1996 womens French Open- projected round of 16 draw with all the seed

[grafselesfan]

I remember at the 96 French when it was nearing the round of 16 all 16 seeds were still left by the 3rd round. It turned out only a few of them lost before the round of 16 but I remember Tracy Austin's predictions on how competitive some of the matches were, who she was favoring, which ones were a write off, etc......Just for fun I would like to hear if we assume all 16 seeds had reached the round of 16, put yourself in that position back then and analyze each round of 16, moving to the quarters, semis, and final, and analyze for yourself how you sum up each potential matchup, the chances of each player in each one, and predict round by round how you would have guessed it to go yourself then. Now how it actually turned out, but how you would have analyzed the chances of the two players and the predictions for each round of 16, and moving on from there how you expected the draw and new matchups to keep panning out until the end at the time with this draw.

This was the projected womens draw from the round of 16 onwards should everyone have held seed until the round of 16 stage at the 96 French Open:

Round of 16:

Graf (1) vs Mary Joe Fernandez (11)
Majoli (5) vs Paulus (16)
Martinez (3) vs Coetzer (14)
Date (7) vs Davenport (9)
Huber (6) vs Hingis (15)
Sanchez Vicario (4) vs Piece (12)
Schultz McCarthy (8 ) vs Novotna (10)
Seles (2) vs Maggie Maleeva (13)

Quarters:

Quarter A: Winner of Graf/Fernandez vs winner of Majoli/Paulus
Quarter B: Winner of Martinez/Coetzer vs winner of Date/Davenport
Quarter C: Winner of Huber/Hingis vs winner of Sanchez/Pierce
Quarter D: Winner of Schultz/Novotna vs winner of Seles/Maleeva

Semis:

Winner of Quarter A vs winner of Quarter B
Winner of Quarter C vs winner of Quarter D

Finals:

Winner of the two semis

[boredone3456]

This is pretty interesting. Well I'll try and give a good analysis, although some of these depend on a few factors.

Round of 16:

Graf (1) vs Mary Joe Fernandez (11)

I say Graf quite easily, Graf dominated Mary Jo even in the early 90's when Graf was struggling with all sorts of personal issues. If I was back then looking at this before it happened...I'd say Graf in straights by a score of 6-3 6-3 or something close to it.

Majoli (5) vs Paulus (16)

Majoli quite easily...I honestly don't even remember Paulus to well, but if she was a top 20 player she must have been pretty good, but Majoli was at her best on Clay so I would say she would win in straights...can't give a score because like I said I don't really remember Paulus to well.

Martinez (3) vs Coetzer (14)

This is one of those tough ones. If i was looking at it before it happened I would say it depended on how mentally strong Conchita was, and that it would be hers to lose. If coetzer was on and Conchita off, it would become a fight. Conchita was strong on clay from 1994-1996 and my gut would tell me it would be close depending on how well she played. I would say Conchita would win...I'd say 3 sets...dunno why 6-3 4-6 6-3...or something like that. coetzer was always a dangerous dark horse and she would probably be able to give conchita a good match

Date (7) vs Davenport (9)

Complete toss Up. Both of these 2 were at their weakest on clay and davenport in 1996 was not in the shape she would get into by the 98 us open. However since Date was in better shape in 1996 than Lindsay, and the french requires grinding out points...i'd say Date...but in 3 sets.

Huber (6) vs Hingis (15)

Again tough, Hingis was a feisty teen and a great court reader. Huber was sort of a dark horse top ten player who was just off her first slam final at the aussie...losing to Seles. in the end....I'm torn, but Hingis's court reading ability and the fact she was so young and had little to lose...I would probably go out on a limb and say her in 3. I know Grafselesfan you might disagree...but in the end neither would win this event so its sort of moot.

Sanchez Vicario (4) vs Pierce (12)

Again...A complete toss up. It would depend which Pierce took the court, if it was on fire anihilate steffi Graf in straights Pierce of 1994, she would beat Arantxa playing like that. If it was shaky, inconsistant Pierce...Arantxa. For the sake of making this a little more interesting...I'll give it to Pierce but I feel this on any given day could go either way.

Schultz McCarthy (8 ) vs Novotna (10)

Again...Toss up. McCarthy;s big serve would not give hera huge advantage on clay, giving Novotna a chance. Novotna herself was not the best on clay, but i would give it to her because the surface would sort of cancel Brenda's biggest weapon. Novotna in 3.

Seles (2) vs Maggie Maleeva (13)

Seles. I would expect her, even post stabbing to easily handle Maggie. Seles had just won the Aussie and even though Maggie was ok on clay seles should have no problem with her.

So that would make my quarterfinals

Graf (1) vs Majoli (5)
Martinez (3) vs Date (7)
Hingis (15) vs Pierce (12)
Novotna (10) vs Seles (2)

Graf (1) vs Majoli (5)

Graf in straights. Graf always did well against Majoli and Graf in 1996 was playing well, Majoli was doing ok herself but Graf had her number.

Martinez (3) vs Date (7)

Martinez is a much better clay courter than Date, and I would expect her to win this. If Date were able to wrongfoot Conchita or somehow quickly from the start get in her head and make her question herself, that would be her only shot in my opinion. If Date didn't manage to break early on though...Conchita.

Hingis (15) vs Pierce (12)

Again..toss up. Any match with Pierce is. Same thing i said for the last match, if Pierce comes out on fire i doubt Hingis of 1996 stands a shot, but if she doesn'yt Hingis would quickly get to her and have her struggling. Its a coin flip but I guess I'd go with Pierce....again..could go either way and if you disagree its cool

Novotna (10) vs Seles (2)

Seles. Novotna after the stabbing occured did do well against monica but i would probably say Monica would be better on clay even post stabbing than novotna was, so Seles wins.

so the Semi's would be

Graf (1) vs Martinez (3)
Pierce (12) vs Seles (2)

Graf (1) vs Martinez (3)

Close call actually. Martinez was always dangerous on clay despite the fact that some would underestimate her. If she was in the zone she would have a shot at beating steffi. But as steffi was so consistant it would really be up to Conchita keeping cool....and against Steffi conchita wasn't good at that so Steffi in 3.

Pierce (12) vs Seles (2)

If Hingis beats pierce in my made up draw I would say she would beat Seles, even at this time Seles was never good against Hingis. But since I flipped a coin and picked Pierce it becomes a bit more interesting. Again..completely dependant on Pierce , but i would say Seles.

Final...Steffi vs Mons.....I'd say steffi, she had beaten Seles on hardcourts at the previous years US Open and even though thats a completely different surface I would expect this to turn out in a similar way.

Thats my what if draw...I'll go back a little later and pick apart how it actually turned out...don't have the mindset to do it now, this was hard enough.

[grafselesfan]

I love looking over this projected draw since I think it shows that womens tennis in 96 had alot of depth. First of all I should point out as well 2 top 10 player of the time- Gaby Sabatini and Chanda Rubin (who played her best tennis every by far in early 96 before all the injuries) were missing due to injury, otherwise the draw would be even stronger.

The Graf-Fernandez 96 4th round was a rematch of the 93 final where Fernandez playing the tournament of her life so narrowly missed winning the French Open. Here is a 3-time slam finalist, a slam semifinalist on all surfaces, one of the best players to never win a slam, and here she is with almost no shot to get out of the 4th round.

Likewise the Sanchez Vicario-Pierce projected 4th round would be a rematch of the 94 French Open final and 95 Australian Open finals. 2 slam champions and recent French Open finalists, and one is gone in the round of 16.

Then when you break it down further, atleast based on who I would favor (this is where I was interested in peoples opinions) high quality players and noted top players at the time like Fernandez, Date, Coetzer, Huber, Pierce fastest server ever Schultz, were all expected to lose in the 4th round of the same slam. A 3 time slam finalist and former near FO winner (Fernandez). Another 1 of only 4 players to beat Graf that year who also would have wins over Seles and Sanchez that year, someone who pushed Graf to the brink in the Wimbledon semis and Sanchez in the Olympic quarters, and a semifinalist from 94-96 in slams on all 3 surfaces (Date). Another a slam finalist already that year, and someone who took Graf to 5 sets in the WTA Championships (Huber). Another a slam champion already and a recent FO finalist, who had thumped Graf and Sanchez in slam semis and finals already (Pierce). Another like I said the fastest WTA server ever, who recently came out of retirement to retake that record from the Williams in her mid 30s (Schultz). Another a human backboard with 4 career wins over Graf (Coetzer). All these people were expected to lose in the round of 16, some of them given little hope to even get out of that round. That to me is a sign of a very deep field. Even Maleeva was a touted up and comer around 95-96 who didnt pan out to expectations, but well past her prime a # of years later beat Venus, Davenport, and Mauresmo all at their peaks in succession to win a tier 1 title.

Anyway before posting my thoughts I just want to point out exactly how Tracy Austin went through the draw:

Graf-Fernandez: she just dimissed Fernandez completely in this one, basically calling it a write off and looking ahead to the Graf-Majoli quarterfinal already. I understood this given their history, and that MJ also wasnt even quite as strong as 90-93 anymore when she still never beat Graf.

Majoli-Paulus- exact same as above, she basically wrote this match off as a foregone conclusion and looked forward already to Graf-Majoli. I actually was a bit surprised, I favored Majoli but didnt think Paulus had no chance in this the way I could see Graf-Fernandez.

Martinez-Coetzer- Tracy actually dismissed this match completely as well just saying "Martinez is too good on the clay". Given that Coetzer had become a very tough player starting in mid 95 I was initialy very surprised. That was until I looked up their head to head and found Martinez had complete dominance over Coetzer throughout their careers, even on hard courts which is Coetzer's favorite surface. Obviously just a bad matchup for Coetzer, probably since Martinez's high topspins, possibly the most extreme on tour at the time, are too much for such a tiny and short player to handle.

Date-Davenport- Tracy said she thought Davenport could come through at this one, so seemed to imply both players had a real shot but she just slightly favored Davenport. I was actually slightly in the reverse, just slightly favoring Date.

Hingis-Huber- said she was really looking forward to this one, then said "and if Hingis gets past this one", so again seeming to imply like Davenport vs Date both players had a real shot but just slightly favoring Hingis.

Sanchez-Pierce- and Austin continued "she would then of course play Aranxta Sanchez". So she was completely dismissing Pierce's chances in this match altogether, not even given her the token of mentioning her name and saying she had no shot like Coetzer and Fernandez. I actually favored Sanchez clearly in this potential matchup at the time as Pierce was not in good form or shape at all in 96, but I was still very surprised she ignored her completely in this match which I thought was excessive given that even Tracy has seen what Mary is capable of on a given day.

Schultz-Novotna- didnt even bother noting anyone in the bottom quarter other than Seles, or discussing this match at all. I guess she was just getting tired.

Seles-Maleeva- again didnt even mention Maleeva or this match. Only said I think Seles will come through in that bottom part of the draw, which I translated to mean a virtual lock in her opinion to get to the semis atleast, and then concluded by saying she thought Seles would play Graf in the final.

The parts she looked ahead she mentioned:

Graf-Majoli- this quarterfinal she all but declared a certainty as said above she thought would be a very intersting match since Majoli was really coming into her own that year. So it would seem to apply she was atleast giving Majoli some chance of an upset, although by no means favoring her.

She didnt look forward to Martinez (who she deemed certain to beat Coetzer) vs Date or Davenport at all.

Sanchez-Hingis- she did say if Hingis got past Huber that she also wouldnt be "surprised if she came up with a win over Aranxta Sanchez, I think it might be time for Hingis to come through". I was very surprised at those comments, I thought it was way soon for Hingis to be beating Sanchez on clay, in fact I considered Pierce even in her poor form at the time to be a bigger threat to Sanchez on clay than Hingis.

She didnt talk any further than that on the draw except predicting a Graf-Seles final.

[grafselesfan]

Anyway now to give what my predictions of how the draw would play out before it actually happened at the time this is how I saw it:

Graf-Fernandez: I thought Graf was a virtual cinch in this one, just like Austin. I felt badly for MJ to be in this 100% hopeless situation as soon as a round of 16 a bit as she was a solid player of the decade who I respected. However as I said earlier Fernandez by 96 wasnt as good as 90-93 anymore, even 95 really, and even those years she had never beaten Graf. I expected a pretty routine match, nothing even approaching the 93 FO final for example.

Majoli-Paulus- I thought Paulus had a real shot of winning this match considering she had a win over Martinez on clay that year, but still would have definitely picked Majoli.

Martinez-Coetzer- as I said earlier I would have given Coetzer a decent shot in this match, despite Martinez's much higher ranking and being more of a clay courter, until I checked out their head to head history which is complete ownership for Martinez full of lopsided matches even on hard courts.

Date-Davenport- I would have picked Date in 3, almost a tossup though.

Hingis-Huber- I actually would have picked Huber in 3. Hingis I thought was already a very good player, but a bit overhyped at the time, especialy by people like Austin who loved her back then.

Sanchez-Pierce- I would never totally discount Mary from a match like this even in poor form so would have still given her an outside shot, but would have picked Sanchez in 2. 96 was not a good year for Mary.

Schultz-Novotna- I would pick Novotna over Schultz on any surface as they have the same surface preferences order really, with clay the worst for both. With her huge serve I would never discount Schultz in a match like this one, but still would have picked Novotna in 2.

Seles-Maleeva- they play essentialy the same game, and for the most part the widely held assumption this is another player like Huber and Majoli who Seles owns so thoroughly as they are essential a weaker clone of her exact game is true. That being said I have seen their matches and Maleeva actually surprisingly has matched or at times even outslugged Seles in many of the baseline exchanges. However Maleeva has nowhere near as strong a serve and return of serve so wasnt getting the quick freer points ended on her own 1st and 2nd shot like Seles does, and is way more inconsistent, hits way more unforced errors than Seles ever does. So Seles easily I would have called.

Quarters:

Graf vs Majoli (or Paulus)- I thought this would be easy for Graf, even if it were Majoli. Then if Paulus upset Majoli and it were Paulus vs Graf, LOL!

Martinez vs Date or Davenport- I thought if it was Date there was actually a good shot Martinez would go down. Date is a very bad matchup for Martinez, and actually has a one sided winning head to head with her. None of the matches on clay mind you which would help Martinez's chances a great deal but I still would have given Date a good shot to take Martinez in this one. If it were Davenport than Martinez easily would have been my call. By contrast to Date, Martinez was a very bad matchup for Davenport, especialy in her younger days, and clay favoring Martinez more makes it an even easier call.

Huber or Hingis vs Sanchez (or Pierce). This was a pretty open section but I would have favored Sanchez heavily over either Huber or Hingis on clay at the time, and Pierce heavily over Hingis. If it were Huber an Pierce, actually would have given Huber a good shot as she historically has been a tough matchup for Huber, and as said before Pierce wasnt in great form at the time. Ironically Hingis is the one I would have given almost no chance to come out of this quarter and it seems Austin was picking her to, LOL!

Seles vs Novotna (or Schultz)- If it were Novotna I would have picked Seles easily. First thing I have to note is this match came BEFORE it was obvious Novotna was a very bad matchup for post stabbing Seles, which would later become evident even by that summer. If one would have known that of course you would have have had to give Novotna a much bigger chance, even on clay. Even not knowing that yet mind you I still wouldnt have written Novotna off that easily on any other surface other than clay. Clay though is a very good surface for Seles, and Novotna's worst. I would have seen Seles easily through this quarter, if it were Schultz in the quarters even easier.

Semis:

Graf vs Martinez or Date- I would picked Graf easily over Date on clay, but Martinez would have a decent shot since she had taken her to 3 sets in 95 and was in very good form coming into the French.

Seles vs Sanchez/Pierce/Huber- Seles easily over any. Seles has always been a bad matchup for Seles. Pierce wasnt in form, and Huber has never even won a set vs Seles

Final:

Graf or Martinez vs Seles- If it were Graf then Graf in 2 close sets. Even though Seles came close to beating Graf at the Open I sort of saw Graf as pulling ahead of Seles by that point in time. If it were Martinez though, Seles easily, Martinez has always found Seles an awful matchup for her.

[grafselesfan]

This is pretty interesting. Well I'll try and give a good analysis, although some of these depend on a few factors.

Round of 16:

Graf (1) vs Mary Joe Fernandez (11)

I say Graf quite easily, Graf dominated Mary Jo even in the early 90's when Graf was struggling with all sorts of personal issues. If I was back then looking at this before it happened...I'd say Graf in straights by a score of 6-3 6-3 or something close to it.

Majoli (5) vs Paulus (16)

Majoli quite easily...I honestly don't even remember Paulus to well, but if she was a top 20 player she must have been pretty good, but Majoli was at her best on Clay so I would say she would win in straights...can't give a score because like I said I don't really remember Paulus to well.

Martinez (3) vs Coetzer (14)

This is one of those tough ones. If i was looking at it before it happened I would say it depended on how mentally strong Conchita was, and that it would be hers to lose. If coetzer was on and Conchita off, it would become a fight. Conchita was strong on clay from 1994-1996 and my gut would tell me it would be close depending on how well she played. I would say Conchita would win...I'd say 3 sets...dunno why 6-3 4-6 6-3...or something like that. coetzer was always a dangerous dark horse and she would probably be able to give conchita a good match

Date (7) vs Davenport (9)

Complete toss Up. Both of these 2 were at their weakest on clay and davenport in 1996 was not in the shape she would get into by the 98 us open. However since Date was in better shape in 1996 than Lindsay, and the french requires grinding out points...i'd say Date...but in 3 sets.

Huber (6) vs Hingis (15)

Again tough, Hingis was a feisty teen and a great court reader. Huber was sort of a dark horse top ten player who was just off her first slam final at the aussie...losing to Seles. in the end....I'm torn, but Hingis's court reading ability and the fact she was so young and had little to lose...I would probably go out on a limb and say her in 3. I know Grafselesfan you might disagree...but in the end neither would win this event so its sort of moot.

Sanchez Vicario (4) vs Pierce (12)

Again...A complete toss up. It would depend which Pierce took the court, if it was on fire anihilate steffi Graf in straights Pierce of 1994, she would beat Arantxa playing like that. If it was shaky, inconsistant Pierce...Arantxa. For the sake of making this a little more interesting...I'll give it to Pierce but I feel this on any given day could go either way.

Schultz McCarthy (8 ) vs Novotna (10)

Again...Toss up. McCarthy;s big serve would not give hera huge advantage on clay, giving Novotna a chance. Novotna herself was not the best on clay, but i would give it to her because the surface would sort of cancel Brenda's biggest weapon. Novotna in 3.

Seles (2) vs Maggie Maleeva (13)

Seles. I would expect her, even post stabbing to easily handle Maggie. Seles had just won the Aussie and even though Maggie was ok on clay seles should have no problem with her.

So that would make my quarterfinals

Graf (1) vs Majoli (5)
Martinez (3) vs Date (7)
Hingis (15) vs Pierce (12)
Novotna (10) vs Seles (2)

Graf (1) vs Majoli (5)

Graf in straights. Graf always did well against Majoli and Graf in 1996 was playing well, Majoli was doing ok herself but Graf had her number.

Martinez (3) vs Date (7)

Martinez is a much better clay courter than Date, and I would expect her to win this. If Date were able to wrongfoot Conchita or somehow quickly from the start get in her head and make her question herself, that would be her only shot in my opinion. If Date didn't manage to break early on though...Conchita.

Hingis (15) vs Pierce (12)

Again..toss up. Any match with Pierce is. Same thing i said for the last match, if Pierce comes out on fire i doubt Hingis of 1996 stands a shot, but if she doesn'yt Hingis would quickly get to her and have her struggling. Its a coin flip but I guess I'd go with Pierce....again..could go either way and if you disagree its cool

Novotna (10) vs Seles (2)

Seles. Novotna after the stabbing occured did do well against monica but i would probably say Monica would be better on clay even post stabbing than novotna was, so Seles wins.

so the Semi's would be

Graf (1) vs Martinez (3)
Pierce (12) vs Seles (2)

Graf (1) vs Martinez (3)

Close call actually. Martinez was always dangerous on clay despite the fact that some would underestimate her. If she was in the zone she would have a shot at beating steffi. But as steffi was so consistant it would really be up to Conchita keeping cool....and against Steffi conchita wasn't good at that so Steffi in 3.

Pierce (12) vs Seles (2)

If Hingis beats pierce in my made up draw I would say she would beat Seles, even at this time Seles was never good against Hingis. But since I flipped a coin and picked Pierce it becomes a bit more interesting. Again..completely dependant on Pierce , but i would say Seles.

Final...Steffi vs Mons.....I'd say steffi, she had beaten Seles on hardcourts at the previous years US Open and even though thats a completely different surface I would expect this to turn out in a similar way.

Thats my what if draw...I'll go back a little later and pick apart how it actually turned out...don't have the mindset to do it now, this was hard enough.

Thanks for your hypothetical analysis. It was interesting to read someone elses views comparing them to both my own and Austin's at the time. It looks like we mostly agree, although you rate Pierce's chances, especialy vs Sanchez, much higher than I do, while Austin's are even much lower than mine still, so mine are kind of in the middle, and yours and Austin's views on Pierces chances of progressing through the draw at all are miles apart, LOL (as I said Pierce was one of the few who didnt even merit her name mentioned for Austin). Also looks like you give Date less chance of taking Martinez in a hypothetical matchup on clay than I do, Date did own Martinez head to head, but none of the matches were on clay like I said so would have been very interesting to see them play on clay for the first time ever. Was annoyed with Davenport for beating Date it turned out 8-6 in the 3rd, as I knew Martinez-Davenport at the time on clay especialy would be a boring rout, and would have liked to have seen Martinez vs Date on clay for the first time.

[boredone3456]

Thanks for your hypothetical analysis. It was interesting to read someone elses views comparing them to both my own and Austin's at the time. It looks like we mostly agree, although you rate Pierce's chances, especialy vs Sanchez, much higher than I do, while Austin's are even much lower than mine still, so mine are kind of in the middle, and yours and Austin's views on Pierces chances of progressing through the draw at all are miles apart, LOL (as I said Pierce was one of the few who didnt even merit her name mentioned for Austin). Also looks like you give Date less chance of taking Martinez in a hypothetical matchup on clay than I do, Date did own Martinez head to head, but none of the matches were on clay like I said so would have been very interesting to see them play on clay for the first time ever. Was annoyed with Davenport for beating Date it turned out 8-6 in the 3rd, as I knew Martinez-Davenport at the time on clay especialy would be a boring rout, and would have liked to have seen Martinez vs Date on clay for the first time.

Yeah we did mostly agree...I expected your to favor Sanchez knowing how Pierce was so rocky in 1996. I looked at them this way, Pierce even during abad year could kick it up, and it being her home major I thought that might help. Pierce, as we both know..was always a dangerous dark horse and like I said...I picked Pierce because it make the hypothetical interesting...picking Sanchez makes it a virtual lock for Seles because Seles owned Arantxa and knowing Pierce...she could turn it up, and i would think that since 1996 so far for pierce was bad...she was due...but it would be wide open between these two.

I sort of looked at Date vs Martinez with a skeptics eye. Date's worst surface was clay, and clay was where Martinez was at her best...so I thought Martinez would be able to win easily...especially since Martinez would kill Davenport, and since i only give Date a slight edge over Lindsay..for me thats how it worked out. I honestly cannot believe Davenport beat Date...but thats just me.

[grafselesfan]

Well it is funny, when they were looking at the draw all top 16 seeds had made the 3rd round, that is why they were speculating all 16 might make the 4th round. However in the 3rd 3 seeds were upset so it didnt quite come to pass. Here is how it actually did play out:

Graf vs Fernandez- Graf won 6-1, 7-6, but Fernandez nearly took it to 3 when she was up 4-0 in the 2nd set tiebreak. Graf charged back to win the tiebreak 9-7 though.

Majoli vs Paulus- hardly shocking probably the softest of all seeds in this probably softest quarter- Barbara Paulus, was ousted in the 3rd round by Spanish clay courter Leon Garcia. Majoli trounced Leon Garcia

Coetzer vs Martinez- as Austin seemed fairly certain of Martinez had an easy win, dropping only 5 games, running her record to Coetzer now to 8-0 with only 1 lost set.

Davenport vs Date- Davenport won 8-6 in the 3rd.

Habsudova vs Huber- Habsudova, an unseeded hard hitting up and comer at the time, won a nailbiting 3 setter over Hingis in the 3rd round, then took out Huber in a tight 2 setter as well to reach the quarters.

Sanchez vs Rittner- the unpredictable Pierce put on a horrid performance in getting trounced by German veteran Rittner, then Rittner fell to Sanchez in a fairly comfortable 2 setter.

Novotna vs Spirlea- the 3rd seed to fall was Schultz, another of the weaker seeds on clay as she lost to the dangerous future top tenner Spirlea. Novotna who owned Spirlea throughout their careers then had a fairly easy 2 set win.

Seles vs Maleeva- as expected by most Seles trounced Maleeva in their first post stabbing meeting, and first meeting since that fateful Hamburg day where none other than Maggie was her opponent.


Graf vs Majoli- Graf trounced Majoli easily in their quarterfinal, dropping only 4 games.

Martinez vs Davenport- Martinez trounced Davenport, dropping only 4 games, a similar match to what they had in the round of 16 in Australia on hard courts.

Sanchez vs Habsudova- Habsudova looked poised at one point to continue her upset run after wins over Hingis and Huber, was on the verge of a huge upset over Sanchez. After saving 2 match points in the 2nd she overpowered Sanchez and was at 30-0 serving for it at 8-7 up in the 3rd set. From there Sanchez resorted to desperate moonballing and Habsudova choked and then fell apart, and Sanchez came back to win 10-8 in the 3rd.

Seles vs Novotna- Novotna would begin her string of overall dominance vs post stabbing Seles here on her worst sufrace with a straights sets upset 7-6, 6-3.


Novotna vs Sanchez- Novotna showed off some of her classic Novotna syndrome, going up 4-2 in the 1st set and 5-3 in the 2nd, before cracking under nerves both times. Sanchez won a tight 2 setter with solid but unspectacular tennis, as Tracy Austin said "she didnt need to play spectacular, Jana Novotna simply didnt come ready to play some great tennis today."

Graf vs Martinez- an even bigger dissapointment than the Sanchez vs Novotna semifinal as Martinez who had taken Graf to a thrilling 3 setter the year before and seemed in good form to be a challenger for the French Open title after winning Rome in impressive fashion all but was a no show. Graf though was much sharper than 95 as well, and then time cruised, dropping only 4 games.

Final- obviously a thriller which Graf won 10-8 in the 3rd. Sanchez serving for it twice, and before the first attempt having break points for a 2 break lead, but Graf coming through. Graf herself couldnt close out a 4-1 lead in the 2nd set tiebreak in one of the rarest and biggest chokes I have ever seen from her.

[Audiophile]

Ahh....back when women's tennis used to be compelling, at least to me. Thanks for bringing back some memories.

[grafselesfan]

Ahh....back when women's tennis used to be compelling, at least to me. Thanks for bringing back some memories.

Thank you. Those were the days I agree *sighs*. To me the truest sign of depth in womens tennis is when the round of 16 matches are interesting and when you see really good players slated to go out in the round of 16. Actually as far back as 2004 and 2005 this was the case in womens tennis as well. Alot of top players playing each other in round of 16 matches, good players slated to out in the round of 16. You dont get that at all anymore which is a sign the depth of the field is nothing like it was even in 2004-2005.

[grafselesfan]

Since I know Henry Kaspar seems to be an avid follower of womens tennis I would like to know what he thinks of this.