that hurted her on the court.

Tennace
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:47 AM
Hingis leads Dokic 3-2

Not really the 3-2 part, but the score of every match. The loser never got mroe than 7 games, so none of their matches were close :tape:

-- / -- 1999 AUSTRALIAN OPEN HARD (O) R32 M. HINGIS 6-1 6-2 2 / 2
129 / -- 1999 WIMBLEDON GRASS (O) R128 J. DOKIC 6-2 6-0 1 / 1
31 / -- 2000 ZURICH HARD (I) R16 M. HINGIS 6-3 6-2 1 / 1
13 / 14 2001 US OPEN HARD (O) R16 M. HINGIS 6-4 6-0 1 / 1
5 / 3 2002 MONTREAL HARD (O) Q J. DOKIC 6-4 6-3 8 / 6

piercerocks
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Hingis leads pierce 10-6

hingis won 1997 oz final over mary, mary won 2000 french open SF

spencercarlos
Jan 10th, 2007, 01:13 PM
Hingis leads pierce 10-6

hingis won 1997 oz final over mary, mary won 2000 french open SF
Mary´s biggest wins over Hingis come at 1997 Masters and Roland Garros 2000, while Hingis beat Mary at the 1997,1998,1999 Australian Open and also at the Masters 1998 and 1999.

Shonami Slam
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Graf coetzer one was crazy.
11-4 for Graf, but the thing was that they never met when Coetzer was in the elite of the sport, apart once when she was at #10...
to the contrary - Graf was #1 or 2 at all meeting except thier last.

very awkward for that kind of stat to appear in grafs history.

frenchie
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:19 PM
Myskina leads Maria 3/2

I love this one

SilK
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:52 PM
how about Molik leading Jankovic 4-1 or something :p

Linzi
Jan 10th, 2007, 02:58 PM
:) Nice post. Venus' H2H with Henin certainly isn't misleading. Venus is clearly the better player, and one should expect her to beat Henin every 9 out of 10 times they meet. Look at their encounters; Venus has absolutely wiped the floor with Henin :shrug: No contest there.

What a load of nonsense :lol:

Shonami Slam
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:40 PM
this one is awkward because the pair are two of the oldest active players on tour, and are so simular on paper.

Raymond (33) leads pratt (33 as well) 1-0

and that's it.

SilK
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:43 PM
I think that's because Raymond has been more succesful and played bigger tournaments than Pratt. So they haven't met many times.

spencercarlos
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Graf coetzer one was crazy.
11-4 for Graf, but the thing was that they never met when Coetzer was in the elite of the sport, apart once when she was at #10...
to the contrary - Graf was #1 or 2 at all meeting except thier last.

very awkward for that kind of stat to appear in grafs history.
As far as i remmeber Amanda was never in the "elite of the sport", she surely had a great 1997 (her best year), and bought 3 cheap wins over Graf, when Graf was:
1) Throat infection, antibiotics at the 1997 Australian Open, high temperatures as well, we know how crazy that year was.
2) Berlin 1997 when Graf was clearly hampered by her knew, and of course her rusty play.
3) Same as above, just her last event before leaving for 9 months.

Apart from that 1997 Amanda had very few good wins a the biggest events in 1997 and apart from reaching the SF at the Australian and Roland Garros, she did not do much the rest of the year, in fact she did not even won big Tier I events either, so. A year where Amanda reached number 3 in the world but we knew that there were about 5 at least other players ahead of her to win the biggest events.

So mainly i give her the biggest credit for her win against Graf at the 1995 Canadian Open, that was an unbelieveable event for Amanda pretty much until she lost 6-0 6-1 to Seles in the final.

Amanda was a great player great fighter, but she was never really GS winning material, never.

Shonami Slam
Jan 10th, 2007, 03:53 PM
I think that's because Raymond has been more succesful and played bigger tournaments than Pratt. So they haven't met many times.

yes, but still - the two have been playing for forever now. statisticly you'd think playing 20 tournies every year, they must be listed for at least a few, then both be in the same quarter or so and meet in the second round.
you have players that have drawn each other more time in slam 1st rounds than they had in a complete career!

Shonami Slam
Jan 10th, 2007, 04:03 PM
As far as i remmeber Amanda was never in the "elite of the sport", she surely had a great 1997 (her best year), and bought 3 cheap wins over Graf, when Graf was:
1) Throat infection, antibiotics at the 1997 Australian Open, high temperatures as well, we know how crazy that year was.
2) Berlin 1997 when Graf was clearly hampered by her knew, and of course her rusty play.
3) Same as above, just her last event before leaving for 9 months.

Apart from that 1997 Amanda had very few good wins a the biggest events in 1997 and apart from reaching the SF at the Australian and Roland Garros, she did not do much the rest of the year, in fact she did not even won big Tier I events either, so. A year where Amanda reached number 3 in the world but we knew that there were about 5 at least other players ahead of her to win the biggest events.

So mainly i give her the biggest credit for her win against Graf at the 1995 Canadian Open, that was an unbelieveable event for Amanda pretty much until she lost 6-0 6-1 to Seles in the final.

Amanda was a great player great fighter, but she was never really GS winning material, never.

I completly agree with you - that's why it's one of the most misleading head to heads ever. it makes it seem as though she was a ligitimate player fighting it out with the very best.
but she was merely a counter-puncher, excelling in a very tough competitive era in women's tennis, always lingering between the top few levels and causing the occasional upset, ruining one potential big title run for someone, but losing easily the next round. i loved her, she was a fantastic fighter, and she was so fit.
11-4 against graf looks mighty impressive, and so it's a standout H2H for this thread, as it's misleading and doesn't tell the whole truth - especially in the 1997 year.