TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Hingis of AO 2002 played best tennis of her career Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Jul 14th, 2005 03:59 PM
hingis-seles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Losing one service game to one of the best returners in history isn't a 'mini-choke'.
It isn't but if you look at the way Hingis won that final game and that final point, it was very telling. Monica smacked a winner on the baseline to save the first matchpoint. On the second matchpoint, Hingis spun a second serve in and Monica got a deep hit back which Hingis pushed back into play. Monica then hit her reply wide to which Hingis threw her hands in the air and screamed in relief. Melanie was on the verge of tears when that match ended. Martina very nearly lost that match. It could very well have been the choke we'd be discussing right now rather than the one in the final.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
I simply don't consider that a logical conclusion. I understand you arguements. I don't agree with some of them, But even if I did they don't support that conclusion. Your arguement, ultimately, is circular.

1) Hingis didn't win because she wasn't in her best form.
2) How do we know Hingis wasn't in her best form?
3) She didn't win.

Winning and losing isn't proof of her form.
Her form isn't the sole determinant of winning and losing.
I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to say, so I'll repeat myself, and try to be more clear(You'll have to excuse me; English is my second language. I apologize in advance for any mistakes I may make).

I have always believed Martina was in her best form during the 2001 Australian summer season (Hopman Cup, Sydney, Australian Open). As I mentioned earlier, she beat everyone (Lindsay, Serena [twice], Venus, Kim, Monica, Conchita) except Jennifer (who she led 5-0 in h2h at the time). She did everything right and then to lose the final like that; must have eaten away at her. Compare that to her 2002 Australian summer. She won Sydney again defeating Kim in the semis and Meghann Shaughnessy in the final. At the Australian Open, she beat Coetzer, Serra-Zanetti and Seles before the choke against Jennifer. I just don't see the Hingis of Australian summer 2001 losing to the Jennifer of Australian summer 2002.
Jul 14th, 2005 03:22 PM
Cybelle Darkholme

Sol Campbell and Martina Hingis.Unlikely as it sounds, big Sol is rumoured to be dating the former tennis queen. Having been introduced by Campbell's former Tottenham team-mate Ramon Vega at a charity function, the Arsenal and England defender was later seen 'talking intimately' to Hingis in a coffee bar. According to one tabloid, the pair have been on several dates. A friend is quoted as saying: 'It's early days, but Sol has really fallen for Martina. They are taking things slowly, but have become inseparable. They have really hit it off and have a lot in common.' Campbell is not the first sportsman that the Swiss miss has dated. She previously went out with Spanish golfer Sergio García.
Jul 14th, 2005 12:55 PM
Volcana
Quote:
Originally Posted by DA FOREHAND
All well and dandy but year after year of excessive tournament play def. lead to her demise...The same can be said for Kim and Justine, now both of them are scaling back thier commitments in favor of thier health.
Which years exactly did she play an 'excessive' amount? Or, go the other way. HOW MUCH is 'excessive'? 17 - 20 tournaments a year?!?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hingis-seles
However, if you note, Martina led that match 4-6, 6-1, 5-1 and had a mini-choke before recovering to win 4-6, 6-1, 6-4.
Losing one service game to one of the best returners in history isn't a 'mini-choke'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hingis-seles
At her best, considering who she played and their form at the 2002 AO, she would not have lost the tournament.
I simply don't consider that a logical conclusion. I understand you arguements. I don't agree with some of them, But even if I did they don't support that conclusion. Your arguement, ultimately, is circular.

1) Hingis didn't win because she wasn't in her best form.
2) How do we know Hingis wasn't in her best form?
3) She didn't win.

Winning and losing isn't proof of her form.
Her form isn't the sole determinant of winning and losing.
Jul 14th, 2005 11:51 AM
hingis-seles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
That's not a defensible position. Even all-time great players (which Hingis isn't, but my 'all-time great list' only has eight female players) playing their very best DO lose matches.

Andre Agassi played a near perfect match vs Pete Sampras in the 2001 US Open QFs. And lost 6-7, 7-6 7-6 7-6.

I saw Agassi play Federer once where Agassi literally did not make a mistake. Not ONE. And he lost in straight sets.

I'm sure Gunther Parche Calimero377 would be more than happy to recount the 1992 French Open final for you.
Hingis isn't an all-time great on my list either. I agree that the very best DO lose matches playing their best. However, this wasn't one of those situations. Firstly, Hingis was not playing her best nor was she facing a field of players who were playing their best or anywhere close to it. Jennifer struggled to put away Eleni Danillidou and Rita Grande in the early rounds and was simply not playing at the level she had been in 2001. Martina played well, but again her form was also not close to what it had been in 2001. She struggled mightily to defeat Kim Clijsters in Sydney and then took advantage of a weakened bottom half (thanks to Serena's withdrawl and Venus' loss) to advance to the finals. 6-2, 6-3 over Serra-Zanetti in the quarterfinals of a GS?! That was a sloppy match from her. Monica was playing mighty well and pushed Martina to the brink; unforunately, Monica couldn't sustain her level of sustained aggression and it was her errors that gave way, as well as some improved serving from Hingis in that match. However, if you note, Martina led that match 4-6, 6-1, 5-1 and had a mini-choke before recovering to win 4-6, 6-1, 6-4. My point was not that Hingis would never have lost a match while playing her best, but that despite not playing her best, she was one point from the title 4 times. At her best, considering who she played and their form at the 2002 AO, she would not have lost the tournament.
Jul 14th, 2005 11:36 AM
DA FOREHAND
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
FOREHAND - I know that's conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it ever held up. And it certainly doesn't hold up as far as 2000 is concerned. Hingis played 19 tournaments + the Tour Championships in 2000. Far below the tour average for tournaments played. Here's her schedule for 2000.

T2 SYDNEY
GS AUSTRALIAN OPEN
T1 PAN PACIFIC


T2 SCOTTSDALE
T1 INDIAN WELLS
T1 MIAMI


T2 HAMBURG
T1 BERLIN
GS FRENCH OPEN


T3 'S-HERTOGENBOSCH
GS WIMBLEDON


T2 SAN DIEGO
T2 LOS ANGELES
T1 TORONTO
GS US OPEN


T2 FILDERSTADT
T1 ZURICH
T1 MOSCOW
T2 PHILADELPHIA
TC CHASE CHAMPIONSHIPS

Where's she playing, 'just to hold up her ranking'? 's Hertogenbosch instead of Eastbourne?

Now look at the current top twenty, and how many tournament they play in twelve months. (The players in red have missed significant chunks of the year with injuries.)

08 HENIN-HARDENNE
09 CLIJSTERS
13 WILLIAMS, S
16 MOLIK
16 WILLIAMS, V
16 IVANOVIC
17 BOVINA
17 DAVENPORT
19 MAURESMO
19 PIERCE
20 SHARAPOVA
20 KUZNETSOVA
21 DEMENTIEVA
22 MYSKINA
23 SCHNYDER
23 LIKHOVTSEVA
25 ZVONAREVA
26 DECHY
27 PETROVA
29 JANKOVIC

Hingis never played an excessive number of tournaments.

1997 - 17
1998 - 18
1999 - 20
2000 - 20
2001 - 18* (Scheduled 20. Missed a tournament and no TC)
2002 - 12* (Scheduled 19. Missed Rome, RG, WB and 2 Californias with injury)





All well and dandy but year after year of excessive tournament play def. lead to her demise...The same can be said for Kim and Justine, now both of them are scaling back thier commitments in favor of thier health.
Jul 13th, 2005 07:29 PM
Timariot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Since you're referring to losing to ASV, you mean OZ '01 (she beat ASV three times in '02). My ONE PIECE of evidence is the OZ '02 final. She played wonderfully. Jenn was better. Or try her semi vs Monica that same tournament.
We were talking about 01, not 02. Please try to get at least to correct year.

But yeah, I agree that Hingis played quite well in those first 2-3 tournaments of 2002. But you know why people still talk about Hingis playing well there? Because it was such a stark contrast how she played in 2001. Elite players sometimes play good matches even when they're not at their prime anymore. Are you seriously trying to claim that Sampras was on his prime on 2001-2002, just because he won US Open '02?

Seriously, did you WATCH any Hingis match in 2001, post Pan Pacific? She was losing matches left and right, to players she used to easily beat or at minimum, match well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
If you think she played crappy tennis either of those matches, then you do. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, we just disagree. She ran into Capriati in the best condition of Capriati's life.

If you want to argue that Hingis at her best couldn't possibly lose to Capriati at her best, go ahead. But that's a hard target.
Neither Hingis or Capriati were at their best at that tournament. Hingis, whilst in good form, was already past her prime, slow on foot and mentally fragile. Capriati played much better previous year; 2002 she was defending champion, and Capriati always plays badly when exceptions mount on. Capriati played terribly in that final until she had almost no hope but she was saved by outrageous choking by Hingis.

Capriati, once she got in shape, was difficult opponent for Hingis, because she could run down most Hingis' shots, and her defensive drives are deep and consistent, unlike most other power players who are inconsistent.
Jul 13th, 2005 07:14 PM
G1Player2 ^lol
Jul 13th, 2005 04:03 PM
Volcana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timariot
I'd really like to see ONE PIECE of evidence which supposedly supports your claim that Hingis was at her prime post-AO. She lost to ASV in straight sets, to friggin ASV who she had beat 15 straight times, not losing a set last 9 times. And not only just that, but player who won 9 titles previous year failed to win any (heck, only once managing to make past semifinals) after February?
Since you're referring to losing to ASV, you mean OZ '01 (she beat ASV three times in '02). My ONE PIECE of evidence is the OZ '02 final. She played wonderfully. Jenn was better. Or try her semi vs Monica that same tournament. If you think she played crappy tennis either of those matches, then you do. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, we just disagree. She ran into Capriati in the best condition of Capriati's life.

If you want to argue that Hingis at her best couldn't possibly lose to Capriati at her best, go ahead. But that's a hard target.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hingis-seles
Hingis at her best would never lose the title.
That's not a defensible position. Even all-time great players (which Hingis isn't, but my 'all-time great list' only has eight female players) playing their very best DO lose matches.

Andre Agassi played a near perfect match vs Pete Sampras in the 2001 US Open QFs. And lost 6-7, 7-6 7-6 7-6.

I saw Agassi play Federer once where Agassi literally did not make a mistake. Not ONE. And he lost in straight sets.

I'm sure Gunther Parche Calimero377 would be more than happy to recount the 1992 French Open final for you.
Jul 13th, 2005 03:58 PM
Volcana
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyP
Hingis won 9 titles in 2000, the most of any player on tour. She won 20 more matches than any player on tour. She finished the year ranked number one. Its hard to make a case that the tour was passing her by
Quote:
Originally Posted by DA FOREHAND
She played so many tournaments just to hold onto her #1 ranking, although she was clearly no longer the best player on tour. That excessive playing caught up to her in the form of injuries and burnout
FOREHAND - I know that's conventional wisdom, but I'm not sure it ever held up. And it certainly doesn't hold up as far as 2000 is concerned. Hingis played 19 tournaments + the Tour Championships in 2000. Far below the tour average for tournaments played. Here's her schedule for 2000.

T2 SYDNEY
GS AUSTRALIAN OPEN
T1 PAN PACIFIC


T2 SCOTTSDALE
T1 INDIAN WELLS
T1 MIAMI


T2 HAMBURG
T1 BERLIN
GS FRENCH OPEN


T3 'S-HERTOGENBOSCH
GS WIMBLEDON


T2 SAN DIEGO
T2 LOS ANGELES
T1 TORONTO
GS US OPEN


T2 FILDERSTADT
T1 ZURICH
T1 MOSCOW
T2 PHILADELPHIA
TC CHASE CHAMPIONSHIPS

Where's she playing, 'just to hold up her ranking'? 's Hertogenbosch instead of Eastbourne?

Now look at the current top twenty, and how many tournament they play in twelve months. (The players in red have missed significant chunks of the year with injuries.)

08 HENIN-HARDENNE
09 CLIJSTERS
13 WILLIAMS, S
16 MOLIK
16 WILLIAMS, V
16 IVANOVIC
17 BOVINA
17 DAVENPORT
19 MAURESMO
19 PIERCE
20 SHARAPOVA
20 KUZNETSOVA
21 DEMENTIEVA
22 MYSKINA
23 SCHNYDER
23 LIKHOVTSEVA
25 ZVONAREVA
26 DECHY
27 PETROVA
29 JANKOVIC

Hingis never played an excessive number of tournaments.

1997 - 17
1998 - 18
1999 - 20
2000 - 20
2001 - 18* (Scheduled 20. Missed a tournament and no TC)
2002 - 12* (Scheduled 19. Missed Rome, RG, WB and 2 Californias with injury)




Jul 13th, 2005 03:51 PM
Timariot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
I think we've arrived at an impasse. The available evidence can support one conclusion or the other.
I'd really like to see ONE PIECE of evidence which supposedly supports your claim that Hingis was at her prime post-AO. She lost to ASV in straight sets, to friggin ASV who she had beat 15 straight times, not losing a set last 9 times. And not only just that, but player who won 9 titles previous year failed to win any (heck, only once managing to make past semifinals) after February?
Jul 13th, 2005 03:42 PM
hingis-seles Martina was never the same great player after the 2001 Australian Open. Up until then, she was right there with the rest of the top girls, trading blows with them. Let's not forget, she embarassed Venus Williams 6-1, 6-1 at a time when Venus was the reigning Wimbledon and US Open champion and had won her last 19 GS singles matches.

Everyone forgets how gruelling and near-perfect Hingis' 2001 Australian summer was. She won the Hopman Cup for Switzerland with Roger Federer, then won Sydney the next week defeating Kim Clijsters, Serena Williams, Conchita Martinez and Lindsay Davenport in succession (only dropping a set to Davenport). She also entered the doubles event with Seles, defeating Williams/Williams and Morariu/Davenport (who would contest the AO final in 2 weeks). After that came the two weeks in Melbourne. She defeated the House of Williams before falling to JenPot. Made it to the doubles semis with Monica as well, before stumbling against the House of Williams. That's a lot of tennis for just one month. She reaches the Tokyo final the next week, losing to Lindsay. She wins Dubai and Doha over Testud and Tauziat level competition. After that, she goes title-less.

Yes, she played well in 2002 at the Australian Open, but it's a far cry from her best tennis. At the 2002 Australian Open, she played scrubs in her first five matches before putting away Monica (a brilliantly played match from her; despite a scare in the third set from 5-1 to 5-4) and then losing to Jen. Hingis at her best would never lose the title.
Jul 13th, 2005 02:56 PM
DA FOREHAND
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyP
Hingis won 9 titles in 2000, the most of any player on tour. She won 20 more matches than any player on tour. She finished the year ranked number one. Its hard to make a case that the tour was passing her by

She played so many tournaments just to hold onto her #1 ranking, although she was clearly no longer the best player on tour. That excessive playing caught up to her in the form of injuries and burnout

It's too bad because although she didn't win anymore slams she more than proved herself capable of beating the big guns when rested and fit.
Jul 12th, 2005 04:56 AM
TonyP Hingis won 9 titles in 2000, the most of any player on tour. She won 20 more matches than any player on tour. She finished the year ranked number one. Its hard to make a case that the tour was passing her by
Jul 12th, 2005 04:37 AM
Volcana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie.
So Dokic's level hasn't gone down since 01-2002?

I'd like to know how you work out which is a loss of form and which is 'the tour figuring someone out'

Were Venus' bad results in the past 18 months, because 'the tour had figured her out'? If so, what was she doing DIFFERENTLY than she was when she dominating in 2000-2003 at Wimbledon '05 that put her on top of the world again?

I think you are drawing a long bow. When a player's results drop off DRASTICALLY in a short space of time you can pretty safely assume that they are slumping. Despite all the rhetoric, the tour just doesn't move on THAT quickly. On the other hand when a player's results gradually fall off as Hingis' did from 1997 to 2000, the logical conclusion is that the tour - or more correctly 2,3 or 4 players - gradually caught up to them. It's the same with your Venus example. One player figured her out in 2002. The rest of the tour didn't. However when she was losing a lot of matches over the last 18 months to player's not in her league it was clear that her form was slumping.
I think we've arrived at an impasse. The available evidence can support one conclusion or the other. So far, I'm not persuaded by your arguements, you're not persuaded by mine.

I'd like to read what Hingis herself has to say on the subject, truthfully.
Jul 12th, 2005 03:58 AM
Robbie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana

Well, no. Players do go from great success to inexplicable failure very quickly.

See hantuchova and Dokic.

Dokic's actually a pretty good example. Her game didn't change for the one that brought her to #4 in the world. But once the tour figured her out, she dropped quickly.
So Dokic's level hasn't gone down since 01-2002?

I'd like to know how you work out which is a loss of form and which is 'the tour figuring someone out'

Were Venus' bad results in the past 18 months, because 'the tour had figured her out'? If so, what was she doing DIFFERENTLY than she was when she dominating in 2000-2003 at Wimbledon '05 that put her on top of the world again?

I think you are drawing a long bow. When a player's results drop off DRASTICALLY in a short space of time you can pretty safely assume that they are slumping. Despite all the rhetoric, the tour just doesn't move on THAT quickly. On the other hand when a player's results gradually fall off as Hingis' did from 1997 to 2000, the logical conclusion is that the tour - or more correctly 2,3 or 4 players - gradually caught up to them. It's the same with your Venus example. One player figured her out in 2002. The rest of the tour didn't. However when she was losing a lot of matches over the last 18 months to player's not in her league it was clear that her form was slumping.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome