[Sammo]

Originally Posted by Griffin.

Not necessarily.

1. Hingis - made out by her fans (mostly) to be some sort of superhuman force of nature. She was a very fine player, no doubt, but she took advantage of a transition period on the WTA tour and then didn't have the drive to compete with the bigger, stronger, opponents who came later.

2. Dementieva (who I like)

3. Jankovic (who I adore)


If anyone says Peak Pierce I will cut them

Hingis won her first Grand Slam routining Pierce 6-2 6-2 in the final who was the ultimate power player at the time and was much more powerful than most of the 'big girls' of the early 2000's.

Dementieva, yes, definitely, although in my opinion she had potential to have won a couple of Slams

Jankovic? How? She didn't win a Slam and in 2006-2008 her game was really great

[sammy01]

Hantuchova - Her fans and so many on here would have you believe she should have been a multiple slam champion. The 'if she had a brain' thing wore thin about 5 years ago.

She is so unathletic it is painful, movement wise she is on par with davenport. Her record against the elite of the game is as piss poor as anyone will find from a former top 5 player.

Even if she is mentally weak (which I don't believe, she just loses at the crunch as most other players can run down that extra ball and make that extra play) being mentally strong is as important as a forehand or backhand or serve. So if we are saying things like 'if she had a brain' you might as well say 'if x player had serena's serve'.

She is your average top 20 player who lucked out winning IW twice and the rest of her career is beyond average.

[miffedmax]

Lena D. was never overhyped!!! She really is perfect.

Really, though, this board is fickle is hell. We turn on the overhyped and chew them to pieces the minute they show the slightest sign of weakness (see Wozniaki, Caro, and Kvitova, Petra).

Highly partisan groups will always fanatically pimp for their own, but when you look at where the real consensus of TF lies, we're actually pretty reasonable. Our serious GOAT contenders are the usual suspects, our Top 10/Top 20 of the last decade are very similar to the general press, etc. For all the pissing and moaning, this actually a pretty knowledgeable group.

[Stonerpova]

Originally Posted by Sammo

Hingis won her first Grand Slam routining Pierce 6-2 6-2 in the final who was the ultimate power player at the time and was much more powerful than most of the 'big girls' of the early 2000's.

Dementieva, yes, definitely, although in my opinion she had potential to have won a couple of Slams

Jankovic? How? She didn't win a Slam and in 2006-2008 her game was really great

1. More powerful, sure, but she wasn't nearly as consistent as the Williams sisters, Davenport, Capriati, etc. Plus Pierce was always hellishly inconsistent. That one match doesn't change anything for me. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
2. Agreed.
3. I just feel as though her game is over-hyped here. Her backhand, while a great shot, isn't one of the best of all time like some of her fans were claiming in the "GOAT backhand" thread.

[heavyhorse]

Serena
Azarenka

[Sammo]

Originally Posted by sammy01

Hantuchova - Her fans and so many on here would have you believe she should have been a multiple slam champion. The 'if she had a brain' thing wore thin about 5 years ago.

She is so unathletic it is painful, movement wise she is on par with davenport. Her record against the elite of the game is as piss poor as anyone will find from a former top 5 player.

Even if she is mentally weak (which I don't believe, she just loses at the crunch as most other players can run down that extra ball and make that extra play) being mentally strong is as important as a forehand or backhand or serve. So if we are saying things like 'if she had a brain' you might as well say 'if x player had serena's serve'.

She is your average top 20 player who lucked out winning IW twice and the rest of her career is beyond average.

Hantuchova is the freaking fittest player of the whole WTA tour. Granted she can't run to save her life but I've never ever seen her run out of stamina, and I've seen plenty of her matches. And are you really saying that with the form she displayed against Ivanovic at the 2008 Australian Open SF she probably isn't mentally weak? Had Dementieva played at a whole Slam like she did in the 2006 Toray Pan Pacific final and had Hantuchova played a whole Slam like she did in the first set of the 2008 Australian Open and it would have been a slaughtery similar to the Sharapova one at the 2008 AO.

[NashaMasha]

overhyped?

1) Radwanska - player who is 5-23 vs other top 3 players , who only once reached success at a Major (with 26 attemps) only because of weak draw is given too much attention and hype here. Probably for being crafty , new Hingis etc... But in reality she is just overhyped because is quite unique nowadays with her outdated tennis
2) Azarenka - she is definitely a league above the 1st one, but the player with just 1 Slam , who is in her best season , at her peak being regulary spanked by 31 y.o Serena , who has just one MM title outside hardcourts is somehow considered a new messiah , future quatro-penta multiple winner.. In reality Azarenka is just the best of journeymen ,who with lack of talent is trying to utilize existing vacuum of decent players in transitional era. Good for her , but pls don't tell me that she going be anywhere close to Davenports and Hingises ever. She is just not that good, she is not the same caliber player.

Noticable mention deserve Petra Kvitova, Caroline Wozniacki, Sabine Lisicki, Julia Goerges , but it looks like they all have already passed their hype peak

[heavyhorse]

I don't get what's so amazing about Azarenka. She just seems mediocre in every way - not bad but not amazing - for her forehand, backhand, serve, footwork, etc. Everything is just bland. The only thing I could really credit her for is her terrific hand-to-eye co-ordination which gives her great timing with the ball. I've read that's due to hours and hours of hitting a tennis ball against a wall as a child, but who knows. There are definitely better players out there and I truly question how successful Azarenka would be if she didn't have that extremely high-pitched 10 second howl she does everytime she hits the ball.

[Viktymise]

Originally Posted by sammy01

Hantuchova - Her fans and so many on here would have you believe she should have been a multiple slam champion. The 'if she had a brain' thing wore thin about 5 years ago.

She is so unathletic it is painful, movement wise she is on par with davenport. Her record against the elite of the game is as piss poor as anyone will find from a former top 5 player.

Even if she is mentally weak (which I don't believe, she just loses at the crunch as most other players can run down that extra ball and make that extra play) being mentally strong is as important as a forehand or backhand or serve. So if we are saying things like 'if she had a brain' you might as well say 'if x player had serena's serve'.

She is your average top 20 player who lucked out winning IW twice and the rest of her career is beyond average.

Agreed on all counts.

[sweetadri06]

Azarenka. Average serve (it's not huge but she takes care of it), average movement(Serena exposes this continually when they play), alright forehand/backhand but you wouldn't rate her as the best in those categories and the only thing that i would rate highly is excellent returning. Which i think is partly made possible because so many serves are shit on the WTA. Henin, Clijsters, Venus, Davenport can all beat her comfortably if they were still playing at their peaks. Kvitova can also deliver a beatdown if she ever gets on a roll again.

[sammy01]

Originally Posted by Sammo

Hantuchova is the freaking fittest player of the whole WTA tour. Granted she can't run to save her life but I've never ever seen her run out of stamina, and I've seen plenty of her matches. And are you really saying that with the form she displayed against Ivanovic at the 2008 Australian Open SF she probably isn't mentally weak? Had Dementieva played at a whole Slam like she did in the 2006 Toray Pan Pacific final and had Hantuchova played a whole Slam like she did in the first set of the 2008 Australian Open and it would have been a slaughtery similar to the Sharapova one at the 2008 AO.

unathletic = a shit athlete not unfit.

If chakvetadze played entire slams the way she played against Venus final set in San diego she'd have obviously at least 5 wimbledons. See we can all make bullshit statements.

Winning a slam isn't about playing one good set of tennis, if it was everyone who has been top 20 would have one. Sharapova lost a slam semi final from MP's up I guess that means she is mentally weak and 'needs a brain'.

[Viktymise]

Even Dokic was better than Hantuchova.

[Joana]

Originally Posted by sammy01

Winning a slam isn't about playing one good set of tennis, if it was everyone who has been top 20 would have one.

It's so funny how people keep making it look like that ONE set Hantuchova played is actually the norm of her game, and all 156969688 others are somehow the exception.

[iPatty]

Can't have a thread like this without mentioning Golovin.

Some other players that spring to mind are Cirstea, Lisicki, and Vekic.

[Atlicznie]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

overhyped?

1) Radwanska - player who is 5-23 vs other top 3 players , who only once reached success at a Major (with 26 attemps) only because of weak draw is given too much attention and hype here. Probably for being crafty , new Hingis etc... But in reality she is just overhyped because is quite unique nowadays with her outdated tennis
2) Azarenka - she is definitely a league above the 1st one, but the player with just 1 Slam , who is in her best season , at her peak being regulary spanked by 31 y.o Serena , who has just one MM title outside hardcourts is somehow considered a new messiah , future quatro-penta multiple winner.. In reality Azarenka is just the best of journeymen ,who with lack of talent is trying to utilize existing vacuum of decent players in transitional era. Good for her , but pls don't tell me that she going be anywhere close to Davenports and Hingises ever. She is just not that good, she is not the same caliber player.

Noticable mention deserve Petra Kvitova, Caroline Wozniacki, Sabine Lisicki, Julia Goerges , but it looks like they all have already passed their hype peak

How surprising of you to see the ones you disklike being mentioned
You're so predictable, yet you never stop amusing the rest of us with your illogical posts

Also, what you wrote is complete bullshit.
Who should we see as a contender for a Major if not current world number one and already a Slam champion?
Besides Sarin, the Shrieking Razor and Vika(all appeared at least twice in the major finals last year) who shall we consider to be the most likely winner.....frickin' Pliskova or sth?
She beat the crap out of your fave almost as much as Sarin last year sweetie making her so mich awesome......just kidding or you know what?, actually no.
And she's still only 24. Don't tell me she doesn't have a shot at passing Hingis or Davenport in terms of the Slams count.....just bitch please

Secondly, you couldn't even justify your opinion on Aga or maybe you didn't bother to try to do so/doing some research, being so concencrated on portrying her in a negative perspective. Furthermore, I don't think she's overhyped on TF in first place. Show me a poll with Aga being voted 1-5 favourite to win a Slam. Just because she's said to have won fucking Auckland already doesn't mean she's overhyped for God's sake.