PDA

View Full Version : I don't understand :AK inside:


Chunchun
Apr 16th, 2008, 04:46 PM
Just found some clips of AK in 97 Wimbledon

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oPmjMPWRCBo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uF5JUfwWyv0

I have to say any matches of Kournikova IS greater and more entertaining than any of the current top players, consider that AK was just barely top 10 and titleless.
This just makes me think of the other better players at that time.. Hingis, Davenport, Seles, Williamses.. so smart played, attack-defence balanced, and so consistent.

Compared to them the current top players are just kinda brainless ball basher, .. Sharapova-Kuznetsova-Serbians-shitload of top 20. :help:
Most matches are now error-filled, and players bashing balls meaninglessly to the borders :yawn:, which turns out to be rountine and boring.
So what actually happened in this decade? Where does the entertaining tennis gone?

frenchie
Apr 16th, 2008, 04:53 PM
That's right
Tennis is played in a boring way today.

there are still some clever players (see my sig!!)

Ryan
Apr 16th, 2008, 05:01 PM
I personally think the late 90's up to 2002, even 2003 was the perfect balance of power and finesse in tennis. With Hingis getting to the top minus any huge shots (except her backhand really), it took players like Venus, Lindsay, Seles and Serena not only power but consistency to challenge and eventually surpass her. This resulted in a large amount of "power players" at the top of the game with - even though at the time they were considered erratic - much more consistency than most of the top players in today's game.

I think that Venus and Serena in several ways have regressed in terms of power/consistency since their peak (understandable since no one can hold up such a high level for so long), not only because of their age but because they haven't NEEDED to be as consistent as before - besides Justine really, almost every other player in the top 10 can be defeated by sheer power on a good day - no one has the consistency/tactical savvy of Hingis, and even the power hitters can be outhit by other power players.

Direwolf
Apr 16th, 2008, 05:05 PM
Just found some clips of AK in 97 Wimbledon

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oPmjMPWRCBo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uF5JUfwWyv0

I have to say any matches of Kournikova IS greater and more entertaining than any of the current top players, consider that AK was just barely top 10 and titleless.
This just makes me think of the other better players at that time.. Hingis, Davenport, Seles, Williamses.. so smart played, attack-defence balanced, and so consistent.

Compared to them the current top players are just kinda brainless ball basher, .. Sharapova-Kuznetsova-Serbians-shitload of top 20. :help:
Most matches are now error-filled, and players bashing balls meaninglessly to the borders :yawn:, which turns out to be rountine and boring.
So what actually happened in this decade? Where does the entertaining tennis gone?

when you have Chaky who can't win a match
Bartoli who wins a match every other tournament
Henin who has been bagelled twich already
Kuznetsova, who has been a finalist forever
Sharapova who CONSTANTLY complaining about her freaking shoulder when she loses
Dementieva who has already withdrew/retire twice this year
Venus saying that she has played too many matches already

ahhhh

DownTheLine21
Apr 16th, 2008, 05:17 PM
I love those videos. Some of those shots she played at Wimbledon 97 were just brilliant. I think Kournikova had amazing skill, and it's too bad she never fulfilled her potential. Her title as "the girl who couldn't win a title" was sort of harsh because it suggested that she was a poor player. In the end, she was much more talented than players who have won titles in their careers.

Slutiana
Apr 16th, 2008, 05:24 PM
I personally think the late 90's up to 2002, even 2003 was the perfect balance of power and finesse in tennis. With Hingis getting to the top minus any huge shots (except her backhand really), it took players like Venus, Lindsay, Seles and Serena not only power but consistency to challenge and eventually surpass her. This resulted in a large amount of "power players" at the top of the game with - even though at the time they were considered erratic - much more consistency than most of the top players in today's game.

I think that Venus and Serena in several ways have regressed in terms of power/consistency since their peak (understandable since no one can hold up such a high level for so long), not only because of their age but because they haven't NEEDED to be as consistent as before - besides Justine really, almost every other player in the top 10 can be defeated by sheer power on a good day - no one has the consistency/tactical savvy of Hingis, and even the power hitters can be outhit by other power players.
I disagree. They have come on leaps and bounds since then. They may not have improved as much as the rest of the field have since then but especially on the technical side, they have improved A LOT.

