PDA

View Full Version : The smartest match you ever saw


Volcana
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:36 PM
What I mean by that is the match where one player clearly concieved and executed a strategy, not necessarily to their strengths, and defeated a superior opponent, in a big time match.

The prototypical example is, unfortunately, on the men's side. Ashe Arthur Jimmy Connors 6-1 6-1 5-7 6-4 in the 1975 Wimbledon final. Possibly the most brilliantly concieved and executed strategy and tactics I've ever seen on court. Especially considering Connors was a far better player, and at the height of his powers.

On the women's side, in my experience, players win or lose on execution, rather than strategy. However there's a pretty good example of this in recent history. Might even be on YouTube.

The 2002 Berlin final. Henin def Serena 6-2 1-6 7-6(5). Remember, this was the Serena who was about to execute the Serena Slam, an absolutely insane run of tennis.

In the first set, Henin turned Serena every which way but loose. But in the second, Serena forced Henin into a running game and proved herself the faster player. The third set pretty much what 7-6(5) makes you think it was. And they did it again in Rome the next week, Serena winning 7-6(6) 6-4. Still two of my favorite non-slam finals. Instructional tennis is the Big Bang era.

And I once saw Emmanuelle Gagliardi play the match that any of us culd only wish we played if we faced a high ranked WTA pro. 90% of her first serves in, hit the lines, changed pace, did everything right. She got smoked, cause the talent disparity was too great, but talk about doing everything right you could do right ......

So, how's by you? What the smartest tennis you ever saw played?

Steffica Greles
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:48 PM
One that always springs to mind is Davenport against Serena at the 2000 U.S Open.

Lindsay had come off a succession of losses to a player who, on paper, she should have had at least some chance of beating. The expectation among many was that Lindsay would be trashed by Serena in the US Open last 8 match. But Davenport unveiled a strategy which could only really work once, but which, without preparation, totally flummoxed Serena. Lindsay hit continuously down the centre of the court with her usual crispness and incredible pace of shot until finally Serena lost length and then Davenport nailed the winner. She won in two sets.

Conchita Martinez played quite a few matches in her career where she got the tactics fairly well spot on. I remember her almost castrating Sanchez-Vicario in the 2000 French Open semi, sending massively topspun balls practically over her head time and time again. Aranxta would have been better hitting all of her shots overarm. Aranxta had a great head-to-head advantage over Conchita, but that day, she had all her strengths neutered. Martinez did that to a lot of the top players at least once.

goldenlox
Apr 19th, 2009, 11:57 PM
The one that stands out to me is this year's IW final in that heavy wind.
Vera was down 0-2 in both sets but adjusted to the wind and forced Ana to go win the match with winners.
Ana is probably beating herself anyway, but Vera played those big points very smartly.

frenchie
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:01 AM
Myskina's QF at RG 2004 against Venus

goldenlox
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:03 AM
Myskina's QF at RG 2004 against VenusI forgot that one. That was very smart slow wet red clay tennis from Anastasia

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:03 AM
Tatiana Golovin vs Maria Sharapova. 2006 Miami :tears: . After an hour an a bit of trying to "Get the first strike in" she decided at 1-5 down in the second set to just let Maria just come at her. She kept everything deep, ran like crazy, made sure that every single ball came back even if she had to just bunt it over (Maria hit about 4 winners in the second set), but as soon as Maria gave her an inch, just an inch... Meaning if Maria got confused, the ball came mid-court or Maria was just slightly out of position, she would use the momentum and slowly but surely turn defense into attack by moving maria left-right, left-right and then wrongfooting her or hitting a dropshot or coming to the net. It was crazy. I will never forget that match, it was the first time I realised tennis was more than just hitting the ball hard. Of course we all know what happened in the end. :crying2: Tati has one of the best tennis brains around. She has to come back. :tears:

Rdk-LBlsTiQ

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:06 AM
i loved chak sending petrova mad with angle after angle at antwerp in '07, nadia was throwing her racket in like the 3rd game of the match lol. nadia just kept trying to power winners dtl and chak would angle it back leaving petrova stranded with an open court. petrova had won paris indoors the week before and beat vera in the previous round.

Dave.
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:06 AM
I was just going to say the Davenport one. It was one of the first, clear ways demonstrated to play against Serena.


Another one, although Henin retired, was the AO 06 final. Mauresmo displayed just about the perfect way to play Henin on a slow court. She gave her nothing to work with, just drowned her with excessive topspin and kept her far behind the baseline. Henin had to create all the pace herself. That drained any energy Henin had to offer and probably contributed to her stomach problem that she retired with. I believe Mauresmo was well on her way to victory though, even if she would have got a big tight.

J.Bravo
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:10 AM
2007 Australian Open Serena strategy was to blitz her opponent.
Sharapova against Henin in Australia was all strategy too.

-jenks-
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:11 AM
Hingis vs. Venus US 1997

The Dawntreader
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:13 AM
Justine Henin beating Sharapova at RG 2005. Just completely implemented every shot in the book to beat Sharapova. Pinned her back with ruthless efficiency with huge loaded topspin backhands and then just pounded the short replies for winners with the forehand.

Sharapova just couldn't do anything. It was a masterclass in clay-court tennis by Justine, against one of the most aggressive strikers on the women's tour.

CJ07
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:16 AM
Venus def. Henin Amelia Island.
It wasn't good tennis, but it was a great example of winning with Plan B.

jamatthews
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:17 AM
Chakvetadze vs Safina - Moscow 2006

Used all of Safina's pace to send it back past her for winners.

Freakan
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:19 AM
Radwanska d. Sharapova @ USO 2007 :)

frenchie
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:19 AM
Venus def. Henin Amelia Island.
It wasn't good tennis, but it was a great example of winning with Plan B.

venus moonballing:drool:

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Justine Henin beating Sharapova at RG 2005. Just completely implemented every shot in the book to beat Sharapova. Pinned her back with ruthless efficiency with huge loaded topspin backhands and then just pounded the short replies for winners with the forehand.

Sharapova just couldn't do anything. It was a masterclass in clay-court tennis by Justine, against one of the most aggressive strikers on the women's tour.

henins dropshots that day made maria look almost stupid, thrown in at all the right times, backed up perfectly and totaly exposing maria bad movement on clay.

great match by henin.

croat123
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:20 AM
Tatiana Golovin vs Maria Sharapova. 2006 Miami :tears: . After an hour an a bit of trying to "Get the first strike in" she decided at 1-5 down in the second set to just let Maria just come at her. She kept everything deep, ran like crazy, made sure that every single ball came back even if she had to just bunt it over (Maria hit about 4 winners in the second set), but as soon as Maria gave her an inch, just an inch... Meaning if Maria got confused, the ball came mid-court or Maria was just slightly out of position, she would use the momentum and slowly but surely turn defense into attack by moving maria left-right, left-right and then wrongfooting her or hitting a dropshot or coming to the net. It was crazy. I will never forget that match, it was the first time I realised tennis was more than just hitting the ball hard. Of course we all know what happened in the end. :crying2: Tati has one of the best tennis brains around. She has to come back. :tears:

Rdk-LBlsTiQ
I was at this match. Best match I've seen live

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:21 AM
Venus def. Henin Amelia Island.
It wasn't good tennis, but it was a great example of winning with Plan B.

i've never seen this match are there clips, highlights of it? oh and what year was it?

The Daviator
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:25 AM
Any match between Ivanovic and Kuznetsova - The tennis equivalent of a chess match, sublime :drool:

iPatty
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:29 AM
With just a slight :angel: hint of bias, I'll say Schnyder d. Henin in Charleston 2006. After getting swept aside in the first set 62, it looked like another quick Henin-Schnyder match. But in the next two sets, Schnyder made sure every ball she hit was far out of Henin's strike zone and never let her get any rhythm. From moonballs to flat inside-out to drop shots, Henin was unable to cope with the wind and Schnyder's awesome variety and went down tamely in the last two sets. I was at that match live, but I find some of the details escaping me. I'm sure it's around on the internet somewhere, so I'll go on a hunt sometime later.

The Daviator
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Another one, although Henin retired, was the AO 06 final. Mauresmo displayed just about the perfect way to play Henin on a slow court. She gave her nothing to work with, just drowned her with excessive topspin and kept her far behind the baseline. Henin had to create all the pace herself. That drained any energy Henin had to offer and probably contributed to her stomach problem that she retired with. I believe Mauresmo was well on her way to victory though, even if she would have got a big tight.

In all seriousness, this was the one that I was gonna mention too, Amelie's strategy was brilliant, it's why she was so successful against Henin, even in her losses, Justine always fed off pace, Momo gave her nothing, shame it ended the way it did.

Corswandt
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:35 AM
The smartest match you ever saw

The first set and a half of Chak's match vs Cornet - Rome 08.

Chak spent the first 3-4 games merely focusing on holding serve and studying her opponent's game. Then she began dismantling it. Tactical masterclass.

And then of course went on to lose the match.

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:35 AM
I was at this match. Best match I've seen live
OMG, Jealous. Out of all the matches I would have loved to see live, that would have been top 4. (Along with Venus-Hingis 00USP, Venus-Lindsay, Serena-Clijsters 03AO) :crying2: The two times I saw Tati live was at wimbledon when she was coming back from injury and she lost both times. :sobbing:

spencercarlos
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:36 AM
One that always springs to mind is Davenport against Serena at the 2000 U.S Open.

Lindsay had come off a succession of losses to a player who, on paper, she should have had at least some chance of beating. The expectation among many was that Lindsay would be trashed by Serena in the US Open last 8 match. But Davenport unveiled a strategy which could only really work once, but which, without preparation, totally flummoxed Serena. Lindsay hit continuously down the centre of the court with her usual crispness and incredible pace of shot until finally Serena lost length and then Davenport nailed the winner. She won in two sets.

Conchita Martinez played quite a few matches in her career where she got the tactics fairly well spot on. I remember her almost castrating Sanchez-Vicario in the 2000 French Open semi, sending massively topspun balls practically over her head time and time again. Aranxta would have been better hitting all of her shots overarm. Aranxta had a great head-to-head advantage over Conchita, but that day, she had all her strengths neutered. Martinez did that to a lot of the top players at least once.
Pfff lol at Martinez and mentioning this Roland Garros SF. Did you even forget that people in the stands were Booing Conchita's moonballs between points?. Do you really think 2000 RG was the only match Conchita ever hit moonballs to Arantxa? :lol:
Laughable match, the only reason Conchita won was because Arantxa was way off that day hitting a huge number of errors.

Although i agree with the Davenport's peak performance against Serena USopen 2000.

Strategical smarts at best? Well Most of Hingis's wins against Conchita or Arantxa post 1996, no matter the surface, no matter the venue, Hingis actually opened the court so much against these players, and hit so many winners that she looked like a power player :lol: Hingis :kiss:

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:37 AM
2007 Australian Open Serena strategy was to blitz her opponent.That is the perfect example of wining by execution, rather than strategy. All credit to Serena for her level, but there was nothing strategic about her play in that match. She has more physical talent than Sharapova, AND she played about as well as she can play. Which happens to be better than everybody else.

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:37 AM
Radwanska-Sharapova USO07 is another one that comes to mind. I dont remember the details but I just remember being in awe of her tennis brain and quick thinking and actually comparing her to Tati. :crying2: Its a shame she isnt as thrilling as she was back then.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Myskina vs Davenport at YEC 2004.

Myskina had to win that match in straights in order to have a chance to qualify into SF.
Just three weeks before they played in Moscow when Lindsay was ill and out of sorts and Myskina chose to turn into human backboard keeping the ball in play and letting Lindsay to hit tons of errors. It worked.
But at YEC Lindsay was in good form (had just crushed Dementieva 0 and 1) so Myskina implemented the whole different tactics -- she decided to go shot for shot with Lindsay and try to outhit from the baseline. And she succeeded. Her forehand was on fire and she served great. Lindsay just didn't expect Myskina would play such aggressive tennis against her.
It was the best match Myskina played in her whole career, imo.

oleada
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:39 AM
henins dropshots that day made maria look almost stupid, thrown in at all the right times, backed up perfectly and totaly exposing maria bad movement on clay.

great match by henin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS20itz_uK0
The final game, the dropshot really exposes Maria's weaknesses. :drool:
I miss them :sad:

Corswandt
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:39 AM
Hingis, even in her comeback, was quite good at changing her game plan mid-match. Examples: vs Venus, Rome 06; vs Ivanovic, PPO 07.

Henin also did that very well. Example: vs Sugiyama, USO 06 IIRC. Her ground game wasn't working, so she took to rushing the net.

Sammm
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:44 AM
Good thread :yeah:

Steffica Greles
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:46 AM
Pfff lol at Martinez and mentioning this Roland Garros SF. Did you even forget that people in the stands were Booing Conchita's moonballs between points?. Do you really think 2000 RG was the only match Conchita ever hit moonballs to Arantxa? :lol:
Laughable match, the only reason Conchita won was because Arantxa was way off that day hitting a huge number of errors.

Although i agree with the Davenport's peak performance against Serena USopen 2000.

