Tennis Forum banner

21 - 40 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,131 Posts
Of course Aranxta faced Graf. She didnt face much of Seles, her ultimate nightmare matchup more than Graf, who was stabbed and away most of Sanchez's glory years. So saying she faced "Graf and Seles" to win all her slams is not at all accurate. Same goes for Conchita and her success.



Sanchez, Martinez, and Novotnva have never won a major title with Seles at peak form so your point already loses all value. However to answer your question, if Hingis peaked at the same time Sanchez and Martinez did she would have done way better than both, I can guarantee you that much. Sanchez won 2 slams in 1994 with Graf fighting injuries and loss of form and Seles gone altogether, if prime Hingis were around that would have never happened, heck it is doubtful Sanchez could even win one slam if she had to play Hingis who is probably an even worse matchup for her than Seles. With Sanchez and Martinez winning 3 of the 4 slams that year, it probably would have been a 97 esque year for Hingis, and with her bitch (in Hingis's prime years) Mary Pierce winning the Australian to start 95 maybe the Hingis slam. Hingis would have shone brightly in the mid 90s which were really weak, Graf would have been her only real competition in fact. Hingis did peak at the same time as Novotna, both peaked in the late 90s, and did far better than her as well.

Sabatini is the only one who was unlucky to have tougher competition in the early 90s but 18 slam semis and only 1 slam title is still the ultimate fail. It is too bad too, she certainly had a better game than Sanchez atleast, but not the same mentality.

It is annoying to have to defend Hingis so heavily when I dont even like her, but Hingis was in a whole other league then all the players you named. Hingis is closer to being #2 in the 90s then she is to being any lower than #3.


Sanchez Vicario was the biggest beneficiary of the Seles stabbing, contrary to Selestials belief even more than Graf as Graf was fully capable of beating Seles most anywhere, and a lock to beat her at Wimbledon. To hear someone knocking Hingis's superior achievements, dominance, and career due to weak competition in favor of the Seles stabbing vultures Sanchez and Martinez, and an even bigger opportunist of the late 90s transition period than Hingis who unlike Hingis immediately plunged downwards and retired once the brief transition period was ending- Jana Novotna, is rich with both irony and silliness. Sanchez is really one of the luckiest players ever, peaking while Seles was out, before Hingis emerged, with the whole womens field that had peaked in the late 80s and early 90s falling apart, and being a naturally bad matchup for Graf which allowed her to shine and look more competitive in that matchup then she would typically look vs even a much less great player, and that Graf was also injury prone around the field was so thin that there was literally nobody else in her way for awhile if something happened to Graf or she somehow could get past her.

Lastly why couldnt any of Sanchez, Martinez, or Jana capatilize on this period you think Hingis was so lucky in. All were in their mid 20s, except Jana who was still hitting her career peak at that point. I will give Sabatini a pass as she had mentally lost the plot and been in steep decline years before that point. Since you asked me a question you have to now answer this one. Also while you are at it explain Sanchez's head to head with Hingis, and why even in 1996 15 year old Hingis had a winning record over prime Sanchez.


I just noticed you ranked Seles over Graf. That is another terrible judgement, and almost as bad as ranking Hingis below Sanchez (but still not nearly as bad as ranking her below the 1 slammers core to boot).
You're right, 12 slam finals:rolleyes: what a lucky talentless hack Arantxa was. It's not like she had to contend with one of the best players ever, and that 1989 Roland Garros title? What a joke that was!


I would take your argument and listen to it if you weren't so obnoxious about it. Not all your points are terrible, but calling Arantxa and Conchita "stabbing vultures" as if the stabbing was their fault, or blaming them for winning titles while Monica was absent...Gee, maybe they should have stopped playing and said, "Monica would have won all these titles, let's jsut give her credit for them".
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
811 Posts
I am responding to someone who is dissing Hingis, a far superior player to Sanchez and Martinez, because she didnt play Graf and Seles at their best, why dont you take exception to their points. I am just using this individuals way of reasoning. If Hingis was lucky Sanchez was even moreso. If the OP didnt feel the need to make such stupid and baseless points, ripe with inconsistency, I wouldnt have had to point out the harsh truths I did. If Sanchez had won her 4 slams from 1990-1993 or 2000-2003 and didnt trail Hingis 2-18 H2H the OP might have a valid argument on Sanchez vs Hingis, but that is far from the case. There would be no valid arguments for 1 slam wonders vs Hingis regardless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
Perhaps Martinez, Sabatini and Novotna would've won more Slams if they didn't have to compete against Graf and Seles.

Perhaps Hingis would've been Slam-less if she had to regularly play Graf and Seles, circa '89-'93.

Again, it's nothing against Hingis but I took her lack of competition into consideration.
Which IS correct. Hingis was a transition champion. Once the Williams, the Belgians, Capriati and Davenport reached their near peak, Hingis stopped winning Slams
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
You're right, 12 slam finals:rolleyes: what a lucky talentless hack Arantxa was. It's not like she had to contend with one of the best players ever, and that 1989 Roland Garros title? What a joke that was!


I would take your argument and listen to it if you weren't so obnoxious about it. Not all your points are terrible, but calling Arantxa and Conchita "stabbing vultures" as if the stabbing was their fault, or blaming them for winning titles while Monica was absent...Gee, maybe they should have stopped playing and said, "Monica would have won all these titles, let's jsut give her credit for them".
The person who gained the most fron the Seles stabbing was Graf. Before the stabbing Monica led Steffi 3-1 in Slam finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
The person who gained the most fron the Seles stabbing was Graf. Before the stabbing Monica led Steffi 3-1 in Slam finals.
Actually the people who gained the most from the Seles stabbing were the makers of ice cream, cookies, potato crisps, pizzas, cakes, doughnuts, and butter. :tape: :devil:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen Lawson

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
1. Graf
2. Hingis
3. Seles
4. Sabatini
5. Sanchez

Those are my top 5. Yeah Seles won more slams then Hingis and Sanchez more than Sabatini but it is about more then that. Hingis had 3 great years on top the womens game, Seles only 2. Hingis also owned Seles which gives her the nod. Sabatini was held back by Graf and Seles at their peak. Sanchez got lucky a number of times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,131 Posts
1. Graf
2. Hingis
3. Seles
4. Sabatini
5. Sanchez

Those are my top 5. Yeah Seles won more slams then Hingis and Sanchez more than Sabatini but it is about more then that. Hingis had 3 great years on top the womens game, Seles only 2. Hingis also owned Seles which gives her the nod. Sabatini was held back by Graf and Seles at their peak. Sanchez got lucky a number of times.
Disagree completely...Hingis won one slam in 98 and one in 99...certainly can make the argument that she was the best player in those years (although Davenport won player of the year award in both 98 and 99, I believe), but she was in no ways the clear dominant player of those years. That gives her 97 only. Total she took in 5 slams.
Seles was clearly the best in both 91 and 92, winning 3 slams in each year. She won 8 slams, was probably the 2nd best player of 90. She was competitive in numerous years throughout the decade. Her main competition was arguably the greatest to ever play the game. Hard to see how Hingis beats her out.

Sanchez and Sabatini...We can say Sabatini has a 12-11 H2H total against Arantxa...in the 1990s that H2H is 10-4 Arantxa, though. We can say that Gabby was more dominant from 90-92 than Arantxa was during her peak. Gabriela, however, won 1 slam and was runner up in 1 more in the 90s. Arantxa was winner of 3 slams and runner up of 8 in the 90s. That's 11 GS finals vs 2 GS finals. Luck can account for some of that (if you want to believe that)...but it cannot make up a NINE grandslam final difference...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
Comaparing Hingis to Seles going from their best year to 3rd best:

Hingis 1997 > Seles 1992. She was much more dominant overall even though both won 3 slams. Hingis after the U.S Open had lost only 2 matches all year, and won all her slams in dominant fashion, only 1 close match in the Wimbledon final.
I am pretty sure she won more tournaments as well.

Seles 1991 > Hingis 1999.

Hingis 1998 > Seles 1990. No contest, Seles had poor results at all slams except her French Open win, while Hingis made atleast semis of all 4 slams. Hingis results much better all around.

So Hingis's best and 3rd best year were both better than Seles's best and 3rd best, with only Seles's 2nd best being better than Hingis's 2nd best.



Sabatini of 90-92 is much better than Sanchez ever was, regardless the stats. She just was unlucky to face both Graf and Seles so often, superior players. Sanchez snuck in at the right times, especialy taking advantage of the post Seles stabbing period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
Which IS correct. Hingis was a transition champion. Once the Williams, the Belgians, Capriati and Davenport reached their near peak, Hingis stopped winning Slams
Exactly. Hingis, while enormously talented, dominated during a window where veterans were near retirement and her peers themselves hadn't hit their stride. Once her contemporaries caught up, they dismantled Hingis' crafty game and mental toughness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,635 Posts
Sabatini of 90-92 is much better than Sanchez ever was, regardless the stats. She just was unlucky to face both Graf and Seles so often, superior players. Sanchez snuck in at the right times, especialy taking advantage of the post Seles stabbing period.
How was Sabatini unlucky in facing Monica and Steffi while ASV was not? Sabatini just couldn't keep her lever after spring 1992 (well I guess her level was at it's peak in spring 1991 not 1992) while ASV was always consistent from 1990-1996 with her peak in 1994.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,463 Posts
Exactly. Hingis, while enormously talented, dominated during a window where veterans were near retirement and her peers themselves hadn't hit their stride. Once her contemporaries caught up, they dismantled Hingis' crafty game and mental toughness.
I think you're all being rather unfair to Hingis. Someone suggested that she's a transitional champ because she didn't win Slams after the Williams sisters, the Belgians, Davenport, and Capriati hit their peak. Well, by that measure, I could just as easily point out that Davenport isn't that different as her last Slam (AO 2000) was only a year after Hingis's last triumph. Similarly we can argue that Capriati stopped winning Slams once Serena hit her peak.

We can play that game with every single one of them, as a matter of fact.

Henin: Only started winning when Serena and Venus got injured

Clijsters: See Henin above

Venus: Won 4 of her 7 Slams before Serena hit her peak

Did the rise of the Williams sisters render Hingis's game less effective? Sure. But when Serena hit her peak, other players like Davenport and Capriati also suffered the same fate. One would have to argue then that apart from Serena, everyone else in the post Graf/Seles era is a "transitional" champ.
 

·
R.I.P. Thank you!
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
I can buy into the transitional arguement to a point.

Hindsight is 20/20 tohugh.

Had Steffi Graf retired in the early 90s becasue of burning out/Monica Seles catching up in slams she might be considered a transitional champion.


Sure the Willies got better and Capriati had a resurgence in the next decade.The unanswered question with Hingis is how much her health and desire played into her results. What we don't know about Martina is how much desire she lost after 1999. Did she even recover from the trauma of Roland Garros that year and the split with her mother? Like most all of out modern champs she was a molded champ controlled by a parent.

And of course how much her foot injuries played into all of this. Or if (big if) she did dabble in drugs-that could explain a lot of the decline.

By 2002 it wasn't just that Serena was better-Hingis was worse, losing to women she would have never suffered defeats to in the late 90s. Even then she still had her days.

I'll never forget the day I saw Hingis in person whipping up on Novotna at the 1996 US Open. 2 beautiful ball strikers and all that variety. My uncle confidently predicted that Steffi would pick her apart in the semis. I told him Martina was the real deal.

What a ride she took us on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
811 Posts
I think you're all being rather unfair to Hingis. Someone suggested that she's a transitional champ because she didn't win Slams after the Williams sisters, the Belgians, Davenport, and Capriati hit their peak. Well, by that measure, I could just as easily point out that Davenport isn't that different as her last Slam (AO 2000) was only a year after Hingis's last triumph. Similarly we can argue that Capriati stopped winning Slams once Serena hit her peak.

We can play that game with every single one of them, as a matter of fact.

Henin: Only started winning when Serena and Venus got injured

Clijsters: See Henin above

Venus: Won 4 of her 7 Slams before Serena hit her peak

Did the rise of the Williams sisters render Hingis's game less effective? Sure. But when Serena hit her peak, other players like Davenport and Capriati also suffered the same fate. One would have to argue then that apart from Serena, everyone else in the post Graf/Seles era is a "transitional" champ.
Henin won her first slam by stopping peak Serena's slam streak so no she didnt "start winning" when Serena and Venus were injured. The remainder of most of her future slams were French Opens where peak Venus and peak Serena would get spanked by 2005-2007 Henin on clay if they ever made it to her which usually they wouldnt as they were never great clay courters, their fluke final in 2002 aside, and Henins final one was the U.S Open where she became the first women to ever beat both Williams (in straight sets no less) en route to a slam title. She never became a dominant player on all surfaces, just the dominant clay courter who won occasionally but failed to ever dominate on hard courts and indoors, which is EXACTLY what she would have been had peak Williams continued, so they are irrelevant to her success.

As for Hingis she was WAY past her best by 2002 when Serena began dominating. She was in fact already a huge headcase and struggling by 2001 when she lost all those matches in a row to Capriati. the Hingis of 1997-early 1999 would own the likes of Capriati. Hingis did not stop winning altogether when the womens game got stronger per say. She won the 98 WTA Championships, 99 Australian Open, then was set to win the 99 French, and the implosion there made her continously choke in big matches she was favored or had chances to win (eg- 2000 French vs Pierce, 2000 U.S Open vs Venus, 2001 Australian vs Capriati). It wasnt like the field blew past her in ability other than Venus on fast courts, and Davenport on hard courts who she had trouble with ever since 98 anyway.

Venus is Kim's lapdog on hard courts since 2005 now by the way. While peak Serena was already struggling with a maturing Kim on hard courts in late 2002-early 2003 and would have continued to always do so even if she remained at her best. Kim the one surface pony is only relevant on hard courts to begin with, so talking about other surfaces is moot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
I think you're all being rather unfair to Hingis. Someone suggested that she's a transitional champ because she didn't win Slams after the Williams sisters, the Belgians, Davenport, and Capriati hit their peak. Well, by that measure, I could just as easily point out that Davenport isn't that different as her last Slam (AO 2000) was only a year after Hingis's last triumph.
To be fair to Davenport, she wasn't the phenom, the prodigy that Hingis was. If anything, Davenport probably surpassed people's expectations while Hingis didn't completely live up to hers.
 

·
R.I.P. Thank you!
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
To be fair to Davenport, she wasn't the phenom, the prodigy that Hingis was. If anything, Davenport probably surpassed people's expectations while Hingis didn't completely live up to hers.
Agreed.

Davenport's story book win at the 1998 US Open was so inspirational. Linds could have been a permanent fixture in the top 20 on the edge of the top ten. Instead the "dumptruck", as some in the locker room called her, got into tip-top shape.

It must have been some sweet revenge to hold up that trophy and see those she breezed by eat crow.

A few points here and there and she could easily have bagged 5 plus slams.

Two things related to Lindsay I'd like to get more background on are these:

How she told her Dad (he was a star volleyball player-right/) to shove it when he tried to be a typical tennis parent. Did he start out controlling everything like most tennis parents and she cut the strings loose earlier than most? Or did this come due to the divorce of her parents?

Why didn't she get along with Graf? For whatever reason I recall some bad blood here-nothing major-but the two most definitely were not warm and fuzzy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
How was Sabatini unlucky in facing Monica and Steffi while ASV was not? Sabatini just couldn't keep her lever after spring 1992 (well I guess her level was at it's peak in spring 1991 not 1992) while ASV was always consistent from 1990-1996 with her peak in 1994.
As others have already pointed out ASV did not face Seles when winning her slams. Her golden years from 93-95 came when Seles wasnt even playing tennis. The Seles she beat in the 98 FO final was nothing like the pre stabbing version.

Sanchez was luckier than Sabatini as far as when she peaked. This cant be denied by anyone rational or remotedly smart, especialy when many in this thread are trying to paint Hingis with that brush, but it applies to Sanchez Vicario even more. Sabatini happened to play her best tennis only in years that the competition was super strong each year. Sanchez played her best tennis in years the competition was not so much. Not her fault, you can only play who is front of you, but I still think Gaby at her best is the better tennis player which is why I ranked her ahead.
 

·
R.I.P. Thank you!
Joined
·
25,876 Posts
As others have already pointed out ASV did not face Seles when winning her slams. Her golden years from 93-95 came when Seles wasnt even playing tennis. The Seles she beat in the 98 FO final was nothing like the pre stabbing version.

Sanchez was luckier than Sabatini as far as when she peaked. This cant be denied by anyone rational or remotedly smart, especialy when many in this thread are trying to paint Hingis with that brush, but it applies to Sanchez Vicario even more. Sabatini happened to play her best tennis only in years that the competition was super strong each year. Sanchez played her best tennis in years the competition was not so much. Not her fault, you can only play who is front of you, but I still think Gaby at her best is the better tennis player which is why I ranked her ahead.
For the most part I agree Clijsters. Still-they are equal in Grand Slams wins during the "tough" years. Sanchez's 1989 upset at the French denied Steffi a Grand Slam, surely just as valid as Gaby's 1990 win.

Sabatini was more dangerous indoors (2 WTA championships bear that out),which helps your case, but any way one cuts it 4 slams trumps 2 in my book.

Always on the cusp-Gaby was poorly managed IMO. Had she played less when she was younger (as Steffi did) perhaps she would have squeezed out more slams and still been hungry in 1994 when Sanchez grabbed her chances. By 1993 Sabatini just didn't want to be there. Bet there's an interesting back stroy to that.

Of course now we are finding out ASV had her own dramas playing out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
199 Posts
For the most part I agree Clijsters. Still-they are equal in Grand Slams wins during the "tough" years. Sanchez's 1989 upset at the French denied Steffi a Grand Slam, surely just as valid as Gaby's 1990 win.

Sabatini was more dangerous indoors (2 WTA championships bear that out),which helps your case, but any way one cuts it 4 slams trumps 2 in my book.

Always on the cusp-Gaby was poorly managed IMO. Had she played less when she was younger (as Steffi did) perhaps she would have squeezed out more slams and still been hungry in 1994 when Sanchez grabbed her chances. By 1993 Sabatini just didn't want to be there. Bet there's an interesting back stroy to that.

Of course now we are finding out ASV had her own dramas playing out.
I see what you are saying. ASV undoubtably had the better career. However I interpreted this thread as who was the best player in ones opinion, not neccessarily the most achieved. I just feel Gaby at her best is a better player than ASV at her best. During the strong period both won 1 slam, but Gaby was regularly ranked higher and had more success.

I agree Gaby was poorly managed in many ways. She definitely did not put the pieces together right to fulfill her potential, and she played far too much too young which in some ways led to combat fatigue far too young, and stalled her progress.
 
21 - 40 of 54 Posts
Top