Kournikova was great and her tennis abilities were suprisingly underrated. She hasn't (I'm still not giving up on her) come anywhere near to her potential.

I'm just glad there are players like Tatiana and Agnieszka who are more than just power. It's a rare thing these days.

Ryan
Apr 16th, 2008, 05:47 PM
I disagree. They have come on leaps and bounds since then. They may not have improved as much as the rest of the field have since then but especially on the technical side, they have improved A LOT.

Kournikova was great and her tennis abilities were suprisingly underrated. She hasn't (I'm still not giving up on her) come anywhere near to her potential.

I'm just glad there are players like Tatiana and Agnieszka who are more than just power. It's a rare thing these days.


Really? I don't pretend to know a whole bunch about technical sides of tennis, but I think Venus' serve is less technically sound than in 1999-2002, and her forehand is worse in terms of effectiveness. And anyway, my point wasn't really about the technical side of stuff I guess but more so the tactical side. In the early 00's and late 90's I think the power players were more consistent and knew how to structure rallies, whereas now there's not nearly as much of that except from Henin. I don't know, just some ramblings haha but thats what I see.

Ditto about Kournikova too, so much more talented than given credit for. Come back and play doubles with Hingis!!!

Slutiana
Apr 16th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Really? I don't pretend to know a whole bunch about technical sides of tennis, but I think Venus' serve is less technically sound than in 1999-2002, and her forehand is worse in terms of effectiveness. And anyway, my point wasn't really about the technical side of stuff I guess but more so the tactical side. In the early 00's and late 90's I think the power players were more consistent and knew how to structure rallies, whereas now there's not nearly as much of that except from Henin. I don't know, just some ramblings haha but thats what I see.

Ditto about Kournikova too, so much more talented than given credit for. Come back and play doubles with Hingis!!!
I dno. I definatly think that Venus' forehand has less off days now. Venus' second serve is a hot mess but her technique was quite bad before. If you were to watch a video of her in 1998 and one now, her strokes are unrecognisable.

Anyway, back on topic, go Anna!

LindsayRulz
Apr 16th, 2008, 05:58 PM
Brillant tennis from both. Sure we still have some girls who play more with control than power, but you feel like Kournikova and Hingis had weapons, unlike smart players of today's game. Incredible touch and they could finish points at the net.

handan
Apr 16th, 2008, 06:39 PM
First of all,what a quiet match. :worship:
Kournikova could easily won a grand slam with a demanding father like Yuri .

DownTheLine21
Apr 16th, 2008, 06:46 PM
First of all,what a quiet match. :worship:
Kournikova could easily won a grand slam with a demanding father like Yuri .

I think she actually could have made a really good run at Wimbledon '98.

tennismaster8820
Apr 16th, 2008, 06:55 PM
I really miss all these players! :sad:
Does anyone have any other matches of Anna Kournikova from Wimbledon '97?

Adal
Apr 16th, 2008, 07:00 PM
I think she actually could have made a really good run at Wimbledon '98.
And she could have easily won Miami '98 where she was up a break against Venus in the 2nd set after winning 1st. Had she won the match, I'm sure she would have had many other titles

Keaka
Apr 16th, 2008, 07:00 PM
So true.

I guess the only problem for her was that she wasn't 100 % comitted, atleast it seems like that. But I can't know, was really young then...

And about the tennis, yeah, it's kinda boring nowadays. I never watch whole matches usually, cause they bore me...

Steffica Greles
Apr 16th, 2008, 07:29 PM
no one has the consistency/tactical savvy of Hingis, and even the power hitters can be outhit by other power players.

I won't disagree that Hingis had great feel for the ball and almost a third eye watching her opponent. Her success was largely based on those skills.

But it's this supposed 'tactical savvy' that is the biggest urban myth, which lingers on in women's tennis, like so many others have done. Ever heard that we all thought the world was flat before Columbus discovered the American continent? Well, I only recently found out that most people suspected the world was spherical in ancient Rome. Columbus' discovery was no revelation in that sense.