Strategical smarts at best? Well Most of Hingis's wins against Conchita or Arantxa post 1996, no matter the surface, no matter the venue, Hingis actually opened the court so much against these players, and hit so many winners that she looked like a power player :lol: Hingis :kiss:

Hingis beat Conchita and Aranxta with few exceptions because she was a better player with more options at her disposal. Simple. It was nothing to do with tactics.

Aranxta was indeed way off form in the 2000 French semi, but that was because of Conchita's high balls. She was completely undone. That's the point about tactics, Spencercarlos, it prevents another from playing their game well.

You're a little like LDV in the sense that your reaction to other players says something about your weaknesses. In his case it's Seles. In yours, Conchita.

In The Zone
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:50 AM
Henin/Mauresmo Wimbledon 2006. Talk about players using their brains and not just trying to cream the ball. It was beautiful tennis.

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:50 AM
The first set and a half of Chak's match vs Cornet - Rome 08.

Chak spent the first 3-4 games merely focusing on holding serve and studying her opponent's game. Then she began dismantling it. Tactical masterclass.

And then of course went on to lose the match.

upto 6-3 3-0 chak played a perfect match, she summed up cornets game knew hitting deep with spin untill she got a ball to angle was the perfect play against alize. she mentaly fell apart after that but upto that point she showed why i love her tennis and why she was every bit a top 10 player.

Joana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:52 AM
Any match between Ivanovic and Kuznetsova - The tennis equivalent of a chess match, sublime :drool:

:lol:
Although, as paradoxical as it sounds, the smartest match I've seen from Ivanovic was the one where she abandoned all strategy - and it turned out that sometimes the best strategy is no strategy at all. It was against Schnyder in Berlin '07, as I remember, midway through the match she realized that she wasn't going to beat Patty by rallying with her so she simply started to bludgeon the ball every time she possibly could. Not even going for outrageous winners, just hitting it harder and harder each shot. And eventually she hit through Patty, literally. In the end I thought Schnyder simply couldn't believe she lost a match like that.

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:54 AM
henins dropshots that day made maria look almost stupid, thrown in at all the right times, backed up perfectly and totaly exposing maria bad movement on clay.

great match by henin.It was, however, the better player beating the lesser one. On the better player's best surface. Was that Henin being smarter, or just better?

Not saying the best players aren't smart, but Schnyder beating Henin on clay in 2006 is a shock. Henin beating anybody not named Williams is, well ... Henin being Henin.

LegionArgentina
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:55 AM
Clarisa Fernadez vs Elena Dementieva French Open 2002
Martina Hingis vs Venus Williams US Open 1997
Paola Suarez vs Sandrine Testud French Open (2002?)

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:56 AM
:lol:
Although, as paradoxical as it sounds, the smartest match I've seen from Ivanovic was the one where she abandoned all strategy - and it turned out that sometimes the best strategy is no strategy at all. It was against Schnyder in Berlin '07, as I remember, midway through the match she realized that she wasn't going to beat Patty by rallying with her so she simply started to bludgeon the ball every time she possibly could. Not even going for outrageous winners, just hitting it harder and harder each shot. And eventually she hit through Patty, literally. In the end I thought Schnyder simply couldn't believe she lost a match like that.

i remember that match, but i remember patty becoming to defensive as well as ivanovic hitting harder. patty just seemed to say ok i'll let ivanovic hit as hard as she likes, where as upto mid way through the 2nd set she had been moving ivanovic around.

the last few games of that match patty played from about 15 feet behind the baseline, i was laughing at some rallies.

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:03 AM
I'm sorry but it's a men's match. Miloslav Mecir d Boris Becker in the Semi Finals of the US Open in 1986. This was the match that really made me appreciate the magic of tennis. Miloslav was the coolest tennis player ever (along with Fabrice Santoro anyway.)

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:10 AM
Martina Hingis def Venus Williams US Open 1997Not saying Hingis didn't play a smart match. pretty much every match she played was smart. But that was the best player on the planet vs a player ranked #66 who'd never won a WTA or an ITF tournament.

Was Hingis smarter? Or just better?

CJ07
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:23 AM
A smart match was also Venus d. Serena 6-2 6-4

She just let Serena beat Serena. Didn't need to do much else.

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:27 AM
i know many people doubt chakvetadzes ability and seem to not understand when people say she used to play clever tennis, and had they only seen her from 2008 onwards i would agree.

these are highlights from sharapova vs chakvetadze at the oz open 2007, sharapova ultimately won and by her reaction was mightly relieved, chak played her brilliant angle game so well in her 1st slam qtr, i don't think i've ever seen a match in which maria was dragged wide so often and ran so much. anyway judge for yourselves, but just look out for how wide maria is having to play a lot of shots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp76rJFmEZ0

p.s there great higlights anyway, even if not a fan of either.

The Daviator
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:44 AM
i know many people doubt chakvetadzes ability and seem to not understand when people say she used to play clever tennis, and had they only seen her from 2008 onwards i would agree.

these are highlights from sharapova vs chakvetadze at the oz open 2007, sharapova ultimately won and by her reaction was mightly relieved, chak played her brilliant angle game so well in her 1st slam qtr, i don't think i've ever seen a match in which maria was dragged wide so often and ran so much. anyway judge for yourselves, but just look out for how wide maria is having to play a lot of shots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp76rJFmEZ0

p.s there great higlights anyway, even if not a fan of either.

That clip reminded me of those two powderpuff smashes she hit early on, I remember watching this live and rooting for Chak and being so annoyed with her that she hit them like that :lol:

Great play though, what the hell has happened to her :o

Golovinjured.
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:44 AM
The one that Hingis played.

spiritedenergy
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:47 AM
Any match between Ivanovic and Kuznetsova - The tennis equivalent of a chess match, sublime :drool:

:haha:

Ivanovic - Petrova matches are also masterclass:lol:

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:50 AM
That clip reminded me of those two powderpuff smashes she hit early on, I remember watching this live and rooting for Chak and being so annoyed with her that she hit them like that :lol:

Great play though, what the hell has happened to her :o

:sad: i don't know, she just dosen't hit those angles like she did back then and she just makes so many errors now. chak did have a tendancy to push easy shots, now she tries to hit them a million miles an hour. never has 1 players game gone from something so beautiful to something so error strewn in such a short space. i pray she wakes up and realises that playing her smart flat angle game she was top 5 and we even had polls on wtaworld asking whether chakvetadze could win a slam, those were the days.

AcesHigh
Apr 20th, 2009, 02:07 AM
I was just going to say the Davenport one. It was one of the first, clear ways demonstrated to play against Serena.


Another one, although Henin retired, was the AO 06 final. Mauresmo displayed just about the perfect way to play Henin on a slow court. She gave her nothing to work with, just drowned her with excessive topspin and kept her far behind the baseline. Henin had to create all the pace herself. That drained any energy Henin had to offer and probably contributed to her stomach problem that she retired with. I believe Mauresmo was well on her way to victory though, even if she would have got a big tight.

I disagree with most of the suggestions in this post, but the first match that came to mind was that AO 2006 final.. and then the 2000 match also came to mind.

spencercarlos
Apr 20th, 2009, 02:45 AM
Hingis beat Conchita and Aranxta with few exceptions because she was a better player with more options at her disposal. Simple. It was nothing to do with tactics.

Aranxta was indeed way off form in the 2000 French semi, but that was because of Conchita's high balls. She was completely undone. That's the point about tactics, Spencercarlos, it prevents another from playing their game well.

You're a little like LDV in the sense that your reaction to other players says something about your weaknesses. In his case it's Seles. In yours, Conchita.
Lets try again! How many matches did Conchita playing by moonballing? Well i say 90% of the time. Do you really think it was a smart strategic move to beat Arantxa? Do you really think she changed her usual game plan? :lol::help:

On side note 2 matches i remmember fondly about Martinez, in fact 3 matches where she actually "hit the ball" with autohority and willing to be agressive vs Graf 1993 Philly, 1994 Wimbledon final and 2000 Berlin against Hingis, there she changed up for once.:p

Hingis beat Conchita and Aranxta with few exceptions because she was a better player with more options at her disposal. Simple. It was nothing to do with tactics.

Again you diss Hingis again.. Why? :help:
Hingis is not a power player, yet she hit 20+ winners per match against Conchita and Arantxa in a regular basis. Taking the ball early, hitting balls on the air, serving and volleying, even doing some counterpounching until finally turning defensive to ofensse, putting in play all strategy possible.

Quite funny to see how difficult was for Graf at times against Arantxa, and watching Hingis dissamble Arantxa's game like using an screwdriver was just simply amazing. Yet looking like a power player.

Ryan
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:10 AM
I kind of think people are missing Volcana's point...


He wants a match where a weaker player beat a better player, mainly because of the tactics/brilliant strategic play they employed in that match.


I think the LD / SW match from the USO 2000 is a perfect example, since Serena had been playing better than Lindsay over the summer and was favoured to win the match.

I'll have to think hard to think of another one, but thats the best example I've seen so far.

Craig.
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:39 AM
i know many people doubt chakvetadzes ability and seem to not understand when people say she used to play clever tennis, and had they only seen her from 2008 onwards i would agree.

these are highlights from sharapova vs chakvetadze at the oz open 2007, sharapova ultimately won and by her reaction was mightly relieved, chak played her brilliant angle game so well in her 1st slam qtr, i don't think i've ever seen a match in which maria was dragged wide so often and ran so much. anyway judge for yourselves, but just look out for how wide maria is having to play a lot of shots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp76rJFmEZ0

p.s there great higlights anyway, even if not a fan of either.

Holy, those are some :drool: highlights.

moby
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:52 AM
Hingis played the perfect tactical match against Capriati in the 2002 AO final up until 4-0 in the second set. She pinned Jen to the backhand side of the court with accuracy, heavy topspin, height and depth, and waited patiently for the weak response to attack. Of course, once she got to a winning position, she became over-anxious and started hitting to the open court to Jen's forehand much too early.

On the ATP, definitely the Ashe-Connors match. Honorable mention: C. Rochus def Chela 3-6 6-0 6-3 on clay at Hamburg by hitting about 25 dropshot/drop volley winners. The last 2 sets were so dominant that I'd completely forgotten about the loss of the first set until now when I checked the scores on tenniscorner. I don't know if that's smarts, but I got a kick out of watching that match. Still one of the most surreal matches I've seen.

P.S. Highlights of the above mentioned LD-SW USO QF match will be much appreciated.

TheFifthAvocado
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:57 AM
I'm quite embarrassed to admit this, but the smartest match I've seen (Disclaimer: Haven't watched much smart tennis) is Dubois vs. Kirilenko at the Rogers Cup. (Second disclaimer: MY definition of smart is being able to move the ball around the court with guile.) Both girls were changing the direction of the ball and using sharp angles beautifully, especially Kirilenko, who also showed amazing variety. The highlights show the high quality of court sense the girls had that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5BmSAiSco

As far as the 'change of game plan' definition of smart, I'd have to agree with Slutiana, that Golovin's comeback against Sharapova was up there.

VivalaSeles
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:58 AM
2000 Berlin against Hingis, there she changed up for once.:p
That was a great match to watch. Conchita really played superbly.

RJWCapriati
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:59 AM
2001 Australian Open QF - Hingis def S. Williams

Infiniti2001
Apr 20th, 2009, 04:35 AM
Venus def. Henin Amelia Island.
It wasn't good tennis, but it was a great example of winning with Plan B.

Yep--- Vee was getting creamed :mad: and I was about to stop my recording. all of a sudden she started moonballing :help:I was like WT? but it worked :lol::hearts:

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 04:39 AM
I kind of think people are missing Volcana's point...

He wants a match where a weaker player beat a better player, mainly because of the tactics/brilliant strategic play they employed in that match. Well, yes. That's why I used Ashe vs Connors as the prototype.

Ryan
Apr 20th, 2009, 04:47 AM
Well, yes.


:p


This match SHOULD jump out to me as a Hingis fan, but I forgot about it. :o

Hingis def. Sharapova 6-3 6-1 2006 Tokyo PPO SF


This was a perfect tactical match for Martina against a big-hitter on a fast court. Indoors might not be Maria's best, but she was definitely the better player at the moment and favoured to win.

I don't think Martina employed a crazy new strategy, but she really stuck to her guns well and made a point of doing two things: hugging the baseline hardcore, and coming in to net as much as she could. The first point Hingis hits a forehand winner off a deep shot from Maria, and played the whole match focused on hitting the ball really early. She didn't let Maria boss her around/move her around, instead she just took everything early - even with topspin, as long as it got AWAY, before Maria could react.

Maria didn't play at her best, but a lot of it IMO was because she had never played anyone like Hingis before. Martina came into net a lot, hitting half-volleys and really rushing Sharapova. Perfect tactical match to overcome a better player.

CJ07
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:03 AM
:p


This match SHOULD jump out to me as a Hingis fan, but I forgot about it. :o

Hingis def. Sharapova 6-3 6-1 2006 Tokyo PPO SF


This was a perfect tactical match for Martina against a big-hitter on a fast court. Indoors might not be Maria's best, but she was definitely the better player at the moment and favoured to win.

I don't think Martina employed a crazy new strategy, but she really stuck to her guns well and made a point of doing two things: hugging the baseline hardcore, and coming in to net as much as she could. The first point Hingis hits a forehand winner off a deep shot from Maria, and played the whole match focused on hitting the ball really early. She didn't let Maria boss her around/move her around, instead she just took everything early - even with topspin, as long as it got AWAY, before Maria could react.

Maria didn't play at her best, but a lot of it IMO was because she had never played anyone like Hingis before. Martina came into net a lot, hitting half-volleys and really rushing Sharapova. Perfect tactical match to overcome a better player.
If Hingis had played that style of tennis consistently all year, she would've been back in the Top 5 comfortably (she had already gotten to 6!)

She simply made Sharapova look foolish in that match.

ĪCharlDaĪ
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:08 AM
I'm quite embarrassed to admit this, but the smartest match I've seen (Disclaimer: Haven't watched much smart tennis) is Dubois vs. Kirilenko at the Rogers Cup. (Second disclaimer: MY definition of smart is being able to move the ball around the court with guile.) Both girls were changing the direction of the ball and using sharp angles beautifully, especially Kirilenko, who also showed amazing variety. The highlights show the high quality of court sense the girls had that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5BmSAiSco

As far as the 'change of game plan' definition of smart, I'd have to agree with Slutiana, that Golovin's comeback against Sharapova was up there.

Before commenting anything, yay at Steph being on here, and especially my highlights reel :bounce: ;) That match was quite amazing indeed. Steph did come in with a good strategy, but both girls really did everything in that match. Such a great match to watch with the atmosphere, I'll always remember that. And Steph winning in the end too :hearts:

First match that came to mind was Lindsay vs Serena at 2000 Us Open. Everyone has mentionned it, and its for a clear reason: it's the perfect example. Serena was totally clueless and Lindsay went out of her comfort zone to win. I was pissed at the time but now i realize how brilliant it was, and I often use that example when I coach kids in tournaments. Hitting deep in the center, heavy and hard, can make an opponent go crazy. And it often works.

AcesHigh
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:59 AM
:p


This match SHOULD jump out to me as a Hingis fan, but I forgot about it. :o

Hingis def. Sharapova 6-3 6-1 2006 Tokyo PPO SF


This was a perfect tactical match for Martina against a big-hitter on a fast court. Indoors might not be Maria's best, but she was definitely the better player at the moment and favoured to win.

I don't think Martina employed a crazy new strategy, but she really stuck to her guns well and made a point of doing two things: hugging the baseline hardcore, and coming in to net as much as she could. The first point Hingis hits a forehand winner off a deep shot from Maria, and played the whole match focused on hitting the ball really early. She didn't let Maria boss her around/move her around, instead she just took everything early - even with topspin, as long as it got AWAY, before Maria could react.

Maria didn't play at her best, but a lot of it IMO was because she had never played anyone like Hingis before. Martina came into net a lot, hitting half-volleys and really rushing Sharapova. Perfect tactical match to overcome a better player.

If Hingis had played that style of tennis consistently all year, she would've been back in the Top 5 comfortably (she had already gotten to 6!)

She simply made Sharapova look foolish in that match.

:worship: I can't believe I completely forgot about that match. That was a match I expected Martina to get creamed in but she played smartly and won in a very surprising fashion. Hingis pulled out a lot of matches in her comeback that I totally expected her to lose. I think she had to use her brains even more in some matches early on to pull out victories b/c there was definitely a drop in her play since her first retirement.

brent-o
Apr 20th, 2009, 06:31 AM
One I remember is Serena at the 2007 Aussie Open against Jelena Jankovic. It was clear her strategy was to use angles well (rather than try to hit hard through her), and I was really impressed with how thought out and well-executed Serena's strategy was.

Apoleb
Apr 20th, 2009, 07:23 AM
I kind of think people are missing Volcana's point...


He wants a match where a weaker player beat a better player, mainly because of the tactics/brilliant strategic play they employed in that match.




Well, strategy is part of the arsenal of a player and how "good" of a player he/she is. That's how Martina won most of her matches and her slams, and really so many of her matches right from 1997/1998 (including wins against the WS and Seles) are examples of a player using strategy to overcome deficiencies in power shotmaking abilities/athleticism, which I take it to mean here being a "better player."

One example that hasn't been mentioned is the 07 Miami final. Serena used some good strategy to stay close in the second set. For example, by looping shots to the Henin bh and following them to the net. Justine always seemed to struggle with high balls onto the bh, and Serena used that effectively to stay in touch.

Another example to stress on the fact that execution/strategy are intimately connected is the 05 RG final between Pierce and Justine. Mary's strategy was actually excellent but she couldn't bring herself to execute it correctly. She kepts looping the balls to the Henin bh, got the short ones, followed it to the net; however, on that day, her swing volleys were off, and missed so many of them.

faboozadoo15
Apr 20th, 2009, 08:21 AM
Matches that really stand out to me are Davenport over Serena at the US Open, which has been mentioned. Also Lisa Raymond over Venus at the Asurtalian Open was the most obvious use to strategy seen by an overmatched veteran that I can remember.

As for my boo, Monica's destruction of Steffi in Berlin (or wherever the fuck, who cares, it's germany) and again in Paris in 90' were absolute mindfucks. Seles first beat Steffi with all serves to the backhand and sharp angles after a deep ball, and then in Paris she hit bigger serves to the forehand on big points, went down the line and kept hitting behind Steffi.

G1Player2
Apr 20th, 2009, 08:25 AM
Matches that really stand out to me are Davenport over Serena at the US Open, which has been mentioned. Also Lisa Raymond over Venus at the Asurtalian Open was the most obvious use to strategy seen by an overmatched veteran that I can remember.

As for my boo, Monica's destruction of Steffi in Berlin (or wherever the fuck, who cares, it's germany) and again in Paris in 90' were absolute mindfucks. Seles first beat Steffi with all serves to the backhand and sharp angles after a deep ball, and then in Paris she hit bigger serves to the forehand on big points, went down the line and kept hitting behind Steffi.

How was that a smart match? Davenport just played immaculate and executed her game well while Serena was subpar especially that serve. They played the year before in a tight 3 setter but Serena's serve and groundies were on another stratosphere and I don't recall Davenport playing a drastically different match than in the 2000 match. :shrug:

Shonami Slam
Apr 20th, 2009, 09:22 AM
Dushevina against Robby at eastbourne i think, a few years back.

she kept playing her baseline game againta very tricky grass player, mainly hitting the passes crosscourt - and succeeded in hitting the slices really early to dispatch Vinci of her main weapon.

of course one of the main reasons this was possible to begin with is dusuevina's grip.

bandabou
Apr 20th, 2009, 09:41 AM
The ' 00 u.s. open match between Linds and Serena..yep, it was a good adaptation by Linds. Hard down the middle.. but still odd that she never really repeated or built on that success.

Singleniacki
Apr 20th, 2009, 09:52 AM
Bartoli def. Henin, wimbledon semis 07'

Henin was playing great tennis 1 set and a half, Marion not so much.

at around 4-4, and some very long games in the second set Marion stepped it up.

She realised that henin was making her run around the court too much so she stood far inside the baseline taking the ball extremely early, even earlier than she usually does, went for all of her shots, becasue she knew if henin had the chance she will dominate the points.

She completely broke henin down, Henin didn't have the opportunity to take control of anything in the final stages of the 2nd set and as a result she cracked, Marion had forced her into a situation where she could only break down. She was smart and prayed on the No.1's only weakness, her mental toughness.

Final scoreline 1-6 7-5 6-1

The Dawntreader
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:15 AM
i know many people doubt chakvetadzes ability and seem to not understand when people say she used to play clever tennis, and had they only seen her from 2008 onwards i would agree.

these are highlights from sharapova vs chakvetadze at the oz open 2007, sharapova ultimately won and by her reaction was mightly relieved, chak played her brilliant angle game so well in her 1st slam qtr, i don't think i've ever seen a match in which maria was dragged wide so often and ran so much. anyway judge for yourselves, but just look out for how wide maria is having to play a lot of shots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp76rJFmEZ0

p.s there great higlights anyway, even if not a fan of either.

How good was/is Anna's footwork?:eek:

Steffica Greles
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Again you diss Hingis again.. Why? :help:


By what stretch of the imagination is the following quote of mine a diss to Hingis?

"Hingis beat Conchita and Aranxta with few exceptions because she was a better player with more options at her disposal. Simple. It was nothing to do with tactics."

Is English not your first language or something? In that case I might understand. I was saying Hingis was simply playing her game, which was superior to theirs, and didn't need to think about tactics any more than usual. Volcana said that a weaker player had to defeat a 'usually' superior one to meet the criteria.

Oh, and Conchita did not moonball in 90% of her matches. Go and get some therapy. Your reactions to the very word 'Conchita Martinez', as well as that laughable signature of yours, seem to suggest the name itself is a weak point of yours. Are you getting nightmares? These are things your doctor will ask you.

Nikkiri
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:23 PM
I'm quite embarrassed to admit this, but the smartest match I've seen (Disclaimer: Haven't watched much smart tennis) is Dubois vs. Kirilenko at the Rogers Cup. (Second disclaimer: MY definition of smart is being able to move the ball around the court with guile.) Both girls were changing the direction of the ball and using sharp angles beautifully, especially Kirilenko, who also showed amazing variety. The highlights show the high quality of court sense the girls had that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5BmSAiSco

As far as the 'change of game plan' definition of smart, I'd have to agree with Slutiana, that Golovin's comeback against Sharapova was up there.

Timothy :hearts:

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:24 PM
I'm quite embarrassed to admit this, but the smartest match I've seen (Disclaimer: Haven't watched much smart tennis) is Dubois vs. Kirilenko at the Rogers Cup. (Second disclaimer: MY definition of smart is being able to move the ball around the court with guile.) Both girls were changing the direction of the ball and using sharp angles beautifully, especially Kirilenko, who also showed amazing variety. The highlights show the high quality of court sense the girls had that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5BmSAiSco

As far as the 'change of game plan' definition of smart, I'd have to agree with Slutiana, that Golovin's comeback against Sharapova was up there.
Step to this.

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:33 PM
you wont find many lower ranked girls beating higher ranked girls 'by changing their games'. when a player is lower ranked their best shot of winning is to usualy play to their strengths like lisicki this week against venus. it would have been senseless for lisicki to try and play any other way than to go for it like she normaly does. you will however find matches were players got it tacticaly right against others, be it their normal game.

Miss Amor
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:37 PM
RG SF 2003 Serena VS Justine

Serena is a superior opponent for justine and was leading in the third set . Clearly Justine's strategy wasnt working, so she decided to go for a different, unconventional tactic of cheating .

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:39 PM
RG SF 2003 Serena VS Justine

Serena was a way superior opponent for justine and was leading in the third set . Clearly Justine's strategy wasnt working, so she decided to go for a different, unconventional tactic of cheating .

yeah then there was that 'lucky shots' tactic to beat serena in 3 straight slams :hearts:

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:41 PM
you wont find many lower ranked girls beating higher ranked girls 'by changing their games'. when a player is lower ranked their best shot of winning is to usualy play to their strengths like lisicki this week against venus. it would have been senseless for lisicki to try and play any other way than to go for it like she normaly does. you will however find matches were players got it tacticaly right against others, be it their normal game.
Are you saying that it was a smart tactic of lisicki to stick to her guns?

Because from what i've heard about her, it seems shes been playing like this ever since she came on tour, it just happened that her balls were landing in this tournie....

Miss Amor
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:42 PM
yeah then there was that 'lucky shots' tactic to beat serena in 3 straight slams :hearts:

Its not hard to beat Serena when she has an injury :sad:

Though I cannot deny that her losses to an inferior opponent like Henin upset me.

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:46 PM
Are you saying that it was a smart tactic of lisicki to stick to her guns?

Because from what i've heard about her, it seems shes been playing like this ever since she came on tour, it just happened that her balls were landing in this tournie....

well its smart of most players to play to their strengths, i don't think ivanovic would win many matches serve and volleying, or serena playing grinding tennis, sliding into every shot on clay, or venus slice and bunting her hots in matches. yes lisicki landed the shots against venus, but in playing her way she gave herself the chance to land them and probably the only way for her to beat venus.

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:51 PM
well its smart of most players to play to their strengths, i don't think ivanovic would win many matches serve and volleying, or serena playing grinding tennis, sliding into every shot on clay, or venus slice and bunting her hots in matches. yes lisicki landed the shots against venus, but in playing her way she gave herself the chance to land them and probably the only way for her to beat venus.
Yeah, but thats kind of a given. Playing to your strenghts doesnt mean you're a smart player, it just means you're not a painfully stupid one. And if her shots were landing out that day she would be deemed brainless. Oh and btw Ana serve and volleys a lot nowadays. :crying2:

faboozadoo15
Apr 20th, 2009, 12:53 PM
How was that a smart match? Davenport just played immaculate and executed her game well while Serena was subpar especially that serve. They played the year before in a tight 3 setter but Serena's serve and groundies were on another stratosphere and I don't recall Davenport playing a drastically different match than in the 2000 match. :shrug:

Are you serious? It's been written about over and over again and mentioned several times in this thread that Davenport deliberately pounded the ball up the middle of the court, handcuffing Serena to eventually get a shortball she could easily put away. It was brilliant because that is totally not her game, and Davenport of all people shouldn't be the one doing the running on the court (which she was dedicated enough to do...), but she stuck to the game plan by taking Serena's running shoes away from her.

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:03 PM
Yeah, but thats kind of a given. Playing to your strenghts doesnt mean you're a smart player, it just means you're not a painfully stupid one. And if her shots were landing out that day she would be deemed brainless. Oh and btw Ana serve and volleys a lot nowadays. :crying2:

i've witnessed enough painfuly stupid matches over the years, sam smith had a great line about it 'there are some very bright girls on tour these days, but they leave their brains in the locker room' lmao. i don't think lisicki going for it and missing against venus would be brainless, it would if she was playing against a lower ranked player and hit herself out the match when she could have been more constructive in the points without getting hurt, like she would against venus.

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:11 PM
i've witnessed enough painfuly stupid matches over the years, sam smith had a great line about it 'there are some very bright girls on tour these days, but they leave their brains in the locker room' lmao. i don't think lisicki going for it and missing against venus would be brainless, it would if she was playing against a lower ranked player and hit herself out the match when she could have been more constructive in the points without getting hurt, like she would against venus.
Hmmm...

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:20 PM
Hmmm...

basicaly against venus most players have to hurt her before being hurt, there are very few girls who can play venus a different way, there are counterpunchers with smart enough tennis to beat venus a different way but they are sadly few and far between (jankovic). venus's own style and her stubborness towards it often forces players to play a 'ballbashing' game back, hence one of the reason i don't enjoy watching venus.

~Cherry*Blossom~
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:23 PM
I thought Mauresmo hitting short balls and bringing Sharapova in at nearly every opportunity in the Wimbledon 2006 semifinal was a smart tactic.

Matt01
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:32 PM
I kind of think people are missing Volcana's point...


He wants a match where a weaker player beat a better player, mainly because of the tactics/brilliant strategic play they employed in that match.


I think the LD / SW match from the USO 2000 is a perfect example,


But Serena in 2000 was not a better player than Lindsay :p

Matt01
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:38 PM
Its not hard to beat Serena when she has an injury :sad:


It is always hard to beat Serena. You should give your favorite a bit more credit.



Though I cannot deny that her losses to an inferior opponent like Henin upset me.


:lol:

bandabou
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:53 PM
Are you serious? It's been written about over and over again and mentioned several times in this thread that Davenport deliberately pounded the ball up the middle of the court, handcuffing Serena to eventually get a shortball she could easily put away. It was brilliant because that is totally not her game, and Davenport of all people shouldn't be the one doing the running on the court (which she was dedicated enough to do...), but she stuck to the game plan by taking Serena's running shoes away from her.


Was brilliant indeed...Serena was totally confused by it. Still has issues from time to time with this tactic.

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Okay, so this seems to violate 'superior player' caveat, but if any match deserved at least an 'honorable mention' ....

2004 Wimbledon - Navratilova def Castano 6-1 6-0

sammy01
Apr 20th, 2009, 02:01 PM
Okay, so this seems to violate 'superior player' caveat, but if any match deserved at least an 'honorable mention' ....

2004 Wimbledon - Navratilova def Castano 6-1 6-0

6-0 6-1, if i remember correctly nav was 6-0, 5-0 up as well lol

Kart
Apr 20th, 2009, 02:10 PM
One of Amelie's Wimbledon semis that she lost. I seem to remember one with her and Serena and one with her and Lindsay but I can't remember which one was a better example.

Neither of them are the smartest match ever but they are good examples of a player turning up with a game plan and executing it well enough for it to be effective.

Obviously Amelie didn't win but I'm not sure that's the point of this thread is it ? She had clearly thought about it.


Another example is that Wimbledon match between Venus and Anna K.

At the time, Anna had been interviewed on her tactics beforehand and she said she couldn't outhit Venus so she'd have to out think her. There was drama on the board (I think it was Sanex at the time) from Williams sisters fans saying that Anna was basically saying Venus was stupid but to anyone that saw the interview and watched their match, it was clear what she meant. From memory, she emloyed a tactical net game and it worked for about a set and a bit until Venus turned it around.

It was a good effort again - ultimately unsuccessful but a good effort nonetheless.

It's been years since I saw any of these matches so my descriptions may not be precise but these are the things I took from those matches and why I remember them.

moby
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Go and get some therapy. Your reactions to the very word 'Conchita Martinez', as well as that laughable signature of yours, seem to suggest the name itself is a weak point of yours. Are you getting nightmares? These are things your doctor will ask you.TBH, it's not that dissimilar to your reactions to "Martina Hingis".

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:32 PM
One thing I'm noting from most of these examples is that for the 'lesser' player to win the match through strategy/tactics, they have to be pretty good themselves. A player like Patty Schnyder can beat a Henin, on Henin's best surface, at the height of Henin's powers, cause Schnyder has a ridiculous skillset.

Elena Dementieva isn't going to out-strategy Serena Williams. She can beat her, certainly. But it isn't going to be because she does something different than what she usually does. She'll just do her thing better, while Serena does her thing worse.

Not to knock Dementieva. I could just as easily use Venus vs Serena.

The WTA is about execution, as a rule. (and some of the WTA's most famous matches ARE 'executions', regrettably.)

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 03:47 PM
well its smart of most players to play to their strengthsView it this way. You're right, but that doesn't get you to 'smartest', just 'normal'. However, your examples leave a bit to be

Ivanovic has a pretty good serve, and quite good volleys. She would win a lot of matches by serve-and-volley. Til she hit the semis, and faced the players with big time passing shots.

Back in 2000-1, I used to literally yell at the TV when played, tellin gher to stop trying to hit winners, and just play 'grinding tennis'. Even back then, she had better groundstrokes than 99.9% of the tour. And guess what, when she stopped trying to hit winners every shot, and started being patient, we finally buried Wild Thing.

If all you do is play to your strengths, improvement is limited.

Dave.
Apr 20th, 2009, 04:22 PM
How was that a smart match? Davenport just played immaculate and executed her game well while Serena was subpar especially that serve. They played the year before in a tight 3 setter but Serena's serve and groundies were on another stratosphere and I don't recall Davenport playing a drastically different match than in the 2000 match. :shrug:


Serena had 66% first serves in (high 70's in the first set), compared with a shocking 44% from Lindsay. Serena hit more aces, had a +4 winner/error ratio compared with -2 from Lindsay. Serena played as well as you can for a loss, and those are hardly immactulate numbers from Lindsay. Up to 4-4 in the 1st, Serena had looked the better player with winners all over the place, Lindsay was nervous. From 4-4 to 6-4 4-0 (and then 6-2) was when Lindsay settled down and implemented her strategy to a dime. Never have I seen Lindsay run Serena around the court as much as she did there (most of there other matches had Serena dictating points). A commentator said he never saw Serena looking so desperate and subdued before.

Lucemferre
Apr 20th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Serena had 66% first serves in (high 70's in the first set), compared with a shocking 44% from Lindsay. Serena hit more aces, had a +4 winner/error ratio compared with -2 from Lindsay. Serena played as well as you can for a loss, and those are hardly immactulate numbers from Lindsay. Up to 4-4 in the 1st, Serena had looked the better player with winners all over the place, Lindsay was nervous. From 4-4 to 6-4 4-0 (and then 6-2) was when Lindsay settled down and implemented her strategy to a dime. Never have I seen Lindsay run Serena around the court as much as she did there (most of there other matches had Serena dictating points). A commentator said he never saw Serena looking so desperate and subdued before.

That was Serena 2000. Sophomore slump year. You're giving Lindsay way too much credit :o

AndreConrad
Apr 20th, 2009, 04:52 PM
Radwanska-Sharapova USO07 is another one that comes to mind. I dont remember the details but I just remember being in awe of her tennis brain and quick thinking and actually comparing her to Tati. :crying2: Its a shame she isnt as thrilling as she was back then.
The capability is still definitely their. The unfortunate fact is that it is not necessarily demonstrated during high visibility matches that not only fans watch. I am confident she is going start playing up to her potential soon consistently. She needs to put up or shut up ;)

DA FOREHAND
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:02 PM
One that always springs to mind is Davenport against Serena at the 2000 U.S Open.

Lindsay had come off a succession of losses to a player who, on paper, she should have had at least some chance of beating. The expectation among many was that Lindsay would be trashed by Serena in the US Open last 8 match. But Davenport unveiled a strategy which could only really work once, but which, without preparation, totally flummoxed Serena. Lindsay hit continuously down the centre of the court with her usual crispness and incredible pace of shot until finally Serena lost length and then Davenport nailed the winner. She won in two sets.

Conchita Martinez played quite a few matches in her career where she got the tactics fairly well spot on. I remember her almost castrating Sanchez-Vicario in the 2000 French Open semi, sending massively topspun balls practically over her head time and time again. Aranxta would have been better hitting all of her shots overarm. Aranxta had a great head-to-head advantage over Conchita, but that day, she had all her strengths neutered. Martinez did that to a lot of the top players at least once.


:worship::worship:

CJ07
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:06 PM
Mauresmo d. Capriati 6-3 6-2
Wimbledon 2002

shap_half
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:08 PM
Not really an amazing example, but the 04 Olympic semi between Myskina and Henin. The way Henin played in the first half of the final set was atrocious. Then she cleaned up her game, hit down the middle, cut back on the unforced errors and Myskina completely self-destructed.

I mention this, because Henin could have just as easily kept up the same bad play that she clearly displayed throughout that match. And she didn't exactly play the way she normally would to win a match; just good solid, deep ground strokes down the middle.

Dave.
Apr 20th, 2009, 05:35 PM
That was Serena 2000. Sophomore slump year. You're giving Lindsay way too much credit :o

Wimbledon semis, LA title (beating Davenport), Canada final is not a slump. The fact that she was even in the Quarters when she could have gone down to Dokic meant she was playing well enough.

Steffica Greles
Apr 20th, 2009, 06:07 PM
TBH, it's not that dissimilar to your reactions to "Martina Hingis".

:rolleyes: I've said many positive things about Hings throughout the 7 years I've been on this board. Few seem to notice that, but I could prove it if I had time. When people are all deluding themselves about her abilities in my eyes, then I'll make a point of exposing her flaws. It's fair.

AnywhereButHome
Apr 20th, 2009, 08:06 PM
Miami: Aga vs Hingis :)

Joseosu19
Apr 20th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Well, strategy is part of the arsenal of a player and how "good" of a player he/she is. That's how Martina won most of her matches and her slams, and really so many of her matches right from 1997/1998 (including wins against the WS and Seles) are examples of a player using strategy to overcome deficiencies in power shotmaking abilities/athleticism, which I take it to mean here being a "better player."
I disagree to some extent with this comment...I think you are taking a little too much away from Martina's game...sure she was one of the best thinkers and strategists in the game's history, but at that point (97/98 even up till 2000), Martina was as good as anyone. Power isn't everything in tennis, and Martina had great ball movement and placement, and a huge arsenal of variety. That isn't tactics. She may not have been as "powerful" of a player as the others at this time, but she was just as good and usually better at everything else (at that point in time anyways).

Sexysova
Apr 20th, 2009, 08:22 PM
Zurich 2007: Henin def. Vaidisova 3-6 6-3 7-5 :p

Volcana
Apr 20th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Zurich 2007: Henin def. Vaidisova 3-6 6-3 7-5 :pExcuse me.

VASTLY superior player beat slow, predictable player.
Seven time slam winner beats player who never won a Tier II title.

No. Just ... no

Henin showed up lethargic after a night of extreme fucking, started slow, woke up in the second set, and beat a player who couldn't tie Henin's shoes on her best day.

Jesus H Christ. Henin needed a special strategy to beat Vaidisova!?!?! Come the fuck on. You're just being silly.

Knizzle
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:00 PM
Myskina's QF at RG 2004 against VenusWhile keeping the ball in play while your opponent is making errors is smart...I don't think that's what the threadstarter was looking for.

Knizzle
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:04 PM
I was just going to say the Davenport one. It was one of the first, clear ways demonstrated to play against Serena.


Another one, although Henin retired, was the AO 06 final. Mauresmo displayed just about the perfect way to play Henin on a slow court. She gave her nothing to work with, just drowned her with excessive topspin and kept her far behind the baseline. Henin had to create all the pace herself. That drained any energy Henin had to offer and probably contributed to her stomach problem that she retired with. I believe Mauresmo was well on her way to victory though, even if she would have got a big tight.Yes, Mauresmo was pinning her with all that spin, especially to Justine's backhand where it's harder for Justine to deal with the high balls.

Knizzle
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Venus def Henin, Amelia Island F, 2-6 7-5 7-6.

twight6
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Radwanska d. Sharapova @ USO 2007 :)

I was hoping someone else would think of this one! From recent years, this is the one that sticks out in my mind.

Radwanska really messed with Sharapova's head. Sure, Maria "beat" herself, but it's because Radwanska made her with stepping inside the baseline, getting balls back and going for her shots at all the right times. Really, really flustered Maria.

Corswandt
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:37 PM
Sharapova d. Davenport AO 08. Perfect game plan, flawlessly executed.

CoolDude7
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Venus def Henin, Amelia Island F

GavinC360
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:50 PM
One that always springs to mind is Davenport against Serena at the 2000 U.S Open.

Lindsay had come off a succession of losses to a player who, on paper, she should have had at least some chance of beating. The expectation among many was that Lindsay would be trashed by Serena in the US Open last 8 match. But Davenport unveiled a strategy which could only really work once, but which, without preparation, totally flummoxed Serena. Lindsay hit continuously down the centre of the court with her usual crispness and incredible pace of shot until finally Serena lost length and then Davenport nailed the winner. She won in two sets.

Conchita Martinez played quite a few matches in her career where she got the tactics fairly well spot on. I remember her almost castrating Sanchez-Vicario in the 2000 French Open semi, sending massively topspun balls practically over her head time and time again. Aranxta would have been better hitting all of her shots overarm. Aranxta had a great head-to-head advantage over Conchita, but that day, she had all her strengths neutered. Martinez did that to a lot of the top players at least once.


This is the match that comes to mind for me too.

franny
Apr 20th, 2009, 10:51 PM
I was hoping someone else would think of this one! From recent years, this is the one that sticks out in my mind.

Radwanska really messed with Sharapova's head. Sure, Maria "beat" herself, but it's because Radwanska made her with stepping inside the baseline, getting balls back and going for her shots at all the right times. Really, really flustered Maria.

When is it ever NOT someone's strategy to step inside the baseline, get shots back and go for shots at the right times? Isn't that ALWAYS the strategy? I don't know anyone who goes out on the court and says, my strategy today is to: step way behind the baseline, don't get any balls back and go for shots at all the wrong times.

I think the smartest match is different from a well executed match. A smart match is when someone actually employs a different strategy to beat a particular player, like the Davenport-Serena match many ppl are referring to. Or even a match like the Martinez-Hingis match where for once, Martinez changed her game plan to really control the points with her forehand and go all out aggression against Martina, since prior to that Martinez had been content with chasing balls down and trying to moonball Hingis to death, which never worked.

Uranium
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:06 PM
While keeping the ball in play while your opponent is making errors is smart...I don't think that's what the threadstarter was looking for.

She did the same thing against Capriati in the semis, who was just a mess that day:o

Knizzle
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:08 PM
She did the same thing against Capriati in the semis, who was just a mess that day:othat's a misconception, she took it to Capriati. Myskina had 29 winners in that match, compared to just 9 against Venus.

frenchie
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:09 PM
While keeping the ball in play while your opponent is making errors is smart...I don't think that's what the threadstarter was looking for.

The court was VERY wet that day and slow as hell

Nastya decided to play more conservative than usual, hitting everything very slow in the middle of the court.

That day brain > muscles:wavey:

frenchie
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:12 PM
She did the same thing against Capriati in the semis, who was just a mess that day:o

Watch the match again

Nastya had another strategy that day against Capriati
She changed pace. Sometimes she hit very hard and flat shots and on the next shot she would hit a slow looper

She also used a lot of angles and change of direction

Knizzle
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:21 PM
The court was VERY wet that day and slow as hell

Nastya decided to play more conservative than usual, hitting everything very slow in the middle of the court.

That day brain > muscles:wavey:middle of the court, very original and so crafty from Myskina, what was I thinking? Leaving it up to your opponent to make errors is leaving it up to them to pound you in the ground. Not a great strategy. It will work occasionally, but it's not that smart.

twight6
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:28 PM
When is it ever NOT someone's strategy to step inside the baseline, get shots back and go for shots at the right times? Isn't that ALWAYS the strategy? I don't know anyone who goes out on the court and says, my strategy today is to: step way behind the baseline, don't get any balls back and go for shots at all the wrong times.

I think the smartest match is different from a well executed match. A smart match is when someone actually employs a different strategy to beat a particular player, like the Davenport-Serena match many ppl are referring to. Or even a match like the Martinez-Hingis match where for once, Martinez changed her game plan to really control the points with her forehand and go all out aggression against Martina, since prior to that Martinez had been content with chasing balls down and trying to moonball Hingis to death, which never worked.

I'm sorry but NO tennis player stands as far inside the baseline as Agnieszka was when she was receiving serve, and plays the sort of mental games she does. Her set plan was to fluster Maria out on the court, and that's exactly what she did. And the minute Maria was down, she stepped it up and went for everything and was hitting.

VishaalMaria
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:32 PM
Watch the match again

Nastya had another strategy that day against Capriati
She changed pace. Sometimes she hit very hard and flat shots and on the next shot she would hit a slow looper

She also used a lot of angles and change of direction

You see what you want to believe regarding Myskinas play that tournament.

Stats dont lie. Nine winners in a match doesnt win you the match unless your opponent is spraying errors and playing like utter tripe [aka garbage] which Venus was. Many a time players won against Venus by letting beat herself with her errors which doesnt really take much tactical thinking; you just have to get the ball back.

So Myskina def Venus 6-4 6-3 isn't the smartest match you've seen unless you don't really watch alot of tennis matches.

frenchie
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:35 PM
You see what you want to believe regarding Myskinas play that tournament.

Stats dont lie. Nine winners in a match doesnt win you the match unless your opponent is spraying errors and playing like utter tripe [aka garbage] which Venus was. Many a time players won against Venus by letting beat herself with her errors which doesnt really take much tactical thinking; you just have to get the ball back.

So Myskina def Venus 6-4 6-3 isn't the smartest match you've seen unless you don't really watch alot of tennis matches.

Of course Nastya's gameplan had nothing to do with Venus hitting errors:rolleyes:
Venus didn't adapt to Nastya's strategy and tried to hit winners on a wet red clay court

Myskina had one million gameplans anyway

goldenlox
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:42 PM
Vera had very few winners in the IW final.
You have to keep the ball in play and not give your opponent the opportunity to hit easy winners.
Myskina combined deep middle shots with her trademark dtl backhand.
Vera at IW had to play steady and deep in an extreme wind. But she switched to that strategy after playing a couple of game.
Myskina saw Venus had no patience, and then came the deep middle shots. But that's not all she hit. Those were like the cheese in the mousetrap

Aga also was planting cheese for Sharapova by standing in so close on 2nd serves

Slutiana
Apr 20th, 2009, 11:54 PM
Of course Nastya's gameplan had nothing to do with Venus hitting errors:rolleyes:
Venus didn't adapt to Nastya's strategy and tried to hit winners on a wet red clay court

Myskina had one million gameplans anyway
It was kind-of half and half. That match seriously reminds me of Venus vs Tati in AI 07. :inlove:

jdyshrky
Apr 21st, 2009, 12:01 AM
One that always springs to mind is Davenport against Serena at the 2000 U.S Open.

see above. literally what every young player should watch before they step on a court. i also think the infamous, ahem, justine marion wimbledon match should be studied. i don't know what the eff happened there but i assume dr bartoli's tactics had something to do with it. either that or god.

Matt01
Apr 21st, 2009, 12:24 AM
Many a time players won against Venus by letting beat herself with her errors which doesnt really take much tactical thinking; you just have to get the ball back.



So which player beats herself more often, the player left in your avatar or the player right in your avatar? :confused:

manutoo
Apr 21st, 2009, 12:30 AM
Henin def Serena at 07 RG.

TheFifthAvocado
Apr 21st, 2009, 12:58 AM
Timothy :hearts:

Step to this.

<3 y'all.

Apoleb
Apr 21st, 2009, 01:04 AM
see above. literally what every young player should watch before they step on a court. i also think the infamous, ahem, justine marion wimbledon match should be studied. i don't know what the eff happened there but i assume dr bartoli's tactics had something to do with it. either that or god.

Nope. Read this: http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=15457961&postcount=39 . I don't think it had anything to do with special tactics.

Uranium
Apr 21st, 2009, 01:12 AM
Nope. Read this: http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=15457961&postcount=39 . I don't think it had anything to do with special tactics.

Marion had a secret weapon that day....Pierce Brosnan:armed:

franny
Apr 21st, 2009, 02:50 AM
I'm sorry but NO tennis player stands as far inside the baseline as Agnieszka was when she was receiving serve, and plays the sort of mental games she does. Her set plan was to fluster Maria out on the court, and that's exactly what she did. And the minute Maria was down, she stepped it up and went for everything and was hitting.

Actually, I'm pretty sure plenty of tennis players stand that far inside the baseline, especially in returning second serves. Venus is one player that stands way inside the baseline, regardless of whether it is first serve or second serve. So "NO" tennis player stands that far inside the baseline is simply not true. I will agree that she did have a strategy with the moving around during Maria's ball toss, which one can always argue was just gamesmanship. But all's fair in love and war, as well as on the tennis court I guess. Don't really want to get into that. Aside from that one strategy though, I just don't think the rest of her game was a strategy. I don't think she really altered her play at all, it was just a matter of execution of her normal game plans, which is to chase every ball down and try to redirect shots. That match was an example of one player off her game and the other player executing on hers.

spencercarlos
Apr 21st, 2009, 03:33 AM
that's a misconception, she took it to Capriati. Myskina had 29 winners in that match, compared to just 9 against Venus.
That is not true, Myskina had 17 winners in the semis. First i never recalled Myskina being so dominant that day, winners category, despite we all know she hit a great winner on match point. (against Capriati). That is why i looked up the stats in an article.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2004/06/03/frenchopen040603.html

Volcana
Apr 21st, 2009, 03:37 AM
Venus def Henin, Amelia Island FWhy?

It's my favorite player beating a player I never particularly cared for, but, why? What do you think Venus did so differently?

spencercarlos
Apr 21st, 2009, 03:47 AM
By what stretch of the imagination is the following quote of mine a diss to Hingis?

"Hingis beat Conchita and Aranxta with few exceptions because she was a better player with more options at her disposal. Simple. It was nothing to do with tactics."

Is English not your first language or something? In that case I might understand. I was saying Hingis was simply playing her game, which was superior to theirs, and didn't need to think about tactics any more than usual. Volcana said that a weaker player had to defeat a 'usually' superior one to meet the criteria.

Oh, and Conchita did not moonball in 90% of her matches. Go and get some therapy. Your reactions to the very word 'Conchita Martinez', as well as that laughable signature of yours, seem to suggest the name itself is a weak point of yours. Are you getting nightmares? These are things your doctor will ask you.
Hingis had a smart-strategic game. Read again, Hingis employed so many shots to set up winners against pushers like Coetzer, Conchita, Arantxa, that Hingis herself looked like a power player, when she really never was.



Oh, and Conchita did not moonball in 90% of her matches. Go and get some therapy. Your reactions to the very word 'Conchita Martinez', as well as that laughable signature of yours, seem to suggest the name itself is a weak point of yours. Are you getting nightmares? These are things your doctor will ask you.
Sorry but Conchita did indeed hit moonballs in most of her matches, probably saying that 90% is a generous number. If you really think Conchita was putting up in play a smart NEW strategy by hitting moonballs to Arantxa well, thatīs up to you, Conchita was only playing her normal game.
The end result was basically an error fest from Arantxa, which we know itīs very unusual for her to miss so many shots in a match.
In fact Arantxa was the owner of that head to head, despite the many moonballs left and right.

spencercarlos
Apr 21st, 2009, 03:49 AM
Miami: Aga vs Hingis :)
Hingis was injured already in this match.

CoolDude7
Apr 21st, 2009, 03:53 AM
Why?

It's my favorite player beating a player I never particularly cared for, but, why? What do you think Venus did so differently?

Venus was a mess during the match. Justine, whom she owned, would've beaten her if she continued to play the same way. Instead, she pulled in her ground strokes, started hitting up the center effective yet safe.. and whenever she felt Justine was comfortable she would unload to keep justine doubting.

Volcana
Apr 21st, 2009, 04:16 AM
Venus was a mess during the match. Justine, whom she owned, would've beaten her if she continued to play the same way. Instead, she pulled in her ground strokes, started hitting up the center effective yet safe.. and whenever she felt Justine was comfortable she would unload to keep justine doubting.I'm not sure 'stop screwing up' counts as a strategic change.

Also, this was 2002. Venus was vastly the superior player at that time. Henin had never even won a Tier II tournament, much less a slam. Venus had already played in five slam finals, winning four, and would play in the next four slam finals. VEnus won seven tounament, on clay, carpet and hardcourts, in 2002.

In other words, Venus in the midst of the most dominant stretch of her career, beat a nascent Henin.

Was Venus smarter? Or just better? Isn't she supposed to beat Henin in 2002?

CJ07
Apr 21st, 2009, 04:35 AM
Henin wasn't a pusher. She just hadn't made the next best step. And she was already among the best clay courters at the time anyway.

Henin was hitting winners left and right, while Venus was hitting errors left and right. Venus started to essentially moonball Henin deep in the court, and use angles and drop shots to keep her off balance. It worked.

CoolDude7
Apr 21st, 2009, 04:38 AM
Henin wasn't a pusher. She just hadn't made the next best step. And she was already among the best clay courters at the time anyway.

Henin was hitting winners left and right, while Venus was hitting errors left and right. Venus started to essentially moonball Henin deep in the court, and use angles and drop shots to keep her off balance. It worked.

exactly, just because Venus is not a good match up for justine, doesnt mean justine wasn';t about to win. Venus changed her game plan

faboozadoo15
Apr 21st, 2009, 04:40 AM
I thought Mauresmo hitting short balls and bringing Sharapova in at nearly every opportunity in the Wimbledon 2006 semifinal was a smart tactic.

Yep. That match was a tunring point in Sharapova's career. At the US Open and AO that she won, she was coming to the net left and right with confidence. This tactic wouldnt work against her again (save for the Radwanska match where Maria was just abysmal).

CoolDude7
Apr 21st, 2009, 04:41 AM
in 2002 justine and kim were already banging at the door.. they were no push overs they were clearly second best after the sisters.

spencercarlos
Apr 21st, 2009, 05:29 AM
in 2002 justine and kim were already banging at the door.. they were no push overs they were clearly second best after the sisters.
In 2003? yes... in 2002 Kim and Justine were not second bests after WS. Period.

spencercarlos
Apr 21st, 2009, 05:29 AM
Yep. That match was a tunring point in Sharapova's career. At the US Open and AO that she won, she was coming to the net left and right with confidence. This tactic wouldnt work against her again (save for the Radwanska match where Maria was just abysmal).
:lol:

faboozadoo15
Apr 21st, 2009, 06:03 AM
:lol:

:confused: Is that some sort of response?
After that match against Mauresmo, Sharapova went 27-2 to finish the year which includes a tank job against Elena and a close match against Justine where Sharapova was a bit burnt out. This run also includes a shalacking of Mauresmo at the US Open. The difference between those two matches is stunning.

So did you have a point to make? Or do you just like to giggle out of context like someone who is... well... challenged?

Sharapova has only lost 17 matches since Mauresmo used that tactic against her, and in only one of them can I say that her opponent made her uncomfortable on the court in a smiliar way.

spencercarlos
Apr 21st, 2009, 06:11 AM
:confused: Is that some sort of response?
After that match against Mauresmo, Sharapova went 27-2 to finish the year which includes a tank job against Elena and a close match against Justine where Sharapova was a bit burnt out. This run also includes a shalacking of Mauresmo at the US Open. The difference between those two matches is stunning.

So did you have a point to make? Or do you just like to giggle out of context like someone who is... well... challenged?

Sharapova has only lost 17 matches since Mauresmo used that tactic against her, and in only one of them can I say that her opponent made her uncomfortable on the court in a smiliar way.
Not really in fact i thought you meant Maria was the one coming to the net left and right, but forgot to erase the whole thing.

Going back to your response Still not surprising about players using that tactic (coming to the net), anyway how many players today are not ballbashers, with no intention of coming to the net or being able to hit decent volleys enough to win matches from there?...
Very seldom see that these days.

CJ07
Apr 21st, 2009, 06:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAbEn40y6yc

Volcana
Apr 21st, 2009, 06:48 AM
in 2002 justine and kim were already banging at the door.. they were no push overs they were clearly second best after the sisters.Go look at the record. Davenport and Capriati were 'the second best after the sisters'.

NOTE: For Davenport you have to look past year end ranking. She was injured half the year. 1st tournament was Stanford. Yet made the semis or better in every tournament she played til the YEC except Filderstadt. And that was a QF.

faboozadoo15
Apr 21st, 2009, 07:44 AM
Does that make Sharapova's subsequent easy victories over Hingis also rank among the most intelligent matches?

Once Sharapova began to treat Hingis's serve like the joke it is, there's really not enough guile in the world to overcome that deficit.

Volcana
Apr 21st, 2009, 07:54 AM
Does that make Sharapova's subsequent easy victories over Hingis also rank among the most intelligent matches?

Once Sharapova began to treat Hingis's serve like the joke it is, there's really not enough guile in the world to overcome that deficit.'Superior firepower always wins in a firefight'

If you're facing an elite power baseliner, if you haven't got maybe 90% of their power, you're gonna lose. But if you DO have 90% of their power, and a bunch of other things, you can take them.

The 90% is a number picked at random, but that ultimately, was Hingis' problem. The power gap was too big. If she'd had the will to train herself til she reduced her body-fat to Henin-like non-menstruation, at risk for Female Athlete Triad (http://www.femaleathletetriad.org/) proportions, she's have won a couple more slams.

NOTE: When you read people dissing Marion Bartoli, think about the Female Athlete Triad. Bartoli isn't sacrifice her lifetime health to a (relatively) short term career. We'd all love to be Venus Williams, and lose weight when we're out of shape. But it just don't work that way for most people.

Cakeisgood
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

fish_wilson
Apr 21st, 2009, 11:50 AM
agreed this is a great thread. Women needs to execute tactics and not rely on power, makes for a much more exciting game and one of the reasons I often prefer wta to atp.

CoolDude7
Apr 21st, 2009, 01:41 PM
Go look at the record. Davenport and Capriati were 'the second best after the sisters'.

NOTE: For Davenport you have to look past year end ranking. She was injured half the year. 1st tournament was Stanford. Yet made the semis or better in every tournament she played til the YEC except Filderstadt. And that was a QF.

2002 2003:rolleyes: i mean really justine and kim were no pushovers either of those years...as Justine had already beaten Venus before.....

LegionArgentina
Apr 21st, 2009, 05:04 PM
Not saying Hingis didn't play a smart match. pretty much every match she played was smart. But that was the best player on the planet vs a player ranked #66 who'd never won a WTA or an ITF tournament.

Was Hingis smarter? Or just better?

She was better and smarter in that match.In the first she did whatever she want with her great shot selection,hits nice drop-shots,a couple of lobs when Venus was at the net and also some serve and volley.
Venus is in the second set showed that she has more than one gameplane in her hand,her movement was great,some serve and volley also she tried to attack the net at Martina second serve.Martina hits some great passing shots and her net play was great.
What you think?

Steffica Greles
Apr 21st, 2009, 06:11 PM
In 2003? yes... in 2002 Kim and Justine were not second bests after WS. Period.

It depends which part of 2002 really. They both had stellar clay court seasons leading up to the French, when they really did look like 3rd and 4th behind the Williams sisters. But then they both crashed at the French. Through the entire summer they pretty much disappointed with some patchy play. There were some exceptions.

But after the 2002 U.S Open, they both, but especially Clijsters, gained a momentum which saw them really start to overtake Davenport, Capriati (who was already dropping), Mauresmo, and Seles if anybody still thought of her. Hingis was a footnote by then. They rode that wave into 2003.

faboozadoo15
Apr 21st, 2009, 06:19 PM
'Superior firepower always wins in a firefight'


It still takes intelligence to overcome a player who's your perfect foil. So for players like Venus, Seles, and Sharapova who ALL struggled against Hingis to overcome that -- are we to just assume more of their shots found the court on a given day? I don't think it's that simple.

CJ07
Apr 21st, 2009, 06:59 PM
Does that make Sharapova's subsequent easy victories over Hingis also rank among the most intelligent matches?

Once Sharapova began to treat Hingis's serve like the joke it is, there's really not enough guile in the world to overcome that deficit.
Sharapova didn't have an "easy" time with Hingis. Comfortable, yes, easy no.

That match Hingis negated Sharapova's strengths and absorbed her power to use it against her. Thats smart. Plus, she only made 5 or so errors a set, which is also vintage Hingis. Thats playing well.

When Hingis is playing smart and well, she can embarass her opponents (6-1 6-1 OZ Semifinal is an example). However, she has to be playing at 100%, and her opponents need to be a little off. She wasn't at the level in the rest of her matches with Sharapova, and Sharapova was more attuned to what was going to come at her.

But you shouldn't discredit Hingis's first win. It was truly a great effort. Her match against Seles in 1996 was ver similar.

Pheobo
Apr 21st, 2009, 07:01 PM
Maybe not the best example but the one that comes immediately to mind is Capriati def. Serena at the 2004 USO. The way Cappy used that sliced backhand deep down the middle of the court completely threw Serena :drool:
My favorite match of all time.

AlwaysGraf
Apr 21st, 2009, 07:08 PM
eww horrible thread loads of williams davenport fans discussing strategies

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:11 PM
The 2007 Final was one of the smartest matches I've seen Serena play in a while. The last 2 AO finals she won, actually.

Every point was pre-constructed and her opponent, though winning 6 matches to GET to the final, couldn't do anything about it.

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:14 PM
Maybe not the best example but the one that comes immediately to mind is Capriati def. Serena at the 2004 USO. The way Cappy used that sliced backhand deep down the middle of the court completely threw Serena :drool:
My favorite match of all time.

Her strategy was pretty sweet in that match, but those 5 terrible calls in the 3rd, certainly helped her out too.

AcesHigh
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:37 PM
Go look at the record. Davenport and Capriati were 'the second best after the sisters'.

NOTE: For Davenport you have to look past year end ranking. She was injured half the year. 1st tournament was Stanford. Yet made the semis or better in every tournament she played til the YEC except Filderstadt. And that was a QF.

How could Davenport be second best in 2002 with a 24-9 record and 0 titles in 2002???

And Capriati, aside from a few tournaments was not great herself. She did great in winning AO and pushing Serena in several of their matches, but aside from that, she wasn't anything too special with only 1 title that year at AO and a bunch of poor losses.

I dont think it's unfair to say by 2002, Henin and Clijsters were the ones behind the WS.

Slutiana
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:41 PM
^Hmm yeah, in 2002/3 it always seemed to be the Serena and Venus meeting Cap and Dav in the QFs and the belgians in the SFs..

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:48 PM
Serena's 2001 US SF was also a VERY smart match. I'd say it was the best match she'd played before 2002.

OsloErik
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:51 PM
Two smartest matches I've ever seen:

Wimbledon final, 1994. Conchita infuriated Martina with her game play. She had such slow bace shots, hit these wicked slice returns and then DIDN'T follow them in, did a bizarre combination of lobbing and volleying, and gave Navratilova tons of trouble with shots she had never seen so many of before. Conchita frequently played like that, but this was a match where she actually DICTATED play using that style. Supremely underrated tactician, even if she lacked the skills to really be a multi-slam champion.

Australian Open final, 1988. Graf basically had a strategy that amounted to: Evert likes the rally from the baseline, but she's older and not as quick or endurance ready as I am. So she played Evert's game. But she played it without getting impatient. There are almost no instances I can think of where Evert is the one who blinked in a match and tried to go for too much, consistently. Graf illustrated perfectly why a power player can beat a medium pace player by playing that game. It was a terrific match to break down afterwards, and as an Evert fan I must say I'm proud that it took one of the greatest singles players of all time to force Evert out of her comfort zone.

OsloErik
Apr 21st, 2009, 08:58 PM
How could Davenport be second best in 2002 with a 24-9 record and 0 titles in 2002???

And Capriati, aside from a few tournaments was not great herself. She did great in winning AO and pushing Serena in several of their matches, but aside from that, she wasn't anything too special with only 1 title that year at AO and a bunch of poor losses.

I dont think it's unfair to say by 2002, Henin and Clijsters were the ones behind the WS.

One of the biggest eyebrow-raising numbers in tennis, in my opinion, is Capriati's lack of titles. For somebody with three slams, you expect around 20 or more titles. 12 is just a paltry number for a world #1 and multi-slam champion. BUT...she did do much better at the slam than Belgians. And that is the chief barometer of success. And other than her indoor season, she really did have a banner year. Not title-winning, but she had a ton of success by going deep, deep, deep in draws. 17 events, QF at 14, SF at 9, F at 4, Winner at 1---the Australian?

She wasn't beating the Williams sisters in 2002, but she was coming the closest. And I do think this is a situation where the rankings reflect that. She ended the year at #3, and that's a fair representation of how she played during the year.

Joseosu19
Apr 21st, 2009, 09:17 PM
Two smartest matches I've ever seen:

Wimbledon final, 1994. Conchita infuriated Martina with her game play. She had such slow bace shots, hit these wicked slice returns and then DIDN'T follow them in, did a bizarre combination of lobbing and volleying, and gave Navratilova tons of trouble with shots she had never seen so many of before. Conchita frequently played like that, but this was a match where she actually DICTATED play using that style. Supremely underrated tactician, even if she lacked the skills to really be a multi-slam champion.

Australian Open final, 1988. Graf basically had a strategy that amounted to: Evert likes the rally from the baseline, but she's older and not as quick or endurance ready as I am. So she played Evert's game. But she played it without getting impatient. There are almost no instances I can think of where Evert is the one who blinked in a match and tried to go for too much, consistently. Graf illustrated perfectly why a power player can beat a medium pace player by playing that game. It was a terrific match to break down afterwards, and as an Evert fan I must say I'm proud that it took one of the greatest singles players of all time to force Evert out of her comfort zone.
That 94 match from Conchita was pretty amusing, as Martina getting infuriated is an understatement. Howver, while Conchita usually had pretty good tactics, I felt that she lacked a willingness (or maybe it was a lack of an ability) to abandon tactics and find another way to win when her original gameplan wasn't successful. She usually just seemed to say "Oh darn, this isn't working...oh well, maybe if she starts missing I'll come back."

Volcana
Apr 21st, 2009, 09:27 PM
It still takes intelligence to overcome a player who's your perfect foil. So for players like Venus, Seles, and Sharapova who ALL struggled against Hingis to overcome that -- are we to just assume more of their shots found the court on a given day? I don't think it's that simple.Three different cases.

Seles had to play the 'real' Hingis, and lost three out of every four times. She never did 'overcome that'.

Sharapova only ever played a lesser Hingis. 2006 Hingis wasn't nearly the athlete 2000 Hingis was. The brain was still there, but not the legs.

Venus played Hingis five times in 2000-2002. And won four of them. She did figure it out. Props to Hingis for the 2006 win, but both of them were past their athletic best then. In a way, Martina Hingis was the best thing to ever happen to Venus Williams. Hingis made Venus think. She couldn't just whack the ball. Hingis didn't walk onto the court scared. The transitional year was 1999, when the H2H was 3-3. Hingis dominated the matchup before that, Venus afterward.

Slutiana
Apr 21st, 2009, 10:14 PM
Three different cases.

Seles had to play the 'real' Hingis, and lost three out of ever four times. She never did 'overcome that'.

Sharapova only ever played a lesses Hingis. 2006 Hingis wasn't nearly the athlete 2000 Hingis was. The brain was still there, but not the legs.

Venus played Hingis five times in 2000-2002. And won four of them. She did figure it out. Props to Hingis for the 2006 win, but both of them were past their athletic best then. In a way, Martina Hingis was the best thing to ever happen to Venus Williams. Hingis made Venus think. She couldn't just whack the ball. Hingis didn't walk onto the court scared. The transitional year was 1999, when the H2H was 3-3. Hingis dominated the matchup before that, Venus afterward.
Agree 48393840984084309%. :bowdown:

bobbynorwich
Apr 21st, 2009, 10:18 PM
One of the smartest and most thrilling was the Seles-Hingis Year End Championship (Chase Championship in Madison Sq. Gdn) in 2000. It was amazing as Seles had 54 winners and 4 aces compared to Hingis' 49 and 5. They were both hitting amazing angles and penetrating groundstrokes, using all of the court.

Dropping the thrilling first set 6-7 (5), Hingis finally prevailed at 6-4, 6-4 in a 2 hour 20 minute match.

Link to a 30 minute highlight video: http://www.guba.com/watch/3000118917

andrewC
Apr 22nd, 2009, 01:19 AM
Yan Zi df. Ana Ivanovic, Canadian Open.

madlove
Apr 22nd, 2009, 04:20 AM
good thread though i can't really think of the smartest. too many.

faboozadoo15
Apr 22nd, 2009, 06:51 AM
Serena's 2001 US SF was also a VERY smart match. I'd say it was the best match she'd played before 2002.

:spit: You keep naming Serena's matches where she was so good she didn't even need strategy. Do you understand this thread at all?

faboozadoo15
Apr 22nd, 2009, 07:00 AM
Three different cases.

Seles had to play the 'real' Hingis, and lost three out of every four times. She never did 'overcome that'.

Sharapova only ever played a lesser Hingis. 2006 Hingis wasn't nearly the athlete 2000 Hingis was. The brain was still there, but not the legs.

Venus played Hingis five times in 2000-2002. And won four of them. She did figure it out. Props to Hingis for the 2006 win, but both of them were past their athletic best then. In a way, Martina Hingis was the best thing to ever happen to Venus Williams. Hingis made Venus think. She couldn't just whack the ball. Hingis didn't walk onto the court scared. The transitional year was 1999, when the H2H was 3-3. Hingis dominated the matchup before that, Venus afterward.

Hingis still has a winning head to head against Venus, so I guess Venus never overcame Hingis either. In fact, an out of shape, decade past her prime Seles was beating the same Hingis you're citing Venus as "overcoming" during the best 2-3 years of venus's career. Hingis beat Venus again in her comeback as well, just like she beat Sharapova. Sharapova at least has the excuse of never playing a player like Hingis. Venus had played her 20 or so times...

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2009, 07:10 AM
Hingis still has a winning head to head against Venus, so I guess Venus never overcame Hingis either.You know, I actually thought I addressed that point. Guess not. Let me be specificH2H [1997-1998] 6-2 Hingis

H2H [1999-1999] 3-3

H2H [2000-2002] 4-1 Venus

H2H [2006-2006] 1-1 (the declining years)
I'm really sorry I was less than sprecific before.

Does 'overcame' make more sense now?

faboozadoo15
Apr 22nd, 2009, 07:28 AM
We're just getting into semantics here. :haha: Venus, given all the chances in the world, still didn't overcome a Hingis who didn't have the legs (your words not mine). Hingis leads the head to head, winning their last match. What more is there?

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2009, 07:32 AM
:spit: You keep naming Serena's matches where she was so good she didn't even need strategy. Do you understand this thread at all?Without dissing any particular individual, there is literally no match of Serena's post RG 2002, where you can definitively argue she out-brained anybody. Maybe Henin 2005-2006, r Venus at Wimbledon. But even then, how do you know?



It's the curse of being the best. It's hard to get credit for out-smarting people when out-talent them. And yes, this even goes for 1997-9 Martina Hingis. HIngis walked on court laughing at top ten players in the late 90's. Cause they were beat before they walked on court. Look at hese facts. Monica Sees year end rankings.1995-1
1996-2
1997-5
1998-6
1999-6
2000-4
For a normal player, even a normal elite player, that's the heart of a career. Know wht Seles' H2H was in those years vs Hingis? 2-11.

Hingis could treat anybody like 'we could go get drink, scan boys and skip this match'. I won't even get into Evert, or Nav, or Graf.

There are/were very very, VERY few situations on a tennis court where Serena wasn't the better athlete, AND the more highly skilled player. And for most of her career, she was the more experienced player in big match situations. I'm sure being smarter is a factor in Serena's success. But look back at the 2005 OZ semi vs Sharapova.

Sharapova did EVERYTHING right. Except burn the house down and salt the earth. And the vampire got up and ripped her heart out. Must be nice to be stronger, faster, meaner, more skilled AND more competitve than everybody else. So forgive me if I don't automatically assume you're winning cause you're smarter.

Stupid vampires are hard to kill too.

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2009, 07:40 AM
We're just getting into semantics here. Venus, given all the chances in the world, still didn't overcome a Hingis who didn't have the legs (your words not mine). Hingis leads the head to head, winning their last match. What more is there?See, post immediately preceding this yours.

'What more is there?'

Hmmmmm ..... The head-to-head over their last seven matches could, conceivably, be instructive.

If you go from a losing H2H 2-6, to a winning H2H 5-2, (I included 2006, just for laughs) You figured something out. Now, the intellect necessary to see that, either you're born with, or you're not. I kinda figure most people on this board get that.

OZTENNIS
Apr 22nd, 2009, 07:55 AM
Graf vs. Hingis in 1999 French Open Final.

Both played a really smart match (well Hingis for maybe 1 and a half/2 sets). Glorious to watch. Slices, lobs, drop shots, volleys, down the line, crosscourt, sharp angles etc etc. This match had it all. And the way Hingis staved off the first match point with an underarm serve, :p :p :p

Hingis = Smartest Player of the Open Era
Any match she played 1997-1999 and some from 2000-2002 + her dismissal of Sharapova in Tokyo 06 are just :hearts:

faboozadoo15
Apr 22nd, 2009, 08:08 AM
See, post immediately preceding this yours.

'What more is there?'

Hmmmmm ..... The head-to-head over their last seven matches could, conceivably, be instructive.

If you go from a losing H2H 2-6, to a winning H2H 5-2, (I included 2006, just for laughs) You figured something out. Now, the intellect necessary to see that, either you're born with, or you're not. I kinda figure most people on this board get that.

Venus never overcame Hingis in their head to head and lost the last match against Hingis. These are facts. It doesn't even require the "intellect" you speak of, and I'm guessing, assume you have. 2+5=7. 6+2=8. 8>7.

Seles was 0-5 against Hingis in 96,97. Seles was 2-1 against Hingis in 98. Did she "overcome" Hingis then?

Seles also went 0-6 against Hingis in 99,00. Seles was 2-0 against Hingis in 2001. Did Seles "overcome" her again?

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2009, 08:30 AM
Venus never overcame Hingis in their head to head and lost the last match against Hingis. These are facts. It doesn't even require the "intellect" you speak of, and I'm guessing, assume you have. 2+5=7. 6+2=8. 8>7. Tell ya what. We can 'agree to disagree'. I am quite content to let the facts speak for themselves.1996-1998: H2H 6-2 Hingis

1999-1999: H2H 3-3

2000-2002: H2H 4-1 Venus

2003-2005: H2H 0-0 [Hingis gone from tour, VEnus suffering chronic injuries. they don't play each other for three plus years]

2006-2006 H2H 1-1
1996-2002 looks like the exact pattern you'd expect if somoone learned somthing critical. Lose a lot, learn, win a lot.

It would have been nice if that (totallly bogus) drug charge hadn't caught up with Hingis. But it is what it is. But pretending the overall H2H should be values, but the details of it not, is disengenous. At best.

Golovinjured.
Apr 22nd, 2009, 08:42 AM
Tell ya what. We can 'agree to disagree'. I am quite content to let the facts speak for themselves.
1996-1998: H2H 6-2 Hingis
1999-1999: H2H 3-3
2000-2002: H2H 4-1 Venus
2003-2005: H2H 0-0 [Hingis gone form tour, VEnus suffering chronic injuries. they don't play each other for three plus years}
2006-2006 H2H 1-1
1996-2002 looks like the exact pattern you'd expect if somoone learned somthing critical. Lose a lot, learn win a lot.

It would have been nice if that (totallly bogus) drug charge hadn't caught up with Hingis. But it is what iits. But pretending the overall H2H should be values, but the details of it not, is disengenous. At best.

Hingis only won 20% of their meetings between 00-02, but 50% in 06. So, by your logic, Hingis learned something and overcame Venus, just as overcame Hingis previously.

















































:weirdo: I used to like you.

Polikarpov
Apr 22nd, 2009, 08:43 AM
You know, I actually thought I addressed that point. Guess not. Let me be specific

H2H [1997-1998] 6-2 Hingis

H2H [1999-1999] 3-3

H2H [2000-2002] 4-1 Venus

H2H [2006-2006] 1-1 (the declining years)

I'm really sorry I was less than sprecific before.

Does 'overcame' make more sense now?

For me the year where Venus really figured Hingis out was in 2001. Yes Venus was 2-0 against Hingis in 2000, but those two matches were the Wimbledon QF, and US Open SF. I thought Hingis had a legitimate shot at winning either match, more so the latter one. In these matches, Venus just outplayed Hingis at the most crucial moments so I wouldn't say that Venus had "really figured out" Hingis in 2000.

Of course in my delusions, Hingis won that '00 US Open SF and '06 Warsaw R16. :lol:

OZTENNIS
Apr 22nd, 2009, 10:33 AM
^^
In 2001 even, Venus had no 'clear edge' over Martina.
Martina thrashed Williams 6-1 6-1 at the Australian Open semi finals before Venus edged her out 6-3 7-6(6) in the Miami semi finals.

OZTENNIS
Apr 22nd, 2009, 10:37 AM
Of the ten matches Venus won against Martina, seven went to three sets. It is interesting to note that whilst Venus scored her first win over Hingis in January 1998, it wasn't until October 1999 that she won a match in straight sets.

In contrast, of the 11 matches Martina won, only three went to 3 sets.

And in Grand Slam play, Hingis won 4 of the 6 times they played. The only two times she lost to Venus in Grand Slams were in three sets, and Martina was the only 'real' opposition to Venus claiming the title

Volcana
Apr 22nd, 2009, 02:06 PM
Hingis only won 20% of their meetings between 00-02, but 50% in 06. So, by your logic, Hingis learned something and overcame Venus, just as overcame Hingis previously.As I said, they were physically quite different players in '06. That is MY logical explanation for the 2006 record. However, if YOU want to make the argument that the 1-1 record means Hingis learned something, I'm fine with that. I have tremendous respect for Hingis as a tennis player.

OsloErik
Apr 22nd, 2009, 09:11 PM
That 94 match from Conchita was pretty amusing, as Martina getting infuriated is an understatement. Howver, while Conchita usually had pretty good tactics, I felt that she lacked a willingness (or maybe it was a lack of an ability) to abandon tactics and find another way to win when her original gameplan wasn't successful. She usually just seemed to say "Oh darn, this isn't working...oh well, maybe if she starts missing I'll come back."

Ability. She learned a lot of wacky things by being largely self taught for so long, but she didn't have the fundamental ability to do a whole lot differently.

I always am surprised that Conchita won Wimbledon rather than the French, but she had a game very much suited to the two extreme surfaces, particularly during the 90s when they really were extreme surfaces. She hit the ball so strangely that grass and clay accentuated the variety of her baseline shots in very different ways. And, most importantly, in ways that Martina Navratilova had never seen.

She was one of a kind, Martinez, and not always in a good way. Frequently it's what held her back. But that match really was a testament to what a wildly unconventional style of play can do even with a fairly limited skill set.

Slutiana
Apr 22nd, 2009, 11:15 PM
Hingis only won 20% of their meetings between 00-02, but 50% in 06. So, by your logic, Hingis learned something and overcame Venus, just as overcame Hingis previously.
.
Well they simply didnt play against each other enough in 06 for us to draw any real conclusions from the 1-1 record. Esp. considering the fact that it was on Venus' worst surface and she was only just coming back from injury with barely any match practice....

And I think that volcana is right anyway. Hingis in her prime dominated Venus, Venus in her prime dominated Hingis' h2h, the other times it was completely dead even...

But either way, the h2h doesnt change the fact that they are both great players in their own right...

Sally Todd
Apr 23rd, 2009, 01:09 AM
Andrea Paredes, vs. Slater.

Very quick and efficient. :D

LoveFifteen
Apr 23rd, 2009, 04:44 AM
:rolleyes: I've said many positive things about Hings throughout the 7 years I've been on this board. Few seem to notice that, but I could prove it if I had time. When people are all deluding themselves about her abilities in my eyes, then I'll make a point of exposing her flaws. It's fair.

Gurrrl, you trash Hingis's abilities every chance you get. Anyone who knows you recognizes this. You are deluding yourself!

P.S. Can you please change that tired avatar?

mboyle
Apr 23rd, 2009, 05:06 AM
Tell ya what. We can 'agree to disagree'. I am quite content to let the facts speak for themselves.1996-1998: H2H 6-2 Hingis

1999-1999: H2H 3-3

2000-2002: H2H 4-1 Venus

2003-2005: H2H 0-0 [Hingis gone from tour, VEnus suffering chronic injuries. they don't play each other for three plus years]

2006-2006 H2H 1-1
1996-2002 looks like the exact pattern you'd expect if somoone learned somthing critical. Lose a lot, learn, win a lot.

It would have been nice if that (totallly bogus) drug charge hadn't caught up with Hingis. But it is what it is. But pretending the overall H2H should be values, but the details of it not, is disengenous. At best.

Just stop trying. You are right. You know you are right. I know you are right. If people cannot get that, their loss. Don't lose any hairs over it!

tommyk75
Apr 23rd, 2009, 05:20 AM
When I saw the thread title, I instead thought, "Zina vs. Chrissie." At Chris Evert's farewell U.S. Open, Zina beat her either 7-5,6-2 or 7-6,6-2, with perfect, variety-filled tennis. Zina used her speed to track everything down, used different spins to keep Chris off balance and only went for winners when she had the clear opening. Chris feeds off of pace (as Monica Seles found out the previous match), and Zina refused to give her any. It was an excellent strategy all around (it also worked for Zina against Monica at Wimbledon some time later).

Steffica Greles
Apr 23rd, 2009, 07:12 PM
Gurrrl, you trash Hingis's abilities every chance you get. Anyone who knows you recognizes this. You are deluding yourself!

P.S. Can you please change that tired avatar?

I didn't account for dim people.

Steffica Greles
Apr 23rd, 2009, 07:16 PM
Venus was just a better player than Hingis. Full stop. She didn't have to play tactically, though, so I'm not sure why this has been brought up. She just had to play well. The fact Venus turned their head-to-head around and is still winning titles on the tour now bears that out.

Ryan
Apr 23rd, 2009, 07:32 PM
Venus was just a better player than Hingis. Full stop. She didn't have to play tactically, though, so I'm not sure why this has been brought up. She just had to play well. The fact Venus turned their head-to-head around and is still winning titles on the tour now bears that out.



Hingis beat Venus when Venus wasn't at her peak. Venus beat Hingis when Hingis wasn't at her peak. Hingis has one more win over Venus. I fail to see how "full stop", Venus is better.

AcesHigh
Apr 23rd, 2009, 07:41 PM
Venus was just a better player than Hingis. Full stop. She didn't have to play tactically, though, so I'm not sure why this has been brought up. She just had to play well. The fact Venus turned their head-to-head around and is still winning titles on the tour now bears that out.

Hingis beat Venus when Venus wasn't at her peak. Venus beat Hingis when Hingis wasn't at her peak. Hingis has one more win over Venus. I fail to see how "full stop", Venus is better.

I agree. If anything they're evenly matched with Hingis having unfortunate injuries that cut her career short.

Slutiana
Apr 23rd, 2009, 08:23 PM
I agree. If anything they're evenly matched with Hingis having unfortunate injuries that cut her career short.
Hmm, I dno about the injuries. Venus has had her fair share of injuries herself you know. I think back when she retired, part of it was certainly because the power game meant that so many people could get the better of her on a good day no matter how smart she was...
Obviously this drugs thing unfortunatly cut her career short.

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2009, 08:36 PM
Looking back, I would give a lot to have Martina Hingis not have those foot injuries. I still think Serena would have swamped the tour in 2002-3 as she did, and maybe Venus still makes four slam finals in a row. I'm less sure about that. But we went through a period where virtually every elite player slugged it out from the baseline, unless they got a clearcut advantage. Okay, that seems normal to most of you, but I learned tennis in the days of wooden rackets, and 'whoever gets to net first wins'.

If Hingis had been able to train enough to actually increase her footspeed, (and been willing, she reported hated roadwork) I think she'd have hung in as a top five player in those three years she missed. And cetainly pesented a vastly different problem than her opponents generally faced.

That's a lot of ifs, of course. Maybe she'd have faded away. But really good tennis minds are in relatively short supply these days. You can always get another power baseliner. (Not a Serena, but a top ten player anyway.)

AcesHigh
Apr 23rd, 2009, 08:48 PM
Hmm, I dno about the injuries. Venus has had her fair share of injuries herself you know. I think back when she retired, part of it was certainly because the power game meant that so many people could get the better of her on a good day no matter how smart she was...
Obviously this drugs thing unfortunatly cut her career short.

Eh, I dont know about that. The whole "hingis couldn't deal with power" thing is overblown. She dealt with it fine. She held her own and should have won that AO 2002 final.
However, when you have multiple surgeries on your ankles it's going to have a great effect especially for someone who relies so much on movement.

Venus for all her injuries, hasnt had anything as bad as Hingis IMO. I think Serena's knee is more comparable as it's something that's reoccuring and affected her movement which is something she relied on for much of her success.

moby
Jun 5th, 2010, 06:00 PM
Bump. New nominee.

Schiavone df. Stosur RG final 2010.

WTA's answer to Ashe-Connors?

Libertango
Jun 5th, 2010, 06:02 PM
Add to it, Schiavone v Wozniacki.

VivalaSeles
Jun 5th, 2010, 06:03 PM
Bump. New nominee.

Schiavone df. Stosur RG final 2010.
:yeah:

nevetssllim
Jun 5th, 2010, 06:09 PM
Add to it, Schiavone v Wozniacki.

Schiavone vs. Radwanska from the AO also springs to mind. Fran always shows the pushers how to play tennis. :yeah:

brickhousesupporter
Jun 5th, 2010, 06:10 PM
Bump. New nominee.

Schiavone df. Stosur RG final 2010.

WTA's answer to Ashe-Connors?

:yeah:

Volcana
Jun 5th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Bump. New nominee.

Schiavone df. Stosur RG final 2010.

WTA's answer to Ashe-Connors?Hat's off. That was smart tennis, and well executed. And notice, Schiavone literally used every single shot in the book, and did ALL of them well.

NOTE: I went back and checked. Statistically, that is to say offensively, Stosur played better against Henin than she did against Schiavone.

OsloErik
Jun 5th, 2010, 11:25 PM
Considering we saw Schiavone against nothing but athletic, return game minded, evenly-powered off both wings baseliners the whole tournament, the way she adjusted to beat Stosur was amazing. Fantastically played match from a very good tactician.

Slutiana
Jun 5th, 2010, 11:39 PM
:worship:

tennisbum79
Jun 5th, 2010, 11:47 PM
Considering we saw Schiavone against nothing but athletic, return game minded, evenly-powered off both wings baseliners the whole tournament, the way she adjusted to beat Stosur was amazing. Fantastically played match from a very good tactician.
That was indeed a fantastic coaching job and excellent player execution.

She even figured out how to win a tie-breaker against the best server in this RG.
Fran also won the net game against someone who has been known for double careers.

What I did not understand from Stosur is that she said in post-match interview that she did not expect Fran to play the same way she had been playing and losing against her in the past, yet she did not adjust to her game plan.

Slutiana
Jun 5th, 2010, 11:55 PM
That was indeed a fantastic coaching job and excellent player execution.

She even figured out how to win a tie-breaker against the best server in this RG.
Fran also won the net game against someone who has been known for double careers.

What I did not understand from Stosur is that she said in post-match interview that she did not expect Fran to play the same way she had been playing and losing against her in the past, yet she did not adjust to her game plan.
But what could she adjust? Her recent sucess has been down to her maximising her strengths in order to tuck away the countless holes in her game. When somebody like Schiavone comes and neutralizes Stosur's strengths in the way she did, what else could she do?

She did try to hit more flat serves and her first serve % dropped, she tried to hit more kick serves and Schiavone was dealing well with them (even if she didn't necessarily win the point), she tried to run around her backhand returns to start bullying the Schiavone serve and Schiavone first and second serve aced her numerous times, she came to the net and it was embarassing, she went through a period of slicing and it played into Schiavone's hands, she dropshotted a couple of times but Schiavone moved like a gazelle, she loaded balls onto Schiavone's backhand and it was met with knifed slices and acute angles, she loaded shots onto the Schiavone forehand and was being moved about at will, she went more for consistency and Schiavone dominated her.

Everything she did, she was either not good enough at or Schiavone had an answer for. As I said before, a complete tactical masterclass from Schiavone.

tennisbum79
Jun 6th, 2010, 12:01 AM
But what could she adjust? Her recent sucess has been down to her maximising her strengths in order to tuck away the countless holes in her game. When somebody like Schiavone comes and neutralizes Stosur's strengths in the way she did, what else could she do?
Well if Stosur was expecting Fran to change her game plan, she should have been prepared to counter it with her own adjustment.

Unless of course she is so confident in her own game (having beaten more accomplished players) that she did not think Fran's new approach would work againts her current game.

LeonHart
Jun 6th, 2010, 12:02 AM
Hingis vs. Schiavone 2001 RG

tennisbum79
Jun 6th, 2010, 12:06 AM
But what could she adjust? Her recent sucess has been down to her maximising her strengths in order to tuck away the countless holes in her game. When somebody like Schiavone comes and neutralizes Stosur's strengths in the way she did, what else could she do?

She did try to hit more flat serves and her first serve % dropped, she tried to hit more kick serves and Schiavone was dealing well with them (even if she didn't necessarily win the point), she tried to run around her backhand returns to start bullying the Schiavone serve and Schiavone first and second serve aced her numerous times, she came to the net and it was embarassing, she went through a period of slicing and it played into Schiavone's hands, she dropshotted a couple of times but Schiavone moved like a gazelle, she loaded balls onto Schiavone's backhand and it was met with knifed slices and acute angles, she loaded shots onto the Schiavone forehand and was being moved about at will, she went more for consistency and Schiavone dominated her.

Everything she did, she was either not good enough at or Schiavone had an answer for. As I said before, a complete tactical masterclass from Schiavone.
BTW, that was an excellent summary report of what happen in the strategy match-up
Thanks

Elisse
Jun 6th, 2010, 12:11 AM
But what could she adjust? Her recent sucess has been down to her maximising her strengths in order to tuck away the countless holes in her game. When somebody like Schiavone comes and neutralizes Stosur's strengths in the way she did, what else could she do?

She did try to hit more flat serves and her first serve % dropped, she tried to hit more kick serves and Schiavone was dealing well with them (even if she didn't necessarily win the point), she tried to run around her backhand returns to start bullying the Schiavone serve and Schiavone first and second serve aced her numerous times, she came to the net and it was embarassing, she went through a period of slicing and it played into Schiavone's hands, she dropshotted a couple of times but Schiavone moved like a gazelle, she loaded balls onto Schiavone's backhand and it was met with knifed slices and acute angles, she loaded shots onto the Schiavone forehand and was being moved about at will, she went more for consistency and Schiavone dominated her.

Everything she did, she was either not good enough at or Schiavone had an answer for. As I said before, a complete tactical masterclass from Schiavone.


Great post!! :worship:

I do think this was the smartest match ever played!! In Francesca's press conference the other day she said the winner would have to play intelligent tennis and that's exactly what she did today :hearts:

danieln1
Jun 6th, 2010, 01:41 AM
This was the greatest Roland Garros final since 99...

Indeed, Francesca was very, very smart today, she did play classic tennis, and very effective by the way... Maybe this will show her fellow players how to play the game of tennis

Slutati
Jun 6th, 2010, 01:59 AM
You people are so funny. :happy:

twight6
Jun 6th, 2010, 06:41 PM
It was just FRANtastic :hearts:

:tape: