Tennis Forum banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,616 Posts
Looking back, the 1999 doubles season was chock-full of drama.

Kournikova and Hingis won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Rome, reached the final of the French Open, and won Eastbourne.

In the middle of all that, Hingis also had some very good results with Novotna (won Miami, reached the Tokyo final), and Kournikova had some pretty good results, too (semis of Oklahoma with de Swaardt [a name I haven't heard in forever], semis of Miami with Likhovtseva, quarters of Charleston with Coetzer).

Then, they PULLED OUT of Wimbledon (that's the year Dokic stunned Hingis in the singles 1st round, so I'm guessing that's what was up? Poor Anna....she ended up making the mixed final, so clearly she wasn't the one with a problem that tournament, and it does make the YE results a bit sweeter....)

After that debacle, Kournikova partnered with Likhovtseva, reaching the final at Stanford, but then got injured, and didn't play at all for a bit. Hingis didn't play doubles at the US Open (although she reached the final of singles), and so exiting the US Open, Lindsay Davenport became the #1 doubles player, just ahead of Hingis.

That fall, Kournikova returned to singles, but doesn't play doubles (....yet), and Hingis focuses on singles, but plays one tournament of doubles, partnering Lindsay Davenport. In Filderstadt. Which is interesting because she had just reached the singles semis at the Grand Slam cup the week prior, so she wasn't hurting for match play. My theory? She was, at this point, ranked just a little ahead of Kournikova, and had more doubles points to defend before year's end than Kournikova. Fildserstadt seemed like a good place to do so, and she locked down the #1 doubles player (and singles player perhaps?) to partner.

But then! Davenport gets injured and pulls out before their 2nd match. Kournikova and Hingis rejoin to play the YEC, because they qualified as a team rather than individually. They win the whole thing. By doing so, both of them vault past Davenport in the doubles ranking, but Kournikova ends the year as #1 because, by Davenport pulling out with Hingis in the QFs at Filderstadt, Kournikova's Stanford final with Likhovtseva is the difference maker in the rankings.

In short, had Hingis played the US Open doubles and won a round or two (seems likely, she's one the best doubles players of all time), or had Davenport not pulled out injured and she and Hingis had won just ONE MORE MATCH in Filderstadt, Hingis would have been the year end #1.

But because of all that, Kournikova ends the year #1, just one-round-at-a-Tier-II's worth of points ahead of the player (Hingis) who pulled the team out of Wimbledon doubles at the very last moment. God, the drama back then.

So the YE #1 and #2 only played two slams, winning one and reaching the final of the other, while the team that won two majors and reached the semfinal of a third finish tied for #10.

Quarantine sucks, but this little skip down memory lane was fun. Time for tequila.
If you ever want a drinking partner. Call me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,256 Posts
What on earth is RBF? :confused::unsure:
Resting bitch face. Often accompanied by unwanted requests for the person with RBF* to "smile more" or "turn that frown upside down" to which the RBFer would be well within their rights to tell that person to eff off.

* Sorry, this rant is not directed at you but as someone with said RBF I find it infuriating when people say crap like that to me. Like, bitch I'm not here to look pretty for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Looking back, the 1999 doubles season was chock-full of drama.

Kournikova and Hingis won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Rome, reached the final of the French Open, and won Eastbourne.

In the middle of all that, Hingis also had some very good results with Novotna (won Miami, reached the Tokyo final), and Kournikova had some pretty good results, too (semis of Oklahoma with de Swaardt [a name I haven't heard in forever], semis of Miami with Likhovtseva, quarters of Charleston with Coetzer).

Then, they PULLED OUT of Wimbledon (that's the year Dokic stunned Hingis in the singles 1st round, so I'm guessing that's what was up? Poor Anna....she ended up making the mixed final, so clearly she wasn't the one with a problem that tournament, and it does make the YE results a bit sweeter....)

After that debacle, Kournikova partnered with Likhovtseva, reaching the final at Stanford, but then got injured, and didn't play at all for a bit. Hingis didn't play doubles at the US Open (although she reached the final of singles), and so exiting the US Open, Lindsay Davenport became the #1 doubles player, just ahead of Hingis.

That fall, Kournikova returned to singles, but doesn't play doubles (....yet), and Hingis focuses on singles, but plays one tournament of doubles, partnering Lindsay Davenport. In Filderstadt. Which is interesting because she had just reached the singles semis at the Grand Slam cup the week prior, so she wasn't hurting for match play. My theory? She was, at this point, ranked just a little ahead of Kournikova, and had more doubles points to defend before year's end than Kournikova. Fildserstadt seemed like a good place to do so, and she locked down the #1 doubles player (and singles player perhaps?) to partner.

But then! Davenport gets injured and pulls out before their 2nd match. Kournikova and Hingis rejoin to play the YEC, because they qualified as a team rather than individually. They win the whole thing. By doing so, both of them vault past Davenport in the doubles ranking, but Kournikova ends the year as #1 because, by Davenport pulling out with Hingis in the QFs at Filderstadt, Kournikova's Stanford final with Likhovtseva is the difference maker in the rankings.

In short, had Hingis played the US Open doubles and won a round or two (seems likely, she's one the best doubles players of all time), or had Davenport not pulled out injured and she and Hingis had won just ONE MORE MATCH in Filderstadt, Hingis would have been the year end #1.

But because of all that, Kournikova ends the year #1, just one-round-at-a-Tier-II's worth of points ahead of the player (Hingis) who pulled the team out of Wimbledon doubles at the very last moment. God, the drama back then.

So the YE #1 and #2 only played two slams, winning one and reaching the final of the other, while the team that won two majors and reached the semfinal of a third finish tied for #10.

Quarantine sucks, but this little skip down memory lane was fun. Time for tequila.
Whew. I guess WTA doubles has always been a mess but with much more formidable stars back in the day.

I hope Venus will play an event with Kim, she is the better half of Williams duo in doubles and it's overdue for her to play without Serena since Patrick won't allow her to play anymore.

Anwyay, how grossly underrated Venus/Serena doubles accomplishment is? Their 14-0 GS final record is even eclipsing the all-time greats like Navratilova/Shriver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
Anwyay, how grossly underrated Venus/Serena doubles accomplishment is? Their 14-0 GS final record is even eclipsing the all-time greats like Navratilova/Shriver.
It definitely is underrated, but I still think Nav-Shriver winning 20 slams out of 30 played together, all in the span of 8-and-a-half years, takes the prize. Yes, they 20-3 in slam finals vs. 14-0 for the Williams sisters, but 20/30 is still better than 14-32.

But the 3 Olympic gold medals is a hard stat to beat...very tough call. Definitely the two greatest teams of all time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
It definitely is underrated, but I still think Nav-Shriver winning 20 slams out of 30 played together, all in the span of 8-and-a-half years, takes the prize. Yes, they 20-3 in slam finals vs. 14-0 for the Williams sisters, but 20/30 is still better than 14-32.

But the 3 Olympic gold medals is a hard stat to beat...very tough call. Definitely the two greatest teams of all time.
How about fernandez/zvereva? Won 14 of 22 majors played, and over just a 5 year period
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
How about fernandez/zvereva? Won 14 of 22 majors played, and over just a 5 year period
That's a good call, and an oversight on my part.

I always forget Fernandez/Zvereva were regular partners because I know Gigi Fernandez teamed with Mary Jo Fernandez to win the Olympics in '92 and '96. Of course, that's because Zvereva couldn't play for the states, but still, it messes with my recollection of their pairing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
Oh my bad, what I meant when comparing Venus/Serena record in Slam finals to Navratilova/Shriver was that they won 14 finals in a row. Though obviously they managed to do so by entering way less Slam tournaments than other all-time great teams.
No worries, I was moving forward to compare whether 14-0 was really better than 20-3, which.....yes and no! I mean, once you're hitting 10+ titles as a team, it's all pretty much gravy, right?

The only doubles team in history with comparable numbers for whom I wish something different is Suarez and Ruano Pascual, who won 8 slam doubles together but never managed to win Wimbledon. Lost to Venus and Serena in 2002, Sugiyama and Clijsters in 2003, and Yan and Zheng in 2006. It's that 2006 one in particular that I wish they'd pulled off. Suarez was injured and pretty much ended her singles career after that 2004 season where she reached the French SF and Wimbledon QF and reached the top 10, and that 2006 Wimbledon run was her last hurrah before retirement.