My point? Myths get passed down the generations, and people just accept them without testing them.

How is it that Hingis had great tactical ability, savvy, nouse, intelligence, call it was what you will, yet she did not recognise the urgent need to re-vamp her game as early as 1998, and certainly by 2001.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction?

When Hingis' second serve was murdered; when her floating forehands (which, incidentally, as a 15 year old she was hitting from corner to corner, something she never did thereafter*) were clobbered down the lines; when her first serve was merely an instrument to gain her an all-too-slight advantage at the beginning of a rally; when her volleys, soft though her hands were, were not put away with the conviction they needed - where was Hingis' recognition that she had a problem? Where was the tactical nouse? Where was the perspicacity of a great tactician?

In all her years on the tour, Hingis never fully addressed those problems, despite possessing the talent to do so. It is true that there was only so much that she could do due to her physique, but when she came close to getting there in 2001, she baulked and lost interest thereafter.

People seem to overlook the fact that on those embarrassing occasions when Hingis was comprehensively out-hit, she had lost the tactical battle.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZSEY57MM28 (See some these rallies towards the end of this clip...Hingis hits her forehand deep into Graf's forehand corner, something she never used to do from all the years I saw her.)

égalité
Apr 16th, 2008, 07:37 PM
I won't disagree that Hingis had great feel for the ball and almost a third eye watching her opponent. Her success was largely based on those skills.

But it's this supposed 'tactical savvy' that is the biggest urban myth, which lingers on in women's tennis, like so many others have done. Ever heard that we all thought the world was flat before Columbus discovered the American continent? Well, I only recently found out that most people suspected the world was spherical in ancient Rome. Columbus' discovery was no revelation in that sense.

My point? Myths get passed down the generations, and people just accept them without testing them.

How is it that Hingis had great tactical ability, savvy, nouse, intelligence, call it was what you will, yet she did not recognise the urgent need to re-vamp her game as early as 1998, and certainly by 2001.

Do you not see the inherent contradiction?

When Hingis' second serve was murdered; when her floating forehands (which, incidentally, as a 15 year old she was hitting from corner to corner, something she never did thereafter*) were clobbered down the lines; when her first serve was merely an instrument to gain her an all-too-slight advantage at the beginning of a rally; when her volleys, soft though her hands were, were not put away with the conviction they needed - where was Hingis' recognition that she had a problem? Where was the tactical nouse? Where was the perspicacity of a great tactician?

In all her years on the tour, Hingis never fully addressed those problems, despite possessing the talent to do so. It is true that there was only so much that she could do due to her physique, but when she came close to getting there in 2001, she baulked and lost interest thereafter.

People seem to overlook the fact that on those embarrassing occasions when Hingis was comprehensively out-hit, she had lost the tactical battle.

People also blindly accept the myth that Hingis left the game because she was getting "comprehensively outhit."

When she lost (which didn't happen often, even to those power hitters that supposedly dominated her), it wasn't because her tactical skill is exaggerated. It was because her opponent played better than she did. it's the same strange phemonenon that happens every time anyone loses. When Venus got beaten (11 times) by Martina, nobody said it was because her ability to hit successfully with power is overstated. People make excuses for power hitters. They're allowed to be "off" every once in a while. Nobody ever allows Hingis to be "off."

LindsayRulz
Apr 16th, 2008, 07:38 PM
I really miss all these players! :sad:
Does anyone have any other matches of Anna Kournikova from Wimbledon '97?

vs Huber : http://youtube.com/watch?v=uF5JUfwWyv0&feature=related

starin
Apr 16th, 2008, 07:54 PM
:crying2: when Venus and Serena were soo goood.

Serena was more athletic and Venus was more consistent. They might have improved their technique but they've regressed in a lot of ways. they don't overwhelm their opponents anymore. Venus can't keep enough balls in court while Serena can't cover the court as well. At least they're serving harder...there was a time after 2003 when both had taken some pace of their serves.

That was a nice clip. AK looked really good in there. Wonder what kind of career she would have had if she were ugly.

handan
Apr 16th, 2008, 08:18 PM
one of my favourite Kournikova match.
kournikova-rubin vs serena-venus
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tJK4fUCj4Rk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfkE98atDuk&feature=related

DownTheLine21
Apr 16th, 2008, 08:39 PM
one of my favourite Kournikova match.
kournikova-rubin vs serena-venus
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tJK4fUCj4Rk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfkE98atDuk&feature=related

Yes. That was good match as well. Some of Kournikova's volleys were just incredible. :worship::eek:

WhatTheDeuce
Apr 16th, 2008, 09:07 PM
Kournikova always had the most visually pleasing game to me. Always will.

IceSkaTennisFan
Apr 16th, 2008, 09:18 PM
there are still some clever players (see my sig!!)
The original poster was talking about some of the people in your signature :p

tennismaster8820
Apr 16th, 2008, 09:38 PM
vs Huber : http://youtube.com/watch?v=uF5JUfwWyv0&feature=related

Thanks but that was already in the first post! :p
Someone must have her QF match!?

dybbuk
Apr 16th, 2008, 09:46 PM
Kournikova always had the most visually pleasing game to me. Always will.

:drool:

Her double-handed BH dropshot is my favorite tennis shot ever.

UDACHi
Apr 16th, 2008, 09:58 PM
those are highlights..highlights of plenty of 21st century matches equal or outdo those.

¤CharlDa¤
Apr 16th, 2008, 10:08 PM
That was about to be my point too. Compare those highlights to Venus-Henin, or even Venus-Hingis from Warsaw and you clearly see the game has evolved.

I personnally found the Hingis-Anna K video incredibly boring. I can understand your point though, but I think, as other people, that early 2000s was much better than this.

¤CharlDa¤
Apr 16th, 2008, 10:15 PM
And that video also made me realize why I disliked Martina. From those highlights of the best points, it looked like Anna was killing her, when in the end Martina won 6-3 6-2.

Steffica Greles
Apr 16th, 2008, 10:28 PM
People also blindly accept the myth that Hingis left the game because she was getting "comprehensively outhit."

Well then that's an even worse reflection of Hingis, if indeed it was true (which it isn't).

Finesse can only go so far towards combating power. When power is combined with athleticism, it becomes more difficult.

If the above statement was not true, then Hingis playing at the height of her form would have been able to subdue Goran Ivanisevic, let alone Venus Williams. Of course, the suggestion is ludicrous because we except Goran was in an altogether different athletic league to Hingis. And yet we cannot accept that Venus, Serena, Davenport and countless others were too?

Hingis at her height had strong percentages in her favour against high risk power play. But when the gamble of the so-called 'big babes' paid off, she was, pun intended, powerless to do anything.

People make excuses for power hitters. They're allowed to be "off" every once in a while. Nobody ever allows Hingis to be "off."

That's a good point, actually. But my bottom line is that Hingis, even when she was 'on', never had complete control of the match, which rested in the hands of more aggressive opponents, and depended on whether they executed.

Steffica Greles
Apr 16th, 2008, 10:31 PM
As for Kournikova, she was no Sharapova in the power department, but I will remind people that in c1996 or 1997, Kournikova was also dubbed a brainless ball basher with no strategy. It wasn't until she achieved success in doubles that people saw otherwise.

She was very erratic, Kournikova, and could sometimes spray the ball ALL OVER the place in an attempt to impose herself.

WhatTheDeuce
Apr 16th, 2008, 10:32 PM
As for Kournikova, she was no Sharapova in the power department, but I will remind people that in c1996 or 1997, Kournikova was also dubbed a brainless ball basher with no strategy. It wasn't until she achieved success in doubles that people saw otherwise.

She was very erratic, Kournikova, and could sometimes spray the ball ALL OVER the place in an attempt to impose herself.
Indeed. Her power is underrated, she hit the ball flatter than a pancake and tried for very risky shots a lot of the time. It made for some gorgeous shotmaking, but could result in lots of erratic play as well.

Ryan
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:26 PM
As for Kournikova, she was no Sharapova in the power department, but I will remind people that in c1996 or 1997, Kournikova was also dubbed a brainless ball basher with no strategy. It wasn't until she achieved success in doubles that people saw otherwise.

She was very erratic, Kournikova, and could sometimes spray the ball ALL OVER the place in an attempt to impose herself.


Agree about Kournikova. I also agree that Hingis willfully ignored the need to step up her serve in the late 90's and thought she could get by on her talent (which she did for a long time). I won't argue that Hingis is a competitor, because in many ways she won sheerly on skill and not very much on personal drive - when push came to shove, she didn't choose to re-vamp her game.

However, calling her "tactical savvy" a myth is garbage. Hingis had some of the best anticipation the game has ever seen and impeccable touch. She also won a ton of matches based on this "savvy" by knowing what she needed to do to win and what her opponent didn't like. I completely agree with egalite in that whenever Hingis lost she was seen as being outhit, and when she won it was because the power player was "off". People NEVER seem to realize that against a peak Hingis, power hitters could rarely ever be "on", because she didn't let them in many cases by getting to every ball and forcing the error - lets not forget her aura of invincibility was often enough to make lower ranked big hitters crumble and top players play nervous.

Steffica Greles
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:36 PM
Agree about Kournikova. I also agree that Hingis willfully ignored the need to step up her serve in the late 90's and thought she could get by on her talent (which she did for a long time). I won't argue that Hingis is a competitor, because in many ways she won sheerly on skill and not very much on personal drive - when push came to shove, she didn't choose to re-vamp her game.

However, calling her "tactical savvy" a myth is garbage. Hingis had some of the best anticipation the game has ever seen and impeccable touch. She also won a ton of matches based on this "savvy" by knowing what she needed to do to win and what her opponent didn't like. I completely agree with egalite in that whenever Hingis lost she was seen as being outhit, and when she won it was because the power player was "off". People NEVER seem to realize that against a peak Hingis, power hitters could rarely ever be "on", because she didn't let them in many cases by getting to every ball and forcing the error - lets not forget her aura of invincibility was often enough to make lower ranked big hitters crumble and top players play nervous.

It is true that Hingis could do a lot to disrupt players' rhythm, and that she made it as difficult as she possibly could for them to play their tennis when she played well. But if they were ready for her, and her bag of tricks, on their toes, and fixed on executing their best shots no matter what, then I refer you to my earlier post:

Finesse can only go so far towards combating power. When power is combined with athleticism, it becomes more difficult.

If the above statement was not true, then Hingis playing at the height of her form would have been able to subdue Goran Ivanisevic, let alone Venus Williams. Of course, the suggestion is ludicrous because we except Goran was in an altogether different athletic league to Hingis. And yet we cannot accept that Venus, Serena, Davenport and countless others were too?

Hingis at her height had strong percentages in her favour against high risk power play. But when the gamble of the so-called 'big babes' paid off, she was, pun intended, powerless to do anything.

Ryan
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:38 PM
Hmm, I pretty much agree, but I don't think every time Hingis lost was because she was "powerless" to do anything - sometimes she played well and the other player just outPLAYED her. But I don't think I ever said every match was completely in her hands.

tennisbear7
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:41 PM
A lot of Martina's later problems with the "big hitters" was due to her arrogance. If you think that you're number 1, 2 in the world, then you often don't quite see the flaws in your game. When you win so much... yeah. And I'm a Hingis fanboy. I truly believe that she was technically savvy on court, but could never come to grips with how she could subdue the power players more often. Comes down to her willingness. Given her previous records and such, it only affirmed her decision to not improve while the rest did. That was the major blip, in my mind. Her youthful arrogance.

tennismaster8820
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:43 PM
That's a good point, actually. But my bottom line is that Hingis, even when she was 'on', never had complete control of the match, which rested in the hands of more aggressive opponents, and depended on whether they executed.

This is "just" your opinion, not the fact! ;)
It also depended on Hingis's play if those power hitters would execute their shots!

Steffica Greles
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:43 PM
Hmm, I pretty much agree, but I don't think every time Hingis lost was because she was "powerless" to do anything - sometimes she played well and the other player just outPLAYED her. But I don't think I ever said every match was completely in her hands.

Watch Hingis against Serena in the 2001 U.S Open semi-final, or the following year in the Miami semi (a match when Hingis was humiliated such -- and Serena tapped her on the shoulder at the end as you would a child -- that I think it was perhaps the final blow to her before she essentially destroyed her own career momentum).

You just cannot win those matches serving 99% returnable serves (even if they're first serves) and hitting maybe five winners per match.

It's an unwinnable situation.

Steffica Greles
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:47 PM
This is "just" your opinion, not the fact! ;)
It also depended on Hingis's play if those power hitters would execute their shots!

So would it depend on Hingis' shots if she lost love and love to Goran Ivanisevic in a battle of the sexes? In that situation, her shots would not be enough.

To a lesser extreme, but following basically the same example, Hingis was faced with that problem when Lindsay, or particularly Venus or Serena, or even Jennifer played their best tennis.

Goran was several leagues above her. The girls I've mentioned were at least one, and that was what made the difference.

Ryan
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:50 PM
Watch Hingis against Serena in the 2001 U.S Open semi-final against Serena, or the following year in the Miami semi (a match when Hingis was humiliated such -- and Serena tapped her on the shoulder at the end as you would a child -- that I think it was perhaps the final blow to her before she essentially destroyed her own career momentum).

You just cannot win those matches serving 99% returnable serves (even if they're first serves) and hitting maybe five winners per match.

It's an unwinnable situation.


Yes...thanks...I've seen both...and on those days I don't know who could have beaten Serena. Your point, sorry, doesn't really make sense considering what I said.

Steffica Greles
Apr 16th, 2008, 11:56 PM
Yes...thanks...I've seen both...and on those days I don't know who could have beaten Serena. Your point, sorry, doesn't really make sense considering what I said.

It makes perfect sense. It illustrates my point, and you've just acknowledged it was correct.

tennismaster8820
Apr 17th, 2008, 12:00 AM
So would it depend on Hingis' shots if she lost love and love to Goran Ivanisevic in a battle of the sexes? In that situation, her shots would not be enough.

To a lesser extreme, but following basically the same example, Hingis was faced with that problem when Lindsay, or particularly Venus or Serena, even even Jennifer played their best tennis.

Goran was several leagues above her. The girls I've mentioned were at least one, and that was what made the difference.

Well it's funny how you keep using Goran as example!:lol:
I agree that only Venus and Serena were one legaue ahead of Hingis in terms of power and even more athleticism.
Just look that final of Zurich which Martina won against Davenport, they both played their best and Hingis handled Davenport's power very well hitting deep shots and going for winners! So she definitely was capable playing equal with power hitters. Just that it didn't happen often enough as she didn't cope well with that style of play!

Ryan
Apr 17th, 2008, 12:03 AM
It makes perfect sense. It illustrates my point, and you've just acknowledged it was correct.



No, it doesn't. Hingis was blown off the court just like Venus and several other players in that tournament. MY point was that not every loss of Hingis' was because she was outhit like those two examples.

pov
Apr 17th, 2008, 12:12 AM
Finesse can only go so far towards combating power. When power is combined with athleticism, it becomes more difficult.

The point is not that it combats "power". The point is that it is often more effective than sheer hard-hitting. When combined with athleticism, finesse will usually rule the roost.


If the above statement was not true,then Hingis playing at the height of her form would have been able to subdue Goran Ivanisevic,


I've noticed in your posts that you have a strong attraction to thinking that what you perceive is "the truth." However, it is no more or less than your opinion.

"subdue" huh? :haha:

Given equal athleticism (speed and agility) I'll go with whoever has more tools and strategy.


One place where I think you trip yourself up is that you equate broader concepts of power with "hitting the ball hard."

hingisGOAT
Apr 17th, 2008, 12:35 AM
It is true that Hingis could do a lot to disrupt players' rhythm, and that she made it as difficult as she possibly could for them to play their tennis when she played well. But if they were ready for her, and her bag of tricks, on their toes, and fixed on executing their best shots no matter what, then I refer you to my earlier post:

Finesse can only go so far towards combating power. When power is combined with athleticism, it becomes more difficult.

