2015 WTA Finals

[ScentOfDefeat]

I don't think Martina believed that this would be her one and only chance to win the CYGS. She believed she was going to dominate tennis for a long time and I am sure thought she would easily best all of the records.

I will rewatch the final if I can, but the word back then was that her injury hindered her movement. I am not surprised that she easily made the final though...she pretty much was easily beating everyone that year.

Yeah, well, that first part is speculation, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If she could play until the end in that final, I'm sure she was fit enough to beat Majoli as easily as she beat other opponents. I'm also speculating, of course, but I distinctly remember her being outplayed. Majoli played a very good match, it seemed like one of those Krajicek/Cilic performances you only witness once in a while (more impressive than those because she beat arguably the best player in the world in the final). But Hingis' problem was mental, she wasn't expecting the match to unfold the way it did and she got tight.

 

[AngieB]

^
But I find its more often than not that it's less about the player discussed than an imagined slur on their favourite. Reason goes out the window.

#Chrissy

...Angie​

 

[Mr.Lob]

#Chrissy

...Angie​

LOL. Your very real, NOT imagined, slurs against Chris Evert are well documented grannyb.

# Roberta Vinci

 

[PDJ]

LOL. Your very real, NOT imagined, slurs against Chris Evert are well documented grannyb.

# Roberta Vinci

That made me laugh...A HEARTY BRITISH GUFFAW!
#Chrissie = #Miss America.

 

[Soianka]

Yeah, well, that first part is speculation, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If she could play until the end in that final, I'm sure she was fit enough to beat Majoli as easily as she beat other opponents. I'm also speculating, of course, but I distinctly remember her being outplayed. Majoli played a very good match, it seemed like one of those Krajicek/Cilic performances you only witness once in a while (more impressive than those because she beat arguably the best player in the world in the final). But Hingis' problem was mental, she wasn't expecting the match to unfold the way it did and she got tight.

Clearly, Martina thought she'd be dominating for a long time. She said it frequently. Even remarked that the Williams sisters could be number 1 "when she retired."

She was a kid and she was used to dominating in the juniors and now in the pros. I don't believe she had any clue how hard it would actually be and how short lived her dominance would have been.

I definitely think she could have pulled off the CYGS in 1997 if she took that chance more seriously.

 

[PDJ]

Clearly, Martina thought she'd be dominating for a long time. She said it frequently. Even remarked that the Williams sisters could be number 1 "when she retired."

She was a kid and she was used to dominating in the juniors and now in the pros. I don't believe she had any clue how hard it would actually be and how short lived her dominance would have been.

I definitely think she could have pulled off the CYGS in 1997 if she took that chance more seriously.

I do agree with this.
I also think, that in some respects, she was too talented and took said talent for granted. She was feted by the world's press when she was still a child. And success as a precocious junior seemed to translate seamlessly to the senior game. She appears to have been exceptionally spoilt.And failed to handle the shift to brute force tennis which, IMO, was as much to do with her temperament as it was a change in the game.
That said, she's a beautiful player to watch and I'm pleased she's doing so well now.
Again, IMO, the game is much better for her.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

She was 16, how could she have taken it more seriously than she did at the time? I'm not following this logic. Any way you look at it, in 1997 Hingis was in the process of establishing herself as the overwhelmingly dominant player on the tour. She wasn't even the favorite to win everything until she suddenly started winning everything. How could we possibly ask more of her as a teenager? If you say she took it for granted later on in her career, when she started to lose against Davenport and the Williams sisters, I could perhaps agree. But as a 16-year-old? To me, that's when she wasn't at all expected to win the CYGS and gave herself a great chance to achieve it. It's the following years that, to me, could be argued as years where she didn't take it seriously enough (although many other reasons could be identified).

 

[PDJ]

That's exactly what I am saying: later in her career. And re her temperament, her meltdown at RG v Grafton in 99. And her hissy fit with her Mum (she dropped her after RG as a coach - they reunited soon after) when she went out in the first round at Wimbledon - and it was inferred she lost to spite her mother.
Obviously she was very young and that wold have shaped her thoughts. But it cost her and is a reflection on the way she could behave.
But, I still rate her extremely highly.

Edit : Apologies @ScentOfDefeat I realise you're concentrating on Hingis in 1997 solely. And I'm discussing her singles career in general.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

That's exactly what I am saying: later in her career. And re her temperament, her meltdown at RG v Grafton in 99. And her hissy fit with her Mum (she dropped her after RG as a coach - they reunited soon after) when she went out in the first round at Wimbledon - and it was inferred she lost to spite her mother.
Obviously she was very young and that wold have shaped her thoughts. But it cost her and is a reflection on the way she could behave.
But, I still rate her extremely highly.

Edit : Apologies @ScentOfDefeat I realise you're concentrating on Hingis in 1997 solely. And I'm discussing her singles career in general.

That's absolutely fine, I don't think we disagree at all.

I was just questioning Soianka's idea - in an otherwise interesting argument that I subscribe to - that Hingis could've done something different in 1997 (her breakthrough year and also her best year) to win the CYGS, and that it's somehow related to effort or commitment. On the contrary, I believe that, had she done something different, she probably wouldn't have ended up with the closest thing we've had to a CYGS in the past few decades. Everything was working for her except that RG title that eluded her by one match (2 matches at the end of her career). I don't think she could've performed any better in 1997. Which is why I think her inability to win RG is not carelessness, lack of commitment or injury but rather a mental block (and very good opponents).

 

[PDJ]

If results are anything to go by, it's difficult to fault her commitment in 97.

 

[AngieB]

LOL. Your very real, NOT imagined, slurs against Chris Evert are well documented grannyb.

# Roberta Vinci

That made me laugh...A HEARTY BRITISH GUFFAW!
#Chrissie = #Miss America.

http://www.etonline.com/news/175490...he_most_still_misses_ex_sally_field_terribly/

Why is it none of #Chrissy's ex's call her "the best", yet her long-suffering fans cling to her like static to polyester blend?

Newsflash: #America still wins women's grand slam events. #Serena threw #Radwanska her left-overs. #Dust

...Angie​

 

[AngieB]

If results are anything to go by, it's difficult to fault her commitment in 97.

#Hingis directly benefited from #Graf injuries, hence #Hingis' one great year in Grand Slam tennis. #Hingis never had the game to challenge women's singles historically. The big girls ran her into retirement by age 22, LOL. She just wasn't tough enough (except around a mirror and a dollar bill). #Dust

...Angie​

 

[PDJ]

http://www.etonline.com/news/175490...he_most_still_misses_ex_sally_field_terribly/

Why is it none of #Chrissy's ex's call her "the best", yet her long-suffering fans cling to her like static to polyester blend?

Newsflash: #America still wins women's grand slam events. #Serena threw #Radwanska her left-overs. #Dust

...Angie​

Tee hee

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I don't think Martina believed that this would be her one and only chance to win the CYGS. She believed she was going to dominate tennis for a long time and I am sure thought she would easily best all of the records.
.

Typical of her arrogance--the same arrogance leading her to publicly insult/criticize Graf, who set a record Hingis was not going to touch no matter who did or did not show up on the other side of the net.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

And Sharapova also did not win the RG before 2012 after breaking through in 2004. It is patently clear that you insist on deliberately holding Kvitova to different standards just so you can maintain the fiction of a two time slam and YEC winner being B Grade.

Nonsense. YOU were the one creating an arbitrary period of time used to judge both players, and when that did not work, due to the facts of history and achievement in your selected period, you now want to switch the criteria. You cannot simply change arguments when your favoritism for Kvitova does not hold up to scrutiny.

The record illustrates that in the time you selected, Sharapova achieved what was never expected of her. Kvitova did not. There' no spinning this.

Speaking of which, it is entirely logical to hold a 26 year old player to a different standard than a 28 year old because 2 years, esp in the mid twenties, is a long time in tennis. Haven't you discovered that yet?

Translated: excuse. If you can criticize majors winner Sharapova at 28, then you cannot protect Radwanska at 26--particularly when in women's tennis, many of the greater players won majors long before reaching 26, yet Radwanska has not.

She cannot be protected when majors winner are not. Again, what is the excuse?

My only agenda is that a player who has won a YEC should be respected for her achievement instead of making pathetic arguments to discredit her. If you don't agree, then I too am fully entitled to bash the ball bashers.

Your comments about Sharapova--who actually won the most important titles in the sport--are not complimentary, yet you bristle at some offering any rational analysis about someone winning a YEC....and you cannot see why your ridiculous, agenda-driven view is not seen as fair. Not a surprise.

This is just absolutely ridiculous. What on earth do Hingis's supporters have to do with the feat eluding her? Do you realise that Hingis was one service game away from winning the RG....against Graf, no less? So it's pathetic to decry her talent simply because you deride her fans.

...just as you deride fans of the nonexistent "bashers."

My....how did you miss that?

I presume it is your tennis insight that is non existent.

Said the person who is so blinded by agenda, flames and hate that he writes off generations as "bashers" when your intended victims achieve more playing real tennis, instead of some watered down park game that has not amounted to much as of this date.

So much for your understanding of the sport.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Nonsense. YOU were the one creating an arbitrary period of time used to judge both players, and when that did not work, due to the facts of history and achievement in your selected period, you now want to switch the criteria. You cannot simply change arguments when your favoritism for Kvitova does not hold up to scrutiny.

It is not an arbitrary period but a perfectly logical one. Seriously, there are only five multiple slam winning players still active in the tour right now - Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Azarenka and Kvitova. Of these, Venus is a spent force. Azarenka is young enough to make a comeback but I don't know if she will, this year was not encouraging. Between Sharapova and Kvitova, the fact that they both won only two slams means there is precious little to choose between them...if we leave aside Sharapova's reputation carried over from her previous slam wins. Speaking of which...

The record illustrates that in the time you selected, Sharapova achieved what was never expected of her. Kvitova did not. There' no spinning this.

So you seriously did not expect Sharapova to win the slams she has won before but expected her to convert on her traditionally weak surface? OK, who's spinning what? If you wear blinkers the size of a Hummer, I can't help you.

Translated: excuse. If you can criticize majors winner Sharapova at 28, then you cannot protect Radwanska at 26--particularly when in women's tennis, many of the greater players won majors long before reaching 26, yet Radwanska has not.

1) I have said twice already and I will only say it one more time that I do no expect Radwanksa to win slams at this stage of her career. Maybe you also need a magnifying glass the size of a Hummer to read that?
2) However, there is a huge difference between 26 and 28.
3) I think it is your disappointment that I actually accepted the point forthwith without arguing it that makes you belabour it so and desperately attempt to colour it as any sort of excuse making.

Your comments about Sharapova--who actually won the most important titles in the sport--are not complimentary, yet you bristle at some offering any rational analysis about someone winning a YEC....and you cannot see why your ridiculous, agenda-driven view is not seen as fair. Not a surprise.

The difference is I do not go out seeking threads where I can bash Sharapova. Nor any other player, really. I respect the hell out of the pros. And I have little if any respect for people who bash the hell out of pros and denigrate the discussion to this low level. But once they do, I have no compunctions about joining issue and paying you back in the same coin. You should, sometimes at least, get a taste of what you really sound like, just in case you missed. There is no point in my continuing to remain politically correct once the petulant name calling ensues.

...just as you deride fans of the nonexistent "bashers."

My....how did you miss that?

See above. Spare me the pathetic Radwanska bashing and I am perfectly happy not to bash the ball bashers. I always respect another person's choice to like something I don't...as long as they don't tread on MY choice. I also don't mind somebody DISLIKING something I do as long as they don't presume to tell me that what I like is pathetic. That's none of your business.

Said the person who is so blinded by agenda, flames and hate that he writes off generations as "bashers" when your intended victims achieve more playing real tennis, instead of some watered down park game that has not amounted to much as of this date.

See above +2. Plus, I don't think anything I said yet about ball bashers is still as pathetic as the bolded part. Yeah, sure, a YEC win does not amount to much because you can always rationalise how it didn't that particular oh-so-special year, right?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I don't mean for people to jump on me here but... If we are talking about changing history (Hingis winning the French) isn't it plausible to say that the year could have changed if she had won. Perhaps she didn't go on to win the next 2 slams. I find it hard to argue that she was in the running for the CYGS in 1997.

I see there is a heated argument going on about Hingis. She's an interesting player that's for sure. I both like and dislike her. I haven't 'forgiven' her for her comments in her early career. Calling Mauresmo half a man right after she came out as a lesbian. Saying Novotna was 'too old and too slow' to continue being her doubles partner, saying in 1998 that Graf was 'old now. Her time has passed' and then a year later Graf defeated Hingis at the French which was marred with controversy. Notably Hingis being a bad sport and serving underhand while being down championship point..
But despite her being somewhat unlikeable, she is an amazing tennis player. She was a female tennis prodigy and holds many records. Over a decade on she's crushing the doubles world and showing that she still has it.

1) I have said twice already and I will only say it one more time that I do no expect Radwanksa to win slams at this stage of her career.

Man it's a real shame that a player could win the YEC and not win a slam. I REALLY want Aga to win a slam at some point just so it makes her winning the YEC somewhat justifiable. Mauresmo and Clijsters went on to win slams and Aga could win Wimbledon with Serena and Kvitova out.

 

[PDJ]

#Hingis directly benefited from #Graf injuries, hence #Hingis' one great year in Grand Slam tennis. #Hingis never had the game to challenge women's singles historically. The big girls ran her into retirement by age 22, LOL. She just wasn't tough enough (except around a mirror and a dollar bill). #Dust

...Angie​

You mean like the big game similar to SW and the not so big game similar to Vinci?
How does that work out for you?
#Dust.... Oh you are.

 

[Soianka]

That's absolutely fine, I don't think we disagree at all.

I was just questioning Soianka's idea - in an otherwise interesting argument that I subscribe to - that Hingis could've done something different in 1997 (her breakthrough year and also her best year) to win the CYGS, and that it's somehow related to effort or commitment. On the contrary, I believe that, had she done something different, she probably wouldn't have ended up with the closest thing we've had to a CYGS in the past few decades. Everything was working for her except that RG title that eluded her by one match (2 matches at the end of her career). I don't think she could've performed any better in 1997. Which is why I think her inability to win RG is not carelessness, lack of commitment or injury but rather a mental block (and very good opponents).

Forget Paris? Hingis Has Surgery on Knee After Fall From Horse
April 24, 1997|Associated Press
ZURICH, Switzerland — Martina Hingis, the world's No. 1 women's tennis player, underwent arthroscopic surgery on her left knee Wednesday after suffering partially torn ligaments in a fall from a horse.

The injury comes just as Steffi Graf, whom Hingis, 16, dethroned as No. 1, is recovering from a knee injury and planning a comeback in a tournament in mid-May in Berlin.

Hingis, who won the Australian Open and is 31-0 in matches this year, had hoped to bid for her second Grand Slam victory, at the French Open in Paris, May 26-June 8.

"It is certain that Martina will have to miss Hamburg [next week], Rome and Berlin," said her mother and coach, Melanie Molitor. "We'll have to wait and see if she can play at the French Open."

I had forgotten that Martina had surgery after her fall from the horse and missed a bunch of lead up tournaments before playing the FO.

In light of that, it's pretty obvious that had she taken her tennis more seriously and not been fooling around on a horse right in the middle of the playing season, she would have had a much better chance of winning the CYGS.

I don't see how anyone would argue that she just caught a hot Majoli, and that's why she lost, when Hingis herself didn't even have full preparation for the tournament due to her knee injury

Like I said, Martina thought she would be dominating women's tennis for years to come. She didn't recognize that her domination was due to the absence of Steffi and the immaturity of the future greats.

Had her or her mom realized what a big opportunity she had in 1997 to clean up, I have to think she would have waited until the off season to ride her horses.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I had forgotten that Martina had surgery after her fall from the horse and missed a bunch of lead up tournaments before playing the FO.

In light of that, it's pretty obvious that had she taken her tennis more seriously and not been fooling around on a horse right in the middle of the playing season, she would have had a much better chance of winning the CYGS.

I don't see how anyone would argue that she just caught a hot Majoli, and that's why she lost, when Hingis herself didn't even have full preparation for the tournament due to her knee injury

Like I said, Martina thought she would be dominating women's tennis for years to come. She didn't recognize that her domination was due to the absence of Steffi and the immaturity of the future greats.

Had her or her mom realized what a big opportunity she had in 1997 to clean up, I have to think she would have waited until the off season to ride her horses.

Yes, how unprofessional of her and her entourage to not be fully engaged in winning the CYGS as a 16-year-old after her maiden victory at the Australian Open. Let's just say she didn't have the benefit of hindsight we have, which makes us sound so smart. She was still rising, she wasn't expected to do anything. It was only at the end of that year that an interpretation like yours could've come to light (oh, had she taken it more seriously...). Had Serena taken her match against Vinci more seriously; had Sampras taken tennis more seriously after his maiden US Open win (more than 2 years without winning a Slam - disgraceful) ... It's all speculation: I don't think we're entitled to judge a tennis player's level of commitment unless it's completely blatant and not just an accident (like falling off a horse).

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Had her or her mom realized what a big opportunity she had in 1997 to clean up, I have to think she would have waited until the off season to ride her horses.

I'm sure current tennis players sometimes do things that are as risky if not riskier than riding a horse. It's only when something bad happens that it becomes "irresponsible". If they bungee jump or ride camels and nothing happens to them, it's fine and dandy. Come on.

 

[Soianka]

Yes, how unprofessional of her and her entourage to not be fully engaged in winning the CYGS as a 16-year-old after her maiden victory at the Australian Open. Let's just say she didn't have the benefit of hindsight we have, which makes us sound so smart. She was still rising, she wasn't expected to do anything. It was only at the end of that year that an interpretation like yours could've come to light (oh, had she taken it more seriously...). Had Serena taken her match against Vinci more seriously; had Sampras taken tennis more seriously after his maiden US Open win (more than 2 years without winning a Slam - disgraceful) ... It's all speculation: I don't think we're entitled to judge a tennis player's level of commitment unless it's completely blatant and not just an accident (like falling off a horse).

all of that was my point...she had no idea that 1997 would be her BEST year in singles pro tennis

had she known that, she would have taken her chances more seriously

instead she believed that she would be dominating women's tennis for a long time (she said it often) and that she would have many chances

so my point remains, she had an excellent chance of winning the CYGS because of the makeup of the tour in 1997 with Steffi absent, all of the new teenagers too green to make their mark yet, Davenport still playing 2nd rate tennis, and no one else ready to dominate.

Martina should have won the CYGS that year and would have pretty easily done so had she not fallen off her horse, had surgery in the weeks before RG and missed the runup tournaments.

you can just admit you were wrong now since you clearly didn't know or recall that Martina had had surgery because of her injury from riding her horse and missed all of the run up tournaments to the RG.

As for Serena, I am sure she took all of her matches quite seriously because she knew that this might very well be her last chance at a CYGS. But she is dealing with a 33 year old body, apparently some injuries, and some emotional issues. Serena winning 4 slams in a row was an amazing feat in itself.

 

[PDJ]

all of that was my point...she had no idea that 1997 would be her BEST year in singles pro tennis

had she known that, she would have taken her chances more seriously

instead she believed that she would be dominating women's tennis for a long time (she said it often) and that she would have many chances

so my point remains, she had an excellent chance of winning the CYGS because of the makeup of the tour in 1997 with Steffi absent, all of the new teenagers too green to make their mark yet, Davenport still playing 2nd rate tennis, and no one else ready to dominate.

Martina should have won the CYGS that year and would have pretty easily done so had she not fallen off her horse, had surgery in the weeks before RG and missed the runup tournaments.

you can just admit you were wrong now since you clearly didn't know or recall that Martina had had surgery because of her injury from riding her horse and missed all of the run up tournaments to the RG.

As for Serena, I am sure she took all of her matches quite seriously because she knew that this might very well be her last chance at a CYGS. But she is dealing with a 33 year old body, apparently some injuries, and some emotional issues. Serena winning 4 slams in a row was an amazing feat in itself.

I'm sure you're absolutely right that Serena took the possibility of a Grand Slam very seriously indeed the failure to pull it off resulting in, according to her Coach, depression. But can you honestly say that she's consistently, over all the years of her long career, taken her tennis as seriously as the standard you've set Hingis.

 

[Soianka]

I'm sure you're absolutely right that Serena took the possibility of a Grand Slam very seriously indeed the failure to pull it off resulting in, according to her Coach, depression. But can you honestly say that she's consistently, over all the years of her long career, taken her tennis as seriously as the standard you've set Hingis.

I think it's pretty clear that Serena has had a lot of distractions early on in her career.

I am in no way criticizing Hingis for failing to win the CYGS in 1997. I just think it's a shame really since she certainly had the ability and opportunity to do so that year and it would have been a great accomplishment. It was certainly in her hands that year. She was by far the best player and was dominating everyone.

 

[PDJ]

I think it's pretty clear that Serena has had a lot of distractions early on in her career.

I am in no way criticizing Hingis for failing to win the CYGS in 1997. I just think it's a shame really since she certainly had the ability and opportunity to do so that year.

With hindsight, yes. But we can level that charge with most, if not all, tennis players.
I wonder if Chris Evert regrets not playing the French 76-78 or missing the AO at least ten times? I know her fans do

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

all of that was my point...she had no idea that 1997 would be her BEST year in singles pro tennis

had she known that, she would have taken her chances more seriously

instead she believed that she would be dominating women's tennis for a long time (she said it often) and that she would have many chances

so my point remains, she had an excellent chance of winning the CYGS because of the makeup of the tour in 1997 with Steffi absent, all of the new teenagers too green to make their mark yet, Davenport still playing 2nd rate tennis, and no one else ready to dominate.

Martina should have won the CYGS that year and would have pretty easily done so had she not fallen off her horse, had surgery in the weeks before RG and missed the runup tournaments.

you can just admit you were wrong now since you clearly didn't know or recall that Martina had had surgery because of her injury from riding her horse and missed all of the run up tournaments to the RG.

As for Serena, I am sure she took all of her matches quite seriously because she knew that this might very well be her last chance at a CYGS. But she is dealing with a 33 year old body, apparently some injuries, and some emotional issues. Serena winning 4 slams in a row was an amazing feat in itself.

I wasn't "wrong", I just think we misunderstand each other more often than not. I'm not going to repeat myself and go through all that stuff about the injury not preventing her from reaching the final, etc. You just seem to want a negative cloud to loom on Hingis' 1997 as opposed to the positive, heroic mist of glitter surrounding Serena's 2015. I don't even like Hingis, so I'm not going to be the devil's advocate here.

 

[Soianka]

I wasn't "wrong", I just think we misunderstand each other more often than not. I'm not going to repeat myself and go through all that stuff about the injury not preventing her from reaching the final, etc. You just seem to want a negative cloud to loom on Hingis' 1997 as opposed to the positive, heroic mist of glitter surrounding Serena's 2015. I don't even like Hingis, so I'm not going to be the devil's advocate here.

That's the problem. You want to assign motives to my statements.

I have no desire to hang a negative cloud on Hingis' accomplishments in 1997. As a huge fan of tennis, it's one of the things in tennis, I wish had went another way. I think it would have been awesome if Hingis would have won the CYGS in 1997. I don't see any other teenager being able to accomplish anything near what Hingis did in 1997 for a very long time.

We certainly don't see any teens coming out of the starting gate and dominating like that. I think 97 was probably one of the most exciting years in women's tennis in recent years and Hingis is the biggest factor in that.

I am a Hingis fan and actually am not happy she lost to Steffi in the RG final a few years later. It's just upsetting to see her not take the opportunities that I feel she could have easily capitalized on. But yes, that is true of a lot of other players as well.

As I have said REPEATEDLY, she was by far the best player that year. There was no one challenging her. She was better than everyone else and to have the opportunity to win pretty much everything when you are 16 is an incredible accomplishment. It actually pains me that she didn't get the CYGS that year because it was certainly within her ability and was a lot less painful than watching Serena try to accomplish it this year.

You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people's motives. And yeah, you were wrong...her injury from the horse definitely affected her prep for RG.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

That's the problem. You want to assign motives to my statements.

I have no desire to hang a negative cloud on Hingis' accomplishments in 1997. As a huge fan of tennis, it's one of the things in tennis, I wish had went another way. I think it would have been awesome if Hingis would have won the CYGS in 1997. I don't see any other teenager being able to accomplish anything near what Hingis did in 1997 for a very long time.

We certainly don't see any teens coming out of the starting gate and dominating like that. I think 97 was probably one of the most exciting years in women's tennis in recent years and Hingis is the biggest factor in that.

I am a Hingis fan and actually am not happy she lost to Steffi in the RG final a few years later. It's just upsetting to see her not take the opportunities that I feel she could have easily capitalized on. But yes, that is true of a lot of other players as well.

As I have said REPEATEDLY, she was by far the best player that year. There was no one challenging her. She was better than everyone else and to have the opportunity to win pretty much everything when you are 16 is an incredible accomplishment. It actually pains me that she didn't get the CYGS that year because it was certainly within her ability and was a lot less painful than watching Serena try to accomplish it this year.

You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people's motives. And yeah, you were wrong...her injury from the horse definitely affected her prep for RG.

Well, again, she wouldn't have known it was a great opportunity to win the CYGS until she won the US Open, so I don't think Hingis herself is as frustrated about it as you seem to be. It's like the stories of Oedipus and Orestes: they were following the steps of destiny and had no idea that every action they took was taking them a step closer to what the oracles had predicted. And the horse accident, again, even if it affected her preparation for the tournament, certainly didn't stop her from reaching the final. Are we to believe that Majoli was a step too far for that injury-laden body of hers (that was fine until the final and that from then on went on another winning streak that gave her titles at Wimbledon and the US Open), or are we to believe that Majoli was better (no matter which version of Hingis appeared on that day) and that Hingis had a mental block at Roland-Garros (confirmed yet again two years later)? I'd say the second possibility is more likely.

I do apologize for my erroneous assumption about you and Hingis. However, it only means I misjudged whether you were a fan of hers or not. And this has no bearing on my disagreement with you, which is still intact: you believe she shouldn't have been "horsing around" (pardon the pun) and that it influenced the possibility of achieving the CYGS, whereas I don't think that was a determining factor at all. Had she won RG, which she wasn't even close to, she would then have all the pressure she ended up not having on her shoulders (which probably made it easier to win the following two Slams). And she wasn't exactly the best at dealing with pressure or expectations (we wouldn't even expect that from a 16-year-old) as her later career confirmed.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Between Sharapova and Kvitova, the fact that they both won only two slams means there is precious little to choose between them..

...only if one consciously ignores the importance of Sharapova winning where she was never expected to at any point in her career. There's no denying that was the greater feat between the two, and it is something you will have to live with, no matter how much you try to level the field of achievement between the two.

It is not working.

So you seriously did not expect Sharapova to win the slams she has won before but expected her to convert on her traditionally weak surface?

Pay attention to history--at least one time. Lendl won majors everywhere else, but he was never expected to win at Wimbledon, and failed to do so. This is a story repeated through history, so when one of the "not going to happen" players breaks through (and Sharapova was such a player at the FO), and going on to prove her ability there by winning it more than one time, that was an achievement of greater significance than Kvitova's in the same period. Again, its a fact you will have to live with, no matter how much you try to level the field of achievement between the two.

OK, who's spinning what? If you wear blinkers the size of a Hummer, I can't help you.

Trite posting is not a substitute for a cogent response.

1) I have said twice already and I will only say it one more time that I do no expect Radwanksa to win slams at this stage of her career. Maybe you also need a magnifying glass the size of a Hummer to read that?

Then you have no business criticizing one who actually won majors, while so desperately & angrily defending one who only managed a YEC title at the well seasoned tennis age of 26.

The difference is I do not go out seeking threads where I can bash Sharapova. Nor any other player, really. I respect the hell out of the pros. And I have little if any respect for people who bash the hell out of pros and denigrate the discussion to this low level. But once they do, I have no compunctions about joining issue and paying you back in the same coin.

Translated: you believe in the immature practice of tit for tat. What makes your case especially poor, is the fact you are firing at one who is quoting your own slurs against players you do not like. I'm sure the self-defeating nature of your behavior will be shunted in favor of more flames.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

...only if one consciously ignores the importance of Sharapova winning where she was never expected to at any point in her career. There's no denying that was the greater feat between the two, and it is something you will have to live with, no matter how much you try to level the field of achievement between the two.

You cannot argue that an established player with 3 slams in her kitty winning two on her weakest surface is greater than a new player winning two slams. That's just you trying to whitewash her failure to capitalise on opportunities at other slams.

Then you have no business criticizing one who actually won majors, while so desperately & angrily defending one who only managed a YEC title at the well seasoned tennis age of 26.

I am entitled to defend the fact that she is a worthy winner of the YEC, period.

you believe in the immature practice of tit for tat.

As if your comments overflow with maturity....

What makes your case especially poor, is the fact you are firing at one who is quoting your own slurs against players you do not like. I'm sure the self-defeating nature of your behavior will be shunted in favor of more flames.

Oh please, you were at it earlier in the thread even before the finals. You revived the slurs on Radwanska of your own without provocation when discussion had died down in the thread. You are clearly looking for opportunities all the time to repeat the same bloody arguments like a parrot. You don't see that as self-defeating perchance?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

You cannot argue that an established player with 3 slams in her kitty winning two on her weakest surface is greater than a new player winning two slams. That's just you trying to whitewash her failure to capitalise on opportunities at other slams.

Nonsense. After Kvitova won her 1st major, she was no sort of "new player." Further, yes, winning on the worst surface shows a greater challenge overcome than Kvitova's action. Are you that desperate to prop her up with such an easily dismissed

I am entitled to defend the fact that she is a worthy winner of the YEC, period.

Not while damning another player in a horribly misguided comparison. Period.

As if your comments overflow with maturity....

I'm not the one resorting to unprovoked, tit for tat flaming.

Oh please, you were at it earlier in the thread even before the finals. You revived the slurs on Radwanska

Your idolatry regarding Radwanska is not healthy, since you see any analysis of her as being a "slur," instead of seeing a YEC win as some reaching the top of Mount Everest-like achievement.

You are clearly looking for opportunities all the time to repeat the same bloody arguments like a parrot. You don't see that as self-defeating perchance?

Self defeating would be your incessant need to attack board members & other players without an ounce of self control or reason. Meanwhile, you continue to push the myth of the basher," --its ultimate purpose to inflate and protect Radwanska. No one is forcing you to do this, which speaks volumes about your obsessive, hostile nature.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

And this is why we don't deserve nice things.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Instead of creating a thread where barely anyone will comment i'll just post this here.
WTA has posted the comeback player of the year nominees:
Venus Williams- Won 3 titles including premier 5 Wuhan and Elite Trophy, back in top 10, QF Aus Open and US Open. Battled with Sjogren's
Bethanie Mattek-Sands- Started outside top 250 in both singles and doubles due to hip surgery. 3R Aus Open and US Open. Won the Aus Open doubles. Won both the French Open mixed and women doubles. 3 additional doubles titles.
Anastasija Sevastova- Came back from retirement. Won her first 13 matches, won two ITF Circuit titles. Reached SF WTA international Florianopolis. At Premier Kremlin Cup, she qualified & reached QF which included a defeat over Karolina Pliskova.
Kateryna Bondarenko- Returned to tour last year after having her first child. QF in Istanbul which included a win over Venus. QF in Tokyo international which included defeating #12 Carla Suarez Navarro.

Dissapointed Bacsinsky wasn't in the list but she was nominated for comeback player of the year in 2014 so I guess you can't be a comeback player 2 years in a row
It's based on the publics votes so it'll probably be Venus. She does deserve it but she didn't drop out of the top 25 all year or anything so it's not like she vanished..