PDA

View Full Version : Hingis' 1997 Wimby v. Williams' 2002 FO : Which title was a greater fluke?


JJ all the way
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:16 PM
Both were dominant in their respective years, but both won majors on surfaces that they are generally considered weak in. Which player's title win was more of a surprise: Hingis on Wimbledon grass or Serena on French clay?

Vuvurenka
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:18 PM
Both were not flukes. Just like any other slams they won, both Hingis and Serena beat 7 opponents to win.

fufuqifuqishahah
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:18 PM
neither was a fluke.

killerqueen
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:19 PM
Neither were flukes. Both were completely dominant at that point in their careers almost eliminating the surface disadvantage.

Hurley
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:20 PM
Another vote for "neither," and an opening vote for lock/delete/ban.

Miss Amor
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:20 PM
Why don't you concentrate on your flop fave instead? She can't even fluke her way to a victory nowadays, let alone a slam.

ptkten
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:21 PM
Neither were flukes. Hingis was so far above the field in '97 and in '02 Serena was clearly the best player in the world on clay, she lost 7-6 in the third in the finals of Berlin and won Rome beating Henin in the finals.

Thiudans
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:36 PM
A fluke isn't the same as a surprise. Bad title.

LightWarrior
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:39 PM
Serena's FO win was certainly not a fluke. However Hingis was lucky in the Wimbly final that Novotna got injured in the 2nd set.

dsanders06
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:41 PM
It's hard to describe either as "flukes" exactly, considering both players were in such good form generally in those seasons that they were able to temporarily overcome their deficiencies on grass and clay respectively.

But if you're asking which is the least impressive, Serena's by a hair. She didn't really beat a single stellar claycourter en route to that title (maybe Pierce at a push, although she was in a deep slump at that time), whereas Hingis atleast beat one of the 90s' best grasscourters in her Wimbledon final.

casholic
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:43 PM
Conchita Martinez's Wimbly

Mynarco
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:45 PM
No slam is a fluke

Matt01
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:48 PM
But if you're asking which is the least impressive, Serena's by a hair. She didn't really beat a single stellar claycourter en route to that title (maybe Pierce at a push, although she was in a deep slump at that time), whereas Hingis atleast beat one of the 90s' best grasscourters in her Wimbledon final.


Capriati is good enough for me, she won the Olympics on clay :shrug:


Conchita Martinez's Wimbly


Absolutely not. Conchita was a very good grass court player.

BlueTrees
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:52 PM
Jankovic's Slam was the biggest fluke. Oh wait...:oh:

shoparound
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:53 PM
Neither were flukes.
Some slams won in the recent years by other players are more of a fluke.

it-girl
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:10 PM
Neither were flukes. Both were completely dominant at that point in their careers almost eliminating the surface disadvantage.Could not agree more.

KBdoubleu
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:19 PM
It's hard to describe either as "flukes" exactly, considering both players were in such good form generally in those seasons that they were able to temporarily overcome their deficiencies on grass and clay respectively.

But if you're asking which is the least impressive, Serena's by a hair. She didn't really beat a single stellar claycourter en route to that title (maybe Pierce at a push, although she was in a deep slump at that time), whereas Hingis atleast beat one of the 90s' best grasscourters in her Wimbledon final.

Neither was a "fluke" but can't see how anyone in their right mind would claim that Hingis' win at Wimbledon was more impressive than Serena's at the FO. Hingis faced one top ten player in the entire tournament in the finals (who is also one of the games most famed chokers). Serena beat the previous two FO champions in Capriati (then ranked number one in the world) and Pierce, and number 2 in the world Venus.

Galang
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:22 PM
Marbella '09

Apoleb
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:24 PM
Hingis.

1999 onwards, Hingis wouldn't have a 0.034% chance of winning Wimbledon. And she still failed to hold the title in 1998 with the meager competition on the surface at the time.

In 2002/2003, Serena was very competitive with the best clay courter of her generation.

RenaSlam.
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:34 PM
Neither.

Stonerpova
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:37 PM
I hate the word "fluke." Hate it, hate it, hate it.

LCS
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:37 PM
OP just showing his lack of tennis knowledge. Noobs.

LoveFifteen
Mar 26th, 2012, 07:59 PM
Fluke?! :unsure:

Oh, gurl, yo fave could nevah!!! :hysteric:

John.
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:06 PM
Neither

JJ all the way
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:11 PM
To all those who don't like the word "fluke" - my bad, I would change it if I knew how to just to please y'll. But it doesnt change the fact that those slam wins were in my definition "flukes":

Hingis won Wimbledon on grass where she is considered weak; she never made it to another final and lost 1R twice. She won Wimbledon against an aging and ailing Novotna, never had to play a dominant Graf or Williams in that 1997 tourny. Hingis, although great at net, never really had the game for grass but yet still won it in a weak year. THAT IS FLUKE. Doesnt mean she is not a great player and does not take away from her successful 1997 or illustrious career. It just means that she was lucky to win Wimbledon that year because she never came close again.

Serena won FO on clay where she is considered weak. Again never made it to another final (or even a SF i believe). She never had to face a donminant Henin in 2002. Serena's game, although a great mover, is power based and her power advantage is slightly absorbed by the clay. She still won the FO in that year. THAT IS A FLUKE. Does not mean Serena is not an all time great, and does not take away from her success either. But she was so lucky to win that FO in 2002 because she never has backed that title up.

This is my definition of fluke/surprise/lucky - whatever you call it, if you disagree feel free to voice your opinion, that is why i have opened this thread up.....



Jankovic's Slam was the biggest fluke. Oh wait...:oh:

JJ sucks now, I get it and we JJ fans are grieving. Doesn't help that arch nemisis Anci is overtaking her either. But that was SO low ...... it's like i havent even pulled the bandaid yet. :sad:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lotx1t8z8X1qzlezj.gif

Marbella '09

Marbella was a total fluke for JJ....... :p


OP just showing his lack of tennis knowledge. Noobs.

On the outside, I am like :
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll36/Bigsteve87/Gifs/whatever.gif

On the inside, I want to:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0jwy0yJWl1r82nsi.gif

John.
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:17 PM
To all those who don't like the word "fluke" - my bad, I would change it if I knew how to just to please y'll. But it doesnt change the fact that those slam wins were in my definition "flukes":

Hingis won Wimbledon on grass where she is considered weak; she never made it to another final and lost 1R twice. She won Wimbledon against an aging and ailing Novotna, never had to play a dominant Graf or Williams in that 1997 tourny. Hingis, although great at net, never really had the game for grass but yet still won it in a weak year. THAT IS FLUKE. Doesnt mean she is not a great player and does not take away from her successful 1997 or illustrious career. It just means that she was lucky to win Wimbledon that year because she never came close again.

Serena won FO on clay where she is considered weak. Again never made it to another final (or even a SF i believe). She never had to face a donminant Henin in 2002. Serena's game, although a great mover, is power based and her power advantage is slightly absorbed by the clay. She still won the FO in that year. THAT IS A FLUKE. Does not mean Serena is not an all time great, and does not take away from her success either. But she was so lucky to win that FO in 2002 because she never has backed that title up.

This is my definition of fluke/surprise/lucky - whatever you call it, if you disagree feel free to voice your opinion, that is why i have opened this thread up.....







Serena's is the least flukey of both (although as I already said I don't think either were)

Serena's RG record is very solid for someone not classed a great clay courter.

1998 - Lost to eventual champ ASV at her first RG in 3 sets
2001 - Lost to eventual champ Capriati in 3 sets in the QF
2003 - Lost to eventual champ Henin (7-5 in the 3rd) in the SF
2004 - Lost to Capriati in 3 sets in the QF
2007 - Lost to eventual champ Henin in 2 sets in the QF
2009 - Lost to eventual champ Kuznetsova (7-5 in the 3rd) in the QF
2010 - Lost to Stosur (8-6 in the 3rd and had a MP) in the QF

1999 and 2008 are her only really bad losses at RG.

LoveFifteen
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:18 PM
Fluke is a loaded word. It means they didn't deserve to win. It denigrates their accomplishment. These are women who trained their whole lives and are supremely talented. They earned their victories, and there's no need for us, who have never accomplished much, to make ourselves feel better by belittling these Slam victories.

metamorpha
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:20 PM
I don't know which one is greater. But if it's... fluke according to our perception then we might as well say that all those slams that Graf won during Seles absence in 1993-1995 as "fluke" too. :lol: :haha:

JJ all the way
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:23 PM
Fluke is a loaded word. It means they didn't deserve to win. It denigrates their accomplishment. These are women who trained their whole lives and are supremely talented. They earned their victories, and there's no need for us, who have never accomplished much, to make ourselves feel better by belittling these Slam victories.

You are being so super sensitive. No one said that their accomplishments were tainted or that they are untalented. They are great players. But those respective slams that they won, they were lucky to have won it when they did. That is what I mean by fluke.....

and speak for yourself, I have accomplished alot in my life - my ass is my witness :devil:

Apoleb
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:24 PM
Fluke is a loaded word. It means they didn't deserve to win. It denigrates their accomplishment. These are women who trained their whole lives and are supremely talented. They earned their victories, and there's no need for us, who have never accomplished much, to make ourselves feel better by belittling these Slam victories.

:spit:

HRHoliviasmith
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:26 PM
Why don't you concentrate on your flop fave instead? She can't even fluke her way to a victory nowadays, let alone a slam.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

KBdoubleu
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:27 PM
Serena won FO on clay where she is considered weak. Again never made it to another final (or even a SF i believe). She never had to face a donminant Henin in 2002. Serena's game, although a great mover, is power based and her power advantage is slightly absorbed by the clay. She still won the FO in that year. THAT IS A FLUKE. Does not mean Serena is not an all time great, and does not take away from her success either. But she was so lucky to win that FO in 2002 because she never has backed that title up.


First of all, she did reach another SF at the FO (the hand incident) - and could easily have two more (but Kuznetsova and Stosur played two of the best matches in their respective careers to barel eek by her). Secondly, she had just beaten Henin in straight sets in the final of Rome just before the French Open. It is not her fault that Henin lost in the first round to Aniko Kapros.

JJ all the way
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:34 PM
First of all, she did reach another SF at the FO (the hand incident) - and could easily have two more (but Kuznetsova and Stosur played two of the best matches in their respective careers to barel eek by her). Secondly, she had just beaten Henin in straight sets in the final of Rome just before the French Open. It is not her fault that Henin lost in the first round to Aniko Kapros.
How could I forget. Still, Henin had not won a slam yet - not yet peak Henin.......

Alejandrawrrr
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:41 PM
Serena's form in 2002-2003 was good enough that even on her worst surface it took a prime Henin on clay to end her streak, and in a tight three setter to boot. And for the record in 2002 they met twice, Henin eeking out a 3 sets win in the final of Berlin, and Serena winning in a relatively tight 2 setter in the final of Rome. There was no one on tour who would have been favored to stop her from winning that RG. Unofrtunately after her knee surgery her game on clay has regressed obviously(her game in general,) but even then she's had legitimate shots at a RG title in 03, 09, 10, possibly even 04(though Venus and Jen are the two who should still be kicking themselves MUCH harder for losing here.) Can't really say the same for Hingis.

Alejandrawrrr
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:44 PM
How could I forget. Still, Henin had not won a slam yet - not yet peak Henin.......




Good one

:confused: How does this make sense? So it wasn't peak Henin until the coming saturday in which she lifted the RG trophy, then she became peak Henin? A pleyer who hasn't won a slam has never had a peak? Having a slam vs not having a slam means nothing. 03-07 Henin is prime Henin(with a chunk of that 04-05 missing due to illness.)

sweetadri06
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:47 PM
neither. Both beat great players to win their respective slams.

JJ all the way
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:54 PM
:confused: How does this make sense? So it wasn't peak Henin until the coming saturday in which she lifted the RG trophy, then she became peak Henin? A pleyer who hasn't won a slam has never had a peak? Having a slam vs not having a slam means nothing. 03-07 Henin is prime Henin(with a chunk of that 04-05 missing due to illness.)

No I was saying that when Serena played Henin in at those pre-FO tournys in 2002, they don't really count because Henin was not at her peak. Henin's dominance on clay started in 03 (where she beat Serena). I am saying that Serena could not dominate after 02 because peak Henin emerged in 03.

The Witch-king
Mar 26th, 2012, 09:04 PM
I thought this thread was comparing Venus's run to the 2002 final with Hingis's wimbledon :lol:

sweetadri06
Mar 26th, 2012, 09:13 PM
No I was saying that when Serena played Henin in at those pre-FO tournys in 2002, they don't really count because Henin was not at her peak. Henin's dominance on clay started in 03 (where she beat Serena). I am saying that Serena could not dominate after 02 because peak Henin emerged in 03.

I wouldn't say Justine dominated in 03. That SF match could have gone either way, we could be saying two-time RG champion instead of one. The point is it wasn't a fluke win.

Macomere
Mar 26th, 2012, 09:15 PM
Jankovic's Slam was the biggest fluke. Oh wait...:oh:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1h4nbGBdS1r3in9w.gif

:haha: oh snap..

The Dawntreader
Mar 26th, 2012, 09:21 PM
Nothing flukey about either. Serena especially had momentum going into RG, playing herself into form, beating two other contenders Capriati and Henin in Rome.

And Hingis was simply the best player on nearly every surface in 97.

Alizé Molik
Mar 26th, 2012, 09:39 PM
Nothing flukey about either. Serena especially had momentum going into RG, playing herself into form, beating two other contenders Capriati and Henin in Rome.

And Hingis was simply the best player on nearly every surface in 97.

This is exactly right. I compare a little to Nadal breaking through and winning Wimbledon, both ladies in those respective years were head and shoulders above the rest of the tour and as such, even on their (supposed) worst surfaces they were good enough to win the slam.