If the above statement was not true, then Hingis playing at the height of her form would have been able to subdue Goran Ivanisevic, let alone Venus Williams. Of course, the suggestion is ludicrous because we except Goran was in an altogether different athletic league to Hingis. And yet we cannot accept that Venus, Serena, Davenport and countless others were too?

Hingis at her height had strong percentages in her favour against high risk power play. But when the gamble of the so-called 'big babes' paid off, she was, pun intended, powerless to do anything.

WTAWorld's biggest Hingis troll comes out of his hole :eek:

Anyway you're clueless as usual -- I think you're the only one who believes what you are saying -- calling one of the most prolific champions of the Open Era POWERLESS to do anything against her opposition is just... retarded.

And that is for more than a few reasons. For one, you are totally disrespecting Hingis' athletic capabilities while directly comparing her competition to one of the strongest ATP players ever; ridiculous on so many levels :tape:

Also I cannot believe you are referencing that Miami 2002 quarterfinal as some kind of definitive proof of anything :shrug: Hingis played a pitiful match, ran for nothing, ended with a double fault at about 55mph -- a tank if I ever saw one. As for the US Open 2001, that was the best match Serena Williams has played in her whole career, I'm sure Steffi and Monica would have been disposed of in 45 minutes if they were on the court that day. :shrug:

But anyway all I have to add to this ignorant discussion is that you can try to analyze tennis matches with radar guns but if you actually bothered to watch any of Hingis' matches when she was at the top of her game, you would find that it was her big, bad, tall, strong opponents that were running from left to right all match long. Hell many think Venus is the most powerful player ever, and none of her opponents were able to control the points against her like Hingis was.

But yes, this 5-time GS who many believe to be the most talented shot-maker of all time could do nothing but hope and pray that her opponents missed and choked, what a lucky bitch

Steffica Greles
Apr 17th, 2008, 12:39 AM
The point is not that it combats "power". The point is that it is often more effective than sheer hard-hitting. When combined with athleticism, finesse will usually rule the roost.



I've noticed in your posts that you have a strong attraction to thinking that what you perceive is "the truth." However, it is no more or less than your opinion.

"subdue" huh? :haha:

Given equal athleticism (speed and agility) I'll go with whoever has more tools and strategy.


One place where I think you trip yourself up is that you equate broader concepts of power with "hitting the ball hard."


A few points:

Of course I think what I write is true. I'm assuming you don't think the same of your writings? I am aware that it's also my opinion, which I recognised when I registered with an 'opinion forum' all those years ago. I shouldn't have to keep saying it - but some people struggle with the obvious.

"Subdue" - Overcome, quieten, or bring under control -- Oxford dictionary. Have you ever read one?

Lastly, a player with athleticism but no power would be forever chasing after other people's shots because they wouldn't have a chance to implement their strategies. Jankovic has great feel, changes direction well and volleys pretty well. But she's not a champion. Schnyder , beautiful player that she is, moves well, but it's rarely enough when it matters.

Steffica Greles
Apr 17th, 2008, 12:43 AM
WTAWorld's biggest Hingis troll comes out of his hole :eek:


One thing Hingis did have which I'd never demean, was a great sense of irony. Humour (look it up).

I think she'd certainly spot the irony in a poster self-titled "HeylookI'mgay" dubbing another a troll.

:lol:

hingisGOAT
Apr 17th, 2008, 01:01 AM
One thing Hingis did have which I'd never demean, was a great sense of irony. Humour (look it up).

I think she'd certainly spot the irony in a poster self-titled "HeylookI'mgay" dubbing another a troll.

:lol:

You're telling me to look up the word "irony" yet my user-name is meant to be IRONIC -- so I'd like to extend a two-part congratulations for being an idiot AND for being only the second poster in two years to insult my user-name! And the first poster was clearly homophobic so you're in good company

ANYWAY, Steffica, at least I can admit it -- I am a certified Venus hat0r and troll. So take it from someone who knows, somebody with some experience; nobody on this board trolls as many Hingis threads as you do :yeah:

Steffica Greles
Apr 17th, 2008, 01:03 AM
And the first poster was clearly homophobic so you're in good company



Well if I'M homophobic, then believe me, that certainly is ironic!

:lol: :hearts: