That one point that could change the outcome of a match and rivalry,

[helterskelter]

I can't remember the exact score, but Sampras double-faulted on a crucial point in his semi-final with Ivanisevic at Wimbledon 1992. I think it was 7-6 6-7 4-4 40-A, but it might have been in the second set tiebreak. Anyway, it handed Ivanisevic the initiative and he went on to win.

Given that Ivanisevic didn't win Wimbledon for another 9 years and that Sampras won it the very next year, it might not seem to have changed much.

But I think it did. Ivanisevic lost to Agassi in the final. I think we can all agree that Sampras showed over the years that he was too good for Agassi on fast courts. So, he'd probably have beaten Agassi in the final. It would have been Agassi's 4th straight loss in a Slam final. Would he have gone on to have the career he had if he had lost to Sampras in the Wimbledon final in 1992.

 

[grafforehand]

Clearly, I think Seles would have won the final against Majoli. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it here.

As for the rivalry with Hingis, Seles had never beaten her at that time. She did beat her in the 1998 semis, though.

Well I disagree on the first point. I suspect you didnt bother watching the final and seeing how extraordinarily Iva played. It was not her normal level, she truly played out of her mind that day. That and she had beaten Seles the last time they played in Tokyo Indoors 96. Add to all that Seles's poor fitness and unlikelihood to recover from such a long tough match, and I see a Seles win in the final is very unlikely. Remember Majoli spanked Hingis silly that day, the same Hingis who beat Seles in the semis despite not even being that sharp.


Anyway regardless if Seles would have won the 97 French final or not how do you think that match would have impacted the Seles vs Hingis rivalry? I dont think long term it would have made any difference. As you said Seles began to have brief success vs Hingis in 98, but it quickly dissapeared again. So it seems unlikely a single win over a Hingis, especialy on Hingis's worst surface and Seles's best, would have suddenly made a big transformation in the rivalry long term. A far more emphatic and damaging win the 98 semis did not have that effect after all.

 

[helterskelter]

In addition to her mundane weaponless game Mary Joe Fernandez was mentally weak. She proved that when she choked at the end vs an out of form Graf in the 93 French Open final, despite having all the momentum from her play the previous 1.5 matches and so far that day. She proved it also in the 91 Australian Open semis vs Seles where even after a bagel 2nd set over Monica and match point in the 3rd she choked the match away. On her match point up in that match she had 3 short balls to either come for the net and go for a winner off of, and she backed up and eventually made an error to lose the point. Numerous other examples. If you are going to be a weaponless steady baseliner type without even much creativity you atleast need mental strength. She never had that, Wozniacki atleast had that much. Wozniacki was also far more consistent and made far fewer mistakes at her relatively brief peak.

How would a player who was 0-6 vs a really really old Chris Evert be close to #1 (which Wozniacki was for quite awhile) in any era. On that note here is a clip of 35 year old Chris Evert spanking prime Fernandez:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg9OEi2A0qM

Notice how the commentator talks about Chris has always easily beaten Mary Joe, even though she was in her mid 30s by then. So just imagine what a cakewalk she was for the likes of Graf and Seles.

Then 15 year old Hingis spanking prime Fernandez at the 97 Australian Open:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBSjXpkVi0M

Fernandez was 17 when Evert retired, so it's not as though she was at her peak.

Hingis was 16 in 1997, and Fernandez had been on poor form for several years by then.

I would agree with you if I thought that Wozniacki had ever been the best player in the world. But clearly Wozniacki took advantage of the ranking system, of frequent injuries to Serena and to Clijsters, and so not just of a weak era.

 

[snowwhite]

Serena Williams was three times match point/s down in grand slams:
2003 AUS Open SF vs Cliesters
2005 AUS Open SF vs Sharapova
2009 Wimbledon SF vs Dementieva
She won all three slams

 

[helterskelter]

Lendl destroyed Becker in the first set of that final (I think it was 6-1 or something), and then inexplicably faded. He might have been tired from that 5 set war with Edberg (Lendl was getting pretty old in tennis terms by this point).

He might have been tired. He was 30, nearly 31, and it was very hot.

But Becker did have a habit of dropping sets easily in major matches against Lendl and still winning them. In the 1989 US Open final, Becker won 7-6 1-6 6-3 7-6. In the 1989 Wimbledon semis, he won 7-5 6-7 2-6 6-4 6-3. (The rain delay when Lendl was 3-2 up with a break in the 4th set was also a crucial turning point in tennis. Lendl might have won that match but for it). Even in Lendl's sole Grand Slam match victory against Becker, at the US Open 1992, Becker twice won tiebreaks, before dropping an easy set thereafter. It ended up 6-7 6-2 6-7 6-3 6-4.

Becker's normal level wasn't good enough against Lendl, but Becker's very highest level was slightly better than Lendl's. As a result, Becker often dropped easy sets but also often won the match.

 

[grafforehand]

Fernandez was 17 when Evert retired, so it's not as though she was at her peak.

In hindsight 89-early 93 was Fernandez's prime years, in part due to injuries. So I wouldnt say that wasnt Fernandez in her prime. She would reach 1 of her only 3 ever slam finals less than a year from then. She was also World #4 at points in both 89 and 90 IIRC and that would be her career high ranking. Also posted her only ever win over one of Graf or Seles (Seles) in 89, although Seles was only 15 herself,

Hingis was 16 in 1997, and Fernandez had been on poor form for several years by then.

1997 was a resurgence year for Fernandez, so I would add that as one of her prime years along with the period I mentioned. She reached the Australian Open semis, won a tier 1 title on clay by beating Pierce and one other top player (Graf and others were in that event even if she didnt play them), and a couple other events. She lost 7-5 in the 3rd of the French quarters to Seles, and 8-6 in the 3rd in the Wimbledon 4th round to eventual runner up Novotna (close losses again, like I said mentally weak player). Round of 16 at the U.S Open (lost again to Novotna) so 2nd week of every slam that year. For someone of Fernandez's level this type of result indicates her best.

I would agree with you if I thought that Wozniacki had ever been the best player in the world. But clearly Wozniacki took advantage of the ranking system, of frequent injuries to Serena and to Clijsters, and so not just of a weak era.

I somewhat see your point here. However let me ask you straight up, would any version of Fernandez be ranked #1 when Wozniacki was, or in any era ever, even with a weak field + flawed ranking system. Yes or no. My answer would be a clear no.

 

[grafforehand]

Becker's normal level wasn't good enough against Lendl, but Becker's very highest level was slightly better than Lendl's. As a result, Becker often dropped easy sets but also often won the match.

I often sensed the mentality of that matchup had alot to do with the outcomes. Becker was fortunate to often play Lendl in early years on grass (similar to how Nadal was fortunate to play Federer so often on clay in early years) and it eventually led to a mental block. I really dont think Becker even in form should ever beat a prime Lendl on hard courts for instance. Well maybe sometimes, but not often. Lendl played scared vs Becker in general though after the early years.

Looking a match like the 91 Australian Open, by which time Lendl was already slightly past his prime, and despite that Becker was playing very well the stats of winners, errors, points won, seemed to clearly favor Lendl, yet he was still losing. Becker mentally just had the better of that rivalry, more than being the better player, except on grass obviously.

 

[helterskelter]

Well I disagree on the first point. I suspect you didnt bother watching the final and seeing how extraordinarily Iva played. It was not her normal level, she truly played out of her mind that day. That and she had beaten Seles the last time they played in Tokyo Indoors 96. Add to all that Seles's poor fitness and unlikelihood to recover from such a long tough match, and I see a Seles win in the final is very unlikely. Remember Majoli spanked Hingis silly that day, the same Hingis who beat Seles in the semis despite not even being that sharp.


Anyway regardless if Seles would have won the 97 French final or not how do you think that match would have impacted the Seles vs Hingis rivalry? I dont think long term it would have made any difference. As you said Seles began to have brief success vs Hingis in 98, but it quickly dissapeared again. So it seems unlikely a single win over a Hingis, especialy on Hingis's worst surface and Seles's best, would have suddenly made a big transformation in the rivalry long term. A far more emphatic and damaging win the 98 semis did not have that effect after all.

I did watch the match. Majoli played well. But we don't know whether she would have played well had she been playing a different opponent. Perhaps she would but it's really hard to tell.

We obviously have different overall assessments of Seles, and that's what's behind this disagreement. I saw your previous debate with Chico and Mustard. I agree with them. I don't think there's anything to be gained from reopening the debate, so let's just leave it at that.

 

[grafforehand]

Well as you said Seles blitzed Hingis in the 98 French Open semis, and as I said it made no long term difference in either Seles's career or more to the point her rivarly with Hingis at all. This is when Hingis came into the French Open strong and ready to win. So how would a far more narrow win over a clearly very vurnerable and rusty Hingis (she had already gone 3 sets with some Italian player I never heard of and Barbara Paulus that event) have made a long term difference, that the far more impressive win at the 98 French over Hingis couldnt? That is all I am saying.