VRP had continued success, won another two French Open titles with Medina Garrigues and remained a fun singles player to catch a match on occasion when her crisp game with doubles flair could surprise a player with more gears to it (I saw her beat a very young Petra Kvitova in a wildly contrasting stylistic match at the US Open in 2008 over three sets), but that 2006 was both if their best chance to win Wimbledon.

Sigh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
The only doubles team in history with comparable numbers for whom I wish something different is Suarez and Ruano Pascual, who won 8 slam doubles together but never managed to win Wimbledon. Lost to Venus and Serena in 2002, Sugiyama and Clijsters in 2003, and Yan and Zheng in 2006. It's that 2006 one in particular that I wish they'd pulled off. Suarez was injured and pretty much ended her singles career after that 2004 season where she reached the French SF and Wimbledon QF and reached the top 10, and that 2006 Wimbledon run was her last hurrah before retirement.
Oh, they were the dominant team when I first started following tennis. Such a heartbreaking case, 3 shots missed at completing Career GS.
They peaked during era where top singles players were still competing regularly on doubles circuit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
Oh, they were the dominant team when I first started following tennis. Such a heartbreaking case, 3 shots missed at completing Career GS.
They peaked during era where top singles players were still competing regularly on doubles circuit.
Exactly! Of those early final opponents, Suigyama was comparable to Suarez in singles prowess, but the other three were hall-of-fame singles players. That 2006 loss will always stick in my craw.

They also played a lot of one-up doubles, and won a lot more points playing both-back doubles than anyone had at that point. Suarez could find the corners with her down the lines and was so fast defending the baseline, and VRP had really good hands. An underrated doubles pairing that we've forgotten about!

I remember one of the Australians (probably Rennae Stubbs?) talking about how when she was a top 10 doubles player, just about every slam she'd run into Hingis, or Davenport, or the Williams sisters, or.....

Her point being the doubles specialists nowadays should seize the opportunity while they can!
 

·
Milk and honey
Joined
·
3,400 Posts
Ugh. This would’ve been amazing! I really hope we get to see this partnership again anyway post CoronaVirus. I feel robbed now 😩

Weren’t Kim and Sloane also going to pair up at Charleston as well? It’s such a huge shame we’ve all but lost this season, because Clijsters’s 2020 comeback was one of the few things still keeping me involved and interested week to week this season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Exactly! Of those early final opponents, Suigyama was comparable to Suarez in singles prowess, but the other three were hall-of-fame singles players. That 2006 loss will always stick in my craw.

They also played a lot of one-up doubles, and won a lot more points playing both-back doubles than anyone had at that point. Suarez could find the corners with her down the lines and was so fast defending the baseline, and VRP had really good hands. An underrated doubles pairing that we've forgotten about!

I remember one of the Australians (probably Rennae Stubbs?) talking about how when she was a top 10 doubles player, just about every slam she'd run into Hingis, or Davenport, or the Williams sisters, or.....

Her point being the doubles specialists nowadays should seize the opportunity while they can!
Totally. Doubles specialists in today's era have the circuit to their own virtually speaking.

Speaking of which, I kind of wish Strycova would consider delaying her retirement given current situation, I have a feeling Hsieh would go back to changing partners every week again if it wasn't for Bara now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,607 Posts
Looking back, the 1999 doubles season was chock-full of drama.

Kournikova and Hingis won the Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Rome, reached the final of the French Open, and won Eastbourne.

In the middle of all that, Hingis also had some very good results with Novotna (won Miami, reached the Tokyo final), and Kournikova had some pretty good results, too (semis of Oklahoma with de Swaardt [a name I haven't heard in forever], semis of Miami with Likhovtseva, quarters of Charleston with Coetzer).

Then, they PULLED OUT of Wimbledon (that's the year Dokic stunned Hingis in the singles 1st round, so I'm guessing that's what was up? Poor Anna....she ended up making the mixed final, so clearly she wasn't the one with a problem that tournament, and it does make the YE results a bit sweeter....)

After that debacle, Kournikova partnered with Likhovtseva, reaching the final at Stanford, but then got injured, and didn't play at all for a bit. Hingis didn't play doubles at the US Open (although she reached the final of singles), and so exiting the US Open, Lindsay Davenport became the #1 doubles player, just ahead of Hingis.

That fall, Kournikova returned to singles, but doesn't play doubles (....yet), and Hingis focuses on singles, but plays one tournament of doubles, partnering Lindsay Davenport. In Filderstadt. Which is interesting because she had just reached the singles semis at the Grand Slam cup the week prior, so she wasn't hurting for match play. My theory? She was, at this point, ranked just a little ahead of Kournikova, and had more doubles points to defend before year's end than Kournikova. Fildserstadt seemed like a good place to do so, and she locked down the #1 doubles player (and singles player perhaps?) to partner.

But then! Davenport gets injured and pulls out before their 2nd match. Kournikova and Hingis rejoin to play the YEC, because they qualified as a team rather than individually. They win the whole thing. By doing so, both of them vault past Davenport in the doubles ranking, but Kournikova ends the year as #1 because, by Davenport pulling out with Hingis in the QFs at Filderstadt, Kournikova's Stanford final with Likhovtseva is the difference maker in the rankings.

In short, had Hingis played the US Open doubles and won a round or two (seems likely, she's one the best doubles players of all time), or had Davenport not pulled out injured and she and Hingis had won just ONE MORE MATCH in Filderstadt, Hingis would have been the year end #1.

But because of all that, Kournikova ends the year #1, just one-round-at-a-Tier-II's worth of points ahead of the player (Hingis) who pulled the team out of Wimbledon doubles at the very last moment. God, the drama back then.

So the YE #1 and #2 only played two slams, winning one and reaching the final of the other, while the team that won two majors and reached the semfinal of a third finish tied for #10.

Quarantine sucks, but this little skip down memory lane was fun. Time for tequila.
Martina didn't play doubles consistently at her peak, after 1998 when she won the GS. I think she was trying to save her energy for the latter rounds in the slams. I always wondered about that strategy, and of course she would have more weeks at #1 and won more doubles slams if she had played. I loved Anna and Martina as a team so much. Interesting that Hingis had a similar occurrence with Sania, when they had such fantastic results together but Sania spent much more time at #1(Did that happen with YJ as well?)

I hope Kim and Venus play at some point! I can totally see that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,515 Posts
Martina didn't play doubles consistently at her peak, after 1998 when she won the GS. I think she was trying to save her energy for the latter rounds in the slams. I always wondered about that strategy, and of course she would have more weeks at #1 and won more doubles slams if she had played. I loved Anna and Martina as a team so much. Interesting that Hingis had a similar occurrence with Sania, when they had such fantastic results together but Sania spent much more time at #1(Did that happen with YJ as well?)
I took a quick look at her singles tournaments played vs doubles tournaments played by year:

YEAR - Singes - Doubles

1995 - 13 - 9
1996 - 18 - 17
1997 - 17 - 16
1998 - 18 - 13
1999 - 20 - 9
2000 - 20 - 15
2001 - 18 - 6
2002 - 12 - 5

It does seem odd that she took about half of 1999 off, certainly that wasn't the norm in earlier years nor in 2000, but she ratcheted down even further in 2001, and of course 2002 when she was injured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Martina didn't play doubles consistently at her peak, after 1998 when she won the GS. I think she was trying to save her energy for the latter rounds in the slams. I always wondered about that strategy, and of course she would have more weeks at #1 and won more doubles slams if she had played. I loved Anna and Martina as a team so much. Interesting that Hingis had a similar occurrence with Sania, when they had such fantastic results together but Sania spent much more time at #1(Did that happen with YJ as well?)

I hope Kim and Venus play at some point! I can totally see that.
Yes, both Sania and Latisha ranked at #1 earlier during their partnership with Martina.

Had Martina played consistently the way Navratilova did, she would've had similar success imo.
However, her 4 consecutive GS with 4 different partners stands above the rest for me. A true testament of her tennis IQ.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top