[StoneRose]

She was the most exciting player ever.

[bandabou]

Originally Posted by Martian Jeza

Better physique and body you mean : but after all most of them were average at tactical side, technical side and grace on court ! If you want to see truck drivers to dominate the whole thing, your choice ! I'd rather see Ferrari's

Names?!

[Petronius]

14 pages in a single day for a retired player ?

Martina's still relevant as hell

[StoneRose]

Originally Posted by Petronius

14 pages in a single day for a retired player ?

Martina's still relevant as hell

Indeed .

[Geisha]

She reached the SF or better in 19 of 22 GS from US Open '96 to Australian Open '02, and the ones she didn't reach the SF were at Wimbledon. Six straight SF or better at the US Open, five at the French Open, and six straight Australian Open finals. Just looking at Wikipedia statistics - it seems like she won every important tournament at least once, except for Wimbledon. She has a Grand Slam in doubles ('98); she won five straight GS doubles titles.

I think the six best years of her career (1997-2002) are among the greatest six years in the Open Era, really. Not the best, but really high up there. Supreme consistency. Sure, she struggled in the Majors near the end, but her first year not winning at least one (2000), and she won nine titles, including the YEC and won almost 80 matches.

Not overrated, at all. I think people think of her as being a great player, which she was.

[Timariot]

Originally Posted by Olórin

Serena played a full schedule until her knee injury in 2003 and was number one for the most of the time she was winnign slams. Very weak snipe.

"Full schedule" is generally understood playing same (or roughly same) amount of tournaments as required by ranking system. By that, only year she ever played "full schedule" was 2009, with 16 tournaments and 62 matches.

[Timariot]

Originally Posted by RVD

Okaaaay...
However, none of this changes the fact that Venus won 3 out of of 4 of their last 4 matches.
Also, given the fact that Venus was playing with an injured left wrist most of 2006, I would imagine it wouldn't be all that difficult for Hingis to win.

Fair enough, so Hingis played with injured feet with most of the 2001-2002 (resulting to Tacchini lawsuit), not that hard for others to win then, is it?

Originally Posted by RVD

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously comparing Venus' serve to Hingis?
And also, do you not realize that you contradicted yourself concerning Hingis' 1st serve in your previous post?
You stated that she had a 70% 1st serve record, yet you also go on to say that she no longer took any chances with it

True. Those statements are not contradictory at all. Taking power off from your shots or serve does NOT necessarily lead to improved reliability. Anyone who has ever played tennis understands this, but it is hard to actually implement if you have lost confidence in your shots. It's same thing what happened to her forehand.

Martina's best first serves were at 170km/h+ at her peak, late 2001 they had dropped to 130km/h.

Originally Posted by RVD

The other reason is that she just could not handle the pace and depth of the base-line players.
Why is this so hard to understand? And why is this even now an argument?

Honestly, reading these posts it sometimes baffles me how Hingis ever won any matches at all. She apparently couldn't serve, couldn't move, couldn't hit groundstrokes...

Man, she must have been luckiest player alive to achieve winning or even record against most of the prominent baseliners of her time.

Originally Posted by RVD

Come on now...
Okay, never-mind.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this last line of logic.

Here's bit of logic for you: when you have 1000 point lead over your closest competitor, how does it help your ranking to play a tournament which gives you 250 points if you win it? That's right.

[TeraByte]

She's not overrated. She won much, and still she didn't fulfill her whole potential.

[hingisGOAT]

Originally Posted by Olórin

When has Martina ever hit a second serve ace in her entire career? Venus has done that to save break points from time to time.

Ok you have definitely made it clear that you never watched many (if any) of Hingis' matches. She did this numerous times vs. Davenport at Swisscom 2000 and the Acura 1998 tournaments off the top of my head. Hingis would occassionally really go for her second serve, or even serve-and-volley on it, as a surprise tactic.

[hingisGOAT]

Also I love how it always seems to matter what form her opponents were in, peak, not at their peak, etc.

But never for Hingis! As if her form, fitness, and general level of play NEVER changed! Lol. I wish that were the case.

There was a CLEAR drop-off after losing the 2001 AO final to Capriati, she was beating EVERYONE most of the time before then, had a horrible record after that. The whole tour didn't magically improve in one weeks time; Hingis' own level declined. I guess we can just write off all her losses after that, just like WS fans write off all their early losses to Martina. In that case Hingis is what, 10-7 against Venus and 6-4 against Serena? So we should only count those matches I guess, that's her real record

[Smitten]

Originally Posted by hingisGOAT

Also I love how it always seems to matter what form her opponents were in, peak, not at their peak, etc.