 

[helterskelter]

I often sensed the mentality of that matchup had alot to do with the outcomes. Becker was fortunate to often play Lendl in early years on grass (similar to how Nadal was fortunate to play Federer so often on clay in early years) and it eventually led to a mental block. I really dont think Becker even in form should ever beat a prime Lendl on hard courts for instance. Well maybe sometimes, but not often. Lendl played scared vs Becker in general though after the early years.

Looking a match like the 91 Australian Open, by which time Lendl was already slightly past his prime, and despite that Becker was playing very well the stats of winners, errors, points won, seemed to clearly favor Lendl, yet he was still losing. Becker mentally just had the better of that rivalry, more than being the better player, except on grass obviously.

You may be right there. Becker certainly benefitted from playing Lendl first on grass.

On hard courts, I agree that Becker wouldn't beat Lendl often on slow hardcourts such as those in Australia. I think he'd be a tough threat on fast hard courts as at the US Open, despite Lendl's amazing record there. So, he also benefitted from playing him first at the US Open and only later at the Australian Open. Becker took advantage of Lendl starting to decline by 1991 to get a win that would have been unlikely otherwise.

Yes, the mental block must have been something too. Although Lendl actually beat Becker more often than not in minor tournaments. But Becker also beat him 7-6 in the 5th in the 1988 Masters final.

When Lendl finally beat Becker in a Slam at the US Open 1992, his celebration was something to behold, even though it was only a 4th round match. True, he was 32 and a half by then, so even getting to the quarter-finals was an achievement. But I think it was mostly just the joy at finally beating Becker in a Slam.

On that occasion, Lendl got lucky that, even though he was by then rather past his prime, Becker in 1992 inexplicably lost form even when slap bang in the middle of his prime (at 24).

 

[TheF1Bob]

Does Verdasco Vs. Nadal at AO 2009 count? It was the birthplace of The Fiasco known as Verdasco and sadly, ruined his career because of it.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nope. No twisting here. Nadal just turned it up a notch, to a level that Djokovic just wasn't good enough for. Congratulations to Novak for lasting 1, or really 2 sets longer than he should have against a FAR past his peak Nadal. Really good fight from Novak, but he just wasn't good enough in the end.

Tell it like it is Broze Haters gonna hate.

 

[helterskelter]

Well as you said Seles blitzed Hingis in the 98 French Open semis, and as I said it made no long term difference in either Seles's career or more to the point her rivarly with Hingis at all. This is when Hingis came into the French Open strong and ready to win. So how would a far more narrow win over a clearly very vurnerable and rusty Hingis (she had already gone 3 sets with some Italian player I never heard of and Barbara Paulus that event) have made a long term difference, that the far more impressive win at the 98 French over Hingis couldnt? That is all I am saying.

I think that the confidence Seles gained from the 1998 win over Hingis, she lost by blowing the final against Sanchez, who had always been an easy matchup for her. Had Seles won Roland Garros 1998, it might have been different.

But you are clearly right that Monica was playing with one hand tied behind her back in those days because she couldn't get into her best shape. Playing two handed on both sides meant she had limited reach, so she really did need to move well.

I do think that Monica had gone through a lot of trauma in a young life (she was still only 24 in 1998) and that that needs to be born in mind, so I hate it when I see Graf fans (or others) mocking Monica for being out of shape. Being out of shape was, in Monica's case, largely a response to that trauma, and not an inevitable fact about her.

So, yes, she did need to lose weight and get into better shape. But, no, fitness wasn't always an issue for her. In her dominant years, she frequently won very long, draining matches without getting tired. (For example, the 5-set win over Sabatini in the WTA Championships in 1990, the semi-finals against your favorite Mary-Joe in the Australian Open 1991, the 1992 Roland Garros semi-finals and final against Sabatini and Graf, the former from 2-4 in the final set, the 1991 US Open semis against Capriati, the 1991 long 4-set win against an admittedly aged Navratilova in the WTA Championships). One of Monica's major assets was her mental toughness, which enabled her to often dig out tough wins when not playing well. Two of her more significant later defeats were in matches that she won the second set of 6-0. Prior to the stabbing, it was more likely that she'd win a match in which she dropped a 6-0 set (Mary-Joe won the second set of the 1991 Australian semi 6-0).

 

[Mustard]

Lendl destroyed Becker in the first set of that final (I think it was 6-1 or something), and then inexplicably faded. He might have been tired from that 5 set war with Edberg (Lendl was getting pretty old in tennis terms by this point).

Becker beat Lendl in a Wimbledon final (1986), 2 Wimbledon semi finals (1988, 1989), a Masters final (1988 ), a US Open final (1989) and an Australian Open final (1991). I'd say that Becker had Lendl's number in their big matches. That win over Lendl in the 1991 Australian Open final took Becker to the world number 1 ranking, so that was enough inspiration in itself.

 

[helterskelter]

I somewhat see your point here. However let me ask you straight up, would any version of Fernandez be ranked #1 when Wozniacki was, or in any era ever, even with a weak field + flawed ranking system. Yes or no. My answer would be a clear no.

You're right about Mary-Joe's 1997, yes.

On this point, you're probably right that Mary-Joe would never have been a #1 even if she were in Wozza's position.

But I think that just shows that she and Wozza had different strengths and weaknesses. Wozza is, or was, very good at beating players who are not quite of the top standard. She could do so consistently and with a high level of predictability. When Sharapova and Kuznetsova, two far more talented players than Wozza, were off-form or out of shape, respectively, Caroline could beat them both repeatedly and sometimes easily. On the other hand, Wozza has rarely done anything much against someone who can hit through her. I think she tends to get discouraged easily in such situations.

Mary-Joe couldn't grind out wins against lesser players with the same degree of regularity, but she would get stuck in more against at least those players on her level, and had quite a few wins against Sabatini and Sanchez.

Hence Mary-Joe made three Slam finals to Wozza's one. Of course, Caroline still has time to improve. She has the physique to do more with the ball. A commentator said earlier this year that she always seems as though she learned to play with too heavy a racket when she was younger, because her racket-head speed isn't high enough. Perhaps she can work on that, still.

 

[grafforehand]

Well as I said I consider Mary Joe mentally weak, which is the hugest difference for me between her and someone like Wozniacki who has a similar unremarkable pusher baseline game (sorry I just hate that game style) but atleast is mentally very tough. I think that is the main reason Seles won a match with her despite losing a 6-0 set. I dont recall many matches Seles even losing a 6-0 set pre stabbing so not much to go by on that

Still I see your point overall and I agree had Seles won the 98 French Open title as everyone expected once the final was set given their history, and Seles's play in the semis, it might have made a huge difference for her. By later that year she was already gaining weight again, when at the 98 French she was in her best shape in many years under fitness guru Gavin Hopper. That was the point she really needed to get in better than ever shape, build on her 98 French Open shape when women were starting to emerge like Venus, Serena, Davenport, Hingis, who were both better athletes, physically stronger, and harder hitting than she was (well minus the better athlete part for Davenport and harder hitting part for Hingis). She really needed to be in the best shape possible if she was going to make a real career resurgence at that point. Maybe winning the 98 French Open title would have given her that mental boost. Who knows.

 

[MichaelNadal]

It will go down as the moment Nadal took control of 2013 for good and Djokovic realized he will never win the French. :lol:

 

[Tenez101]

It will go down as the moment Nadal took control of 2013 for good and Djokovic realized he will never win the French. :lol:

Don't worry, there'll be plenty more of these moments for both guys. That's what makes this rivalry so compelling.

 

[grafforehand]

You're right about Mary-Joe's 1997, yes.

On this point, you're probably right that Mary-Joe would never have been a #1 even if she were in Wozza's position.

But I think that just shows that she and Wozza had different strengths and weaknesses. Wozza is, or was, very good at beating players who are not quite of the top standard. She could do so consistently and with a high level of predictability. When Sharapova and Kuznetsova, two far more talented players than Wozza, were off-form or out of shape, respectively, Caroline could beat them both repeatedly and sometimes easily. On the other hand, Wozza has rarely done anything much against someone who can hit through her. I think she tends to get discouraged easily in such situations.

Mary-Joe couldn't grind out wins against lesser players with the same degree of regularity, but she would get stuck in more against at least those players on her level, and had quite a few wins against Sabatini and Sanchez.

Hence Mary-Joe made three Slam finals to Wozza's one. Of course, Caroline still has time to improve. She has the physique to do more with the ball. A commentator said earlier this year that she always seems as though she learned to play with too heavy a racket when she was younger, because her racket-head speed isn't high enough. Perhaps she can work on that, still.

I agree with your overall comparisions of Mary Joe to Wozniacki and where one is stronger and weaker than the other. I actually dont think Wozniacki would have done as well vs Sabatini or even Sanchez Vicario as Mary Joe did come to think of it.

We do need to remember Mary Joe in addition to being less consistent beating inferior players and performing on tour though, also was rendered completely useless by the true very best- Graf, Seles, Navratilova (even old), Evert (even old), Hingis, when she played them. I think she has a combined 1 win vs all those players, and mostly were embarassing beatdowns. Wozniacki atleast has a win over Serena, and took a prime Clijsters to 3 sets in the WTA Championships final.

I do think Wozniacki still has more potential, but it wouldnt surprise me if she wastes it all at this point. Navratilova spoke during the U.S Open how she has the athletic ability and natural body strength to play with more power, to have better shotmaking especialy off her strong backhand; how she has good hands, and could volley more, especialy with her athletic ability and reach. The ball is in her court no though. She lets her father continue to control her career and she will be stuck as a middling 8-15 ranked former #1 forever. By contrast I think Fernandez got the most out of her potential.

 

[helterskelter]

Well as I said I consider Mary Joe mentally weak, which is the hugest difference for me between her and someone like Wozniacki who has a similar unremarkable pusher baseline game (sorry I just hate that game style) but atleast is mentally very tough. I think that is the main reason Seles won a match with her despite losing a 6-0 set. I dont recall many matches Seles even losing a 6-0 set pre stabbing so not much to go by on that

Still I see your point overall and I agree had Seles won the 98 French Open title as everyone expected once the final was set given their history, and Seles's play in the semis, it might have made a huge difference for her. By later that year she was already gaining weight again, when at the 98 French she was in her best shape in many years under fitness guru Gavin Hopper. That was the point she really needed to get in better than ever shape, build on her 98 French Open shape when women were starting to emerge like Venus, Serena, Davenport, Hingis, who were both better athletes, physically stronger, and harder hitting than she was (well minus the better athlete part for Davenport and harder hitting part for Hingis). She really needed to be in the best shape possible if she was going to make a real career resurgence at that point. Maybe winning the 98 French Open title would have given her that mental boost. Who knows.

I don't like the style of game much, either. Unless the player at least combines it with some scrappiness. For example, Arantxa Sanchez probably wasn't any better shot for shot than the others, but she still became the third best player of her generation, ahead of Sabatini, who was much more talented. Sanchez did it largely on the back of never-say-die spirit.

So you agree that, had Monica been in as good shape in 1997 and 1998 as she was in 1991 and 1992, she would at least have been roughly as good as Hingis and Davenport and hence right at the top of the game? I often see Graf fans dismiss Monica's stabbing as though it made no difference. But even if it is true that Graf was better than Monica but was just in a slump in 1991/2, that same argument doesn't apply to the others. Monica could be worse than Graf and still better than, or as good as, Hingis and Davenport.

As for the Williams sisters, they would have been tricky opponents for Monica, of course, as they were and are for anyone. But they didn't get to their very best level until 2000 (Venus) and 2002 (Serena).

 

[Chico]

Chico,

Good point! Another point that was a major turning point was in the first set tiebreak of the 1995 US Open. Monica had set point, served what she thought was an ace, but it was called out, and Graf won the set. Although Monica raced through the second set 6-0, she tired in the final set, and Graf went on to win. Monica would probably have won in straight sets had that serve been in, and it might have given her the confidence to regain her fitness and speed and resume dominating women's tennis. (Actually, there was a great deal of controversy about whether Monica's serve was out. It would have been interesting to see what Hawkeye had to say about it).

Good point as well. I still remember that match and it made me really angry. If I was Graf and if Graf had an ounce decency in herself she would have let Seles win that match after that call and after everything that happened.
Seles deserved it after what she went through and after the way she played that match. Seles just came back after 2 1/2 years pause caused by the worst thing that could have happened to her on a tennis court and instead respect she got cheated by a stupid judge. How was she supposed to feel after that?

That is why I have no respect for Graf whatsoever. Beside that she never even said she was sorry for what her fan did to Seles and that her title numbers are inflated thanks to what happened to Seles. Never said one word.

 

[grafforehand]

I dont know what Monica would have been doing in 97 or 98 without the stabbing. I never commented strongly one way or the other on that. I do agree at her best she would atleast be competitive with those at that point. However there is no saying to whether she would be at her best that far into the future. She had various potential reasons for not being in top shape or not be playing her peak tennis besides the stabbing by then:

1. Her fathers illness which obviously bothered her, and understandably so.

2. The general rule of thumb players dont have an 8 year consecutive peak anyway.

3. She had grown alot since she was a teenager.

4. She was getting more injuries, some due to being in less good shape. However pre stabbing she was actually amazingly fortunate almost never getting injured or ill, and those who follow pro tennis know that is not the norm for anyone.

I dont think regardless she would have been dominating by that point. Whether she would be still winning slams and contending for the #1 ranking is another question though, and that is more possible.

I think Seles's window for further success would have been 93-98 more than 99 and after though. From 93-98 she atleast would have been in the top tier of "power", where from 99 onwards she would have been dropped to the 2nd tier in terms of power hitting.

From 93-98 I would say the first and second tier strictly in terms of power were (in no particular order):

Tier 1- Graf, Seles, Davenport, Pierce, Majoli
Tier 2- Huber, Rubin, Schultz (100% due to the most powerful serve, the rest is nothing), Novotna (not mostly known for power, but still big serve, penetrating volleys, pretty big forehand), Hingis (laugh but in her prime years she had quite good pop on the ball), young Venus, Spirlea, Halard

However 99-2003 I would say the tier 1 and tier 2 in terms of just power would be:

Tier 1- Venus, Serena, Davenport, Pierce
Tier 2- young Clijsters, young Henin, Seles, Capriati, old Graf

So Seles would no longer be in the first tier as far as power went as she still was from 93-98 which would have been a huge diminishment of her chances. Then again I have Capriati in only 2nd tier as far as power alone goes in that period and she won 3 slams (IMO overachieving given her abilities via the others on that), so who knows. Capriati was a much better mover than old Seles by then though, and probably would have been moving signifcantly better than even a fitter Seles by that age. Although Seles is a far more tactically astute player, and at her best hits better angles, and with much more accuracy than Capriati does.

 

[helterskelter]

Certainly, Venus and Serena are tough opponents for anyone, given their combination of power and athleticism. But they were also pretty raw in 1999, even though Serena won the US Open. Venus made a lot of improvements in 2000. Serena didn't really hit her stride until late 2001 or early 2002. (Note how often she lost to Capriati until then).

One thing that Davenport and Seles had over the Williams sisters was the cleanness of their ball-striking. But the Williams sisters had greater athleticism and mental toughness. But for the stabbing, I don't think they would have had the mental edge on Monica, and I think that the athletic edge would have been less marked.

So, I think Monica could have held her own with them, but I doubt she'd have dominated.

Oh, I also agree that of course Monica would have had some bad years at some point. But she might have recovered from them.

I posted on a thread recently that I thought Graf's level in the year after Monica's stabbing was not great: she played poorly at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, so-so at the US Open, and admittedly well in Australia.

But I do agree that Graf's level in 1995 and 1996 was higher than it had been since 1989. Something similar might have happened to Monica had she had a full career.

 

[grafforehand]

One funny thing is Hingis and Seles are very similar in many ways when you think about it. Seles is obviously much more a power player who relies more on her power to win, and Hingis far more on incredibly feel and touch. However:

1. Both took the ball very early and loved to control the center of the court. Both had impeccable timing. Due to taking the ball so early Hingis's balls actually came at your quite quickly despite not being the hardest struck.

2 Both relied more on anticipation than incredible speed to move around the court effectively. Both had good speed at their best (Hingis better than even pre stabbing Seles in that respect) but not Graf or Williams like, so their anticipation was key to helping them here.

3. Most of all both feared the same thing most- Power Players. Hingis's reign and eventually her whole career was ended by the upgrade in the power game. Seles's stopped being a contender in her second career at the same time this upgrade in the power game led by the Williams came more to the fore. One can speculate if Seles were in better shape and various psychological wars, and if Hingis didnt have foot injuries and her own psychological battles after some of her meltdowns and big match chokes in 99-2000. However even at her peak the people Seles was most threatened by were the very few who could compete with her in power and not let her dominate each point (Graf and young Capriati) but even Graf and Capriati did not have even close to the power from all parts of the court that some of the later people Seles faced would have. Both in general did not like the huge power hitters like say Davenport, even with all the deficiencies in her movement and other areas.

Hingis tried a comeback in 2006 and dominated most everyone, except again the by then premier power hitters during the Williams sabattical- Sharapova, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Kuznetsova, who just like the tail end of her first career she could not handle anymore.

 

[merwy]

How about those Federer-Djokovic semi-finals at the US Open 2010 and 2011? Federer would have played Nadal in the final both times, something that didn't ever happen now.