But never for Hingis! As if her form, fitness, and general level of play NEVER changed! Lol. I wish that were the case.

There was a CLEAR drop-off after losing the 2001 AO final to Capriati, she was beating EVERYONE most of the time before then, had a horrible record after that. The whole tour didn't magically improve in one weeks time; Hingis' own level declined.

I love that from the haters.

Legend was #1 for at least one week in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. It was clear she was going through a declining period as her shots were losing effectiveness and she was taking the ball later.

Part of this was mental and part of it was physical, but she was no longer at her same level while her opponents rose.

We can never use it as an excuse for us, but the fans of other players can cite injury/lack of interest/absence/and other excuses at will.

If they beat Hingis, it was ALWAYS Hingis playing well.

[Petronius]

Originally Posted by Geisha

She reached the SF or better in 19 of 22 GS from US Open '96 to Australian Open '02, and the ones she didn't reach the SF were at Wimbledon. Six straight SF or better at the US Open, five at the French Open, and six straight Australian Open finals. Just looking at Wikipedia statistics - it seems like she won every important tournament at least once, except for Wimbledon. She has a Grand Slam in doubles ('98); she won five straight GS doubles titles.

I think the six best years of her career (1997-2002) are among the greatest six years in the Open Era, really. Not the best, but really high up there. Supreme consistency. Sure, she struggled in the Majors near the end, but her first year not winning at least one (2000), and she won nine titles, including the YEC and won almost 80 matches.

Not overrated, at all. I think people think of her as being a great player, which she was.

This.

[barmaid]

As a fan of Martina and her game I think that she was not "over rated" at all but certainly that being said she did underachieve, she should have won at least two or three more slams but that didn't happen and we can all just appreciate what she did accomplish. She had a marvellous unique game, played tennis like a chessboard and her guile and "smarts" around the court in manufacturing points were great to watch. But those who said "she took her 50 million and quit" were probably right, in 2002 she was 22 and too young to "throw in the towel" I'm sure she regrets that, but she realized that by mounting a comeback in 2007 but "wasted" those young years in between, she did prove she could still be a top ten player but not enough power to get another slam. No changing what has transpired she still remains of the "best"!

Barmaid

[tennismaster8820]

Originally Posted by Geisha

She reached the SF or better in 19 of 22 GS from US Open '96 to Australian Open '02, and the ones she didn't reach the SF were at Wimbledon. Six straight SF or better at the US Open, five at the French Open, and six straight Australian Open finals. Just looking at Wikipedia statistics - it seems like she won every important tournament at least once, except for Wimbledon. She has a Grand Slam in doubles ('98); she won five straight GS doubles titles.

I think the six best years of her career (1997-2002) are among the greatest six years in the Open Era, really. Not the best, but really high up there. Supreme consistency. Sure, she struggled in the Majors near the end, but her first year not winning at least one (2000), and she won nine titles, including the YEC and won almost 80 matches.

Not overrated, at all. I think people think of her as being a great player, which she was.

Very well said.
Facts can't be denied!

Originally Posted by Timariot

Honestly, reading these posts it sometimes baffles me how Hingis ever won any matches at all. She apparently couldn't serve, couldn't move, couldn't hit groundstrokes...

Man, she must have been luckiest player alive to achieve winning or even record against most of the prominent baseliners of her time.

I wouldn't even reply to people who have such opinions, clearly not objective.

[mistymore]

Originally Posted by hingisGOAT

Also I love how it always seems to matter what form her opponents were in, peak, not at their peak, etc.

But never for Hingis! As if her form, fitness, and general level of play NEVER changed! Lol. I wish that were the case.

There was a CLEAR drop-off after losing the 2001 AO final to Capriati, she was beating EVERYONE most of the time before then, had a horrible record after that. The whole tour didn't magically improve in one weeks time; Hingis' own level declined. I guess we can just write off all her losses after that, just like WS fans write off all their early losses to Martina. In that case Hingis is what, 10-7 against Venus and 6-4 against Serena? So we should only count those matches I guess, that's her real record

Speak for yourself. I did say distinctly Hingis began declining very early in her career (or at a very early age), and was already on decline by 2001, maybe before that. That is one reason she isnt as great either. Poor longevity. To be in decline at 19 and retired at 21 is piss poor longevity for even an era great. Henin even has much better lognevity, as Venus's is light years beyond either, and dont even get into Serena. Heck Davenport, Sharapova, Pierce, Clijsters, any player with multiple slams from her era has much better longevity.