Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by NadalAgassi, Oct 5, 2012.
The whole decadeHingis is a main character of Golden Age whether you like her or not
the list should be about the greatest women players, not about sexual orientation or homophobia.
imagine someone taking Navratilova off such a list because of her lesbianism.
btw, i fully agree with your opinion on BJK´s important role in women´s tennis and breaking down barriers for lesbians
uh, you do know the only reason anyone found out the married King was bisexual was that she was outed by her assistant(who was suing her for palimony)? and she didn't divorce her husband until many years later.
And this was at the end of her career, it actually forced her to keep playing into her late 30s to pay court fees. No one knew that Billie Jean King was anything other than a heterosexual marrried woman while she was winning majors & was world #1.
She only publicly identified herself as a lesbian many years later, after she had been retired for a long time.
She was hardly a 'gay activist' the way Martina was almost all her career(and Martina was forced to come out because a reporter was going to post an article on it), more of a reluctant one, until recently.
Riggs was a smelling old fart when BJK demolished him
I respect King for all she accomplished as a pro and I support her as an all timer but just on tennis basis
I think no added value is put on tennis court by being black, lesbic, antilesbic as Court or uf you vote a dem or a rep
I dont see Henin even at her best hanging with Hingis of 97-99 or Venus of 99-2002 but that is just my opinion. Even in 2003 when Venus was already on the way down she spanked Henin at the start of her 2nd best year ever on slower courts (not Venus's preference) at the Australian Open.
I agree, Henin is a great player but does not belong to Martina league
right behind woz
he was about the same age when he beat Margaret Court don´t know about the smelling part but take your word for it
interesting details, don´t really change my opinion of her though
so Court owned King yet wouldn´t beat somebody King handily beat? I think it was all prepared for marketing purposals...Riggs is a prototipical american champion.
I don't think Hingis was as big a contributor to a golden age of women's tennis as the likes of Evert, Graf, Seles, Venus or Serena. Really how many years have there been with weaker competition in the women's game than 1997? Not too many at all. Hingis's competition that year was so second rate.
Henin's serve, while a relative weakness in her game, was far better than Hingis's, and her forehand also better and had much more firepower (it was one of the effective shots in women's tennis from 2003-2007). From that generation I think only Serena's and Davenport's forehands were in the same league as Henin's.
I was going to call it a tie between their backhands, but actually I would give the edge to Henin there as well. Their topspin backhands were about equal, but Henin had the much better backhand slice (not surprising given she had a one hander). Hingis didn't use her backhand slice that often at all.
Hingis's groundstrokes did look more fluid and smooth than Henin's, but that doesn't mean that they were better. Venus's backhand was a hideously ugly shot, but it was the best backhand in the women's game during her peak. Henin's overall forehand/backhand package was superior to Hingis's.
Hingis was the better volleyer and had better dropshots, not that Henin was that far behind in either category. Henin was the better athlete and mover than Hingis, and had superior footwork.
I think that the Henin of 2003 or 2007 would be too strong for the Hingis of any year on clay and hard courts. On grass they would be about even and I think that peak Hingis would have the edge indoors. Hingis was a great player of course but just not as good as Henin was.
Hingis was smarter and would win on grass and carpet.Henin would win on clay but it is very difficult to say who´d win on hard, both have a pretty good record there...Henin is a very good player but Hingis is part of the best era , having played legends like Graf and Seles as well as the probably best top 10 ever in the women´s ranks.
Despite winning Wimbledon I don't t think Hingis was better on grass. She won Wimbledon in a weak year with little competition on the surface. Graf was injured and skipped the tournament due to injury, Novotna was injured in the final, and Davenport, Venus and Serena hadn't reached their primes yet.
Henin reached 2 finals and 3 semi-finals at Wimbledon from 2001-2006, losing to a peak Venus twice in 2001 and 2002 and a peak Serena in 2003. After her 1998 semi-final defeat to Novotna, Hingis didn't do much of note on grass for the rest of her career, and had two 1st round defeats at Wimbledon in 3 years in 1999 and 2001. Henin also lost in the 1st round in 2005, but then again Danilidou was a better grass court player than Ruano Pascual who was Hingis's conqueror in 2001, and cited grass as her favourite surface (she won the title at Rosmalen in 2002).
Hingis's net game was better than Henin's no doubt about that, but Henin's superior serve, baseline firepower (I doubt peak Hingis hit anywhere near as many winners as peak Henin did) and slice would also be a factor on the grass.
Hingis is rightly praised for her tactical smartness and her variety, but if you actually break down her game vs. Henin's, I think Henin comes out on top in more categories, including the most fundamental areas, i.e a better serve and better overall baseline game.
Hingis's game though wasnt just about shots but how she used them. Some consider her the smartest player in womens tennis history, even over Chris Evert and Suzanne Lenglen who previously had been considered so. Sure Henin probably has some better shots but it is not like she took power and athleticsm to a new level like Venus, Serena, and Davenport (power only for Davenport of course) either.
I guess we will never totally know for sure how great Henin really is as except for the 2003 French Open she never won any of her majors while the Williams were near their best, and her slam final opponents were so weak. The only Slam champion she played in the finals to win her 7 slams was Kuznetsova in 2 slam finals, and Kuznetsova was only a 1 time slam champ at the time of those, a renowned mental midget, and a longtime Henin pigeon. She played Clijsters in 3 slam finals before she became a slam champion, and Kim would not become a muti slam champion for another roughly 6 years after those final losses to Henin. I agree most probably perceive her as better than Hingis, and on par or better than Venus today, just not sure if that perception (in relation to either one) is a correct one. Especialy with her lack of doubles success which I think is important when singles players are close. Venus and Hingis are both outstanding doubles players, Henin in doubles does not exist.
Well if we look at Hingis's victims in her 5 successful slam finals:
Australian Open 1997 - Pierce who was dangerous and a former champion of course, but was unseeded at that event and only won 1 title that year.
Wimbledon 1997 - Novotna who was a bigger mental midget than Kuznetsova, was injured in that final, and did have any slam titles at the time.
US Open 1997 - A 17 year old Venus who hadn't won a single WTA title yet, was unseeded, and playing in just the 3rd grand slam tournament of her career.
Australian Open 1998 - Martinez who was appearing in the only hard court slam final of her career, and who hadn't won a hard court title since 1995.
Australian Open 1999 - Mauresmo, who of course had caused a stir with her power/topspin combination and had beaten Davenport in the semis. She she was still an unseeded teenager appearing her first slam final, and wouldn't reach her peak until several years later.
I would say that the Clijsters of 2003 and 2004 that Henin beat to win her first 3 majors was a much stronger opponent than any of the 5 opponents that Hingis beat in those 5 finals.
And Hingis's tactical use of her shots became much less effective once those power players began to mature. Just 1 slam title for her after Venus won her first ever WTA title at Oklahoma in 1998, and 0 slam titles for her after Serena won her first ever WTA title at Paris in 1999.
don´t tell me the match was rigged no conspiracy theories, please
When Court agreed to play Riggs, she just the saw the match as a fun, light-hearted exhibition and a huge pay cheque. $10,000 was a lot of money at the time. She didn't understand the importance of the match or what it represented for the women's game.
Riggs tortured her with dropshots and lobs in that Mother's Day Massacre. She was quite a bit taller than Riggs and tried to overpower him, but that failed miserably.
Plus during the promotional campaign in the lead-up to the match, Riggs completely psyched Court out.
Peal Hingis owned the field.Peak Henin did not
Peak Hingis owned one of the worst fields in women's tennis history in 1997. Peak Henin owned a good quality women's field in 2007. I'm not saying that 2007 was one of the strongest years in the history of women's tennis or anything, but it was clearly a much stronger yield than the incredibly weak 1997.
In 2007 Henin won 2 slams out of the 3 that she played in and the YEC, won 63 matches out of 67, and in 14 tournament appearances won 10 titles, finished as a runner-up once and a losing semi-finalist the other 3 times.
She had winning h2hs that year against every single other member of the top 10 apart from Hantuchova who she never played in 2007, and all 15 of the other top 20 players that she played.
That's what I call owning the field.
Hingis played much more all time greats than Henin.henin never play Seles or Graf.
Henin played Serena. 1 more =/= much more
So did Hingis.Both played the 2 Williams.maybe Clijsters and old Davenport can be regarded as great opponents for Henin.maybe Capriati and Sharapova.But, except the russian, all of them played also against Martina.Hingis also had multislammers like Graf,Seles,Pierce,Sanchez,Novotna,Martinez...
novotna/martinez were not multi-slammers , but whatever suits you :roll:
seles post stabbing was a very good player, but not "great" ....hingis didn't face peak seles who totally dominated from 91-93 ......
I was adding the slams of them all, of course, I know that those players were not multislammers.Maybe, it was a language mistake, or maybe you just want to understand what suits you...
BTW, Hingis owned Seles, stabbed or not.
Do you mean 'would have owned' ?
Osborne vs Navi would have been fantastic
Just like Hingis vs Lenglen, Mandlikova vs Bueno or Connolly vs Graf
Henin played Seles 7 times, including at the 2001 Aussie Open and 2002 Wimbledon. They had a decent set of matches against each other.
The Seles that was on the tour during Hingis's dominance of the tour in 1997 was not only post stabbing Seles, but had become a further emotional and physical wreck after her father was diagnosed with stomach cancer that year.
And Hingis lost 2 out of her 3 matches against a post-prime Graf. Plus she never had to play Graf in 1997 and her dominance coincided with Graf's long absence from the tour.
I assumed that Hingis would have won more WTA titles that Henin, but checking the stats they both won 43 titles, so Hingis didn't even have the edge there. Hingis was a great player but more of a interim and 'filler' world no. 1 keeping the seat warm in-between the Graf and Williams sister eras.
30yrs old Seles.
The Seles of 2001-2002 was better than the Seles of 1997. The Seles of 1997 wasn't even close to being fully dedicated to her tennis, and understandably so given what was happening with her father. That year saw her in her worst physical and mental condition on the court. In 2002 she did well at all the majors, beating Venus at the Australian Open, giving Henin a huge scare at Wimbledon and beating Hingis at the US Open.
Really so many things fell in place for Hingis to dominate in 1997. A superb year but a huge of amount of luck in facing largely post-prime, pre-prime or emotionally wrecked competition. 2011 is one of the few years can I think of where the competition was worse than that.
To her credit she was able to hang around and remain a contender when a genuinely strong era emerged, but still she began to fall more into the background and was increasingly overshadowed at the big events.
The one that wears the longest skirt.
There ya go! The winner - Dorothea Lambert Chambers
Wimbledon Singles champion: 1903, 1904, 1906, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1914
Singles runner-up: 1905, 1907, 1919, 1920
1903 Wimbledon Ethel Thomson Larcombe 4–6, 6–4, 6–2
1904 Wimbledon (2) Charlotte Cooper Sterry 6–0, 6–3
1906 Wimbledon (3) May Sutton Bundy 6–3, 9–7
1910 Wimbledon (4) Dora Boothby 6–2, 6–2
1911 Wimbledon (5) Dora Boothby 6–0, 6–0 The only such double bagel major final until 1988 Graf-Zvereva
1913 Wimbledon (6) Winifred Slocock McNair 6–0, 6–4
1914 Wimbledon (7) Ethel Thomson Larcombe 7–5, 6–4
1905 Wimbledon May Sutton Bundy 6–3, 6–4
1907 Wimbledon May Sutton Bundy 6–1, 6–4
1919 Wimbledon Suzanne Lenglen 10–8, 4–6, 9–7 longest women's final up to that time 44 games. Chambers was 40 year's old.
1920 Wimbledon Suzanne Lenglen 6–3, 6–0
a couple of years that were her titles for the taking, she was pregnant or recuperating from birth.
Yes she did have some success on red clay events. And here's a truly a relative point of distinction vs Mlle Lenglen. Lenglen's doubles partner of choice over the years was Elizabeth Ryan. Those two never lost a match together. They did however loose exactly two sets in all the matches they did play. Chambers was was part of the team that took those two sets. Larcombe and McCane were the partners. http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=194278&page=2 Oh and she did beat Suzanne in straight sets. the frenchwoman was 14 years old. Evidently when she was 46 years old she traveled accross the pond to play the US championships and wightman Cup. she reached reached the quarters.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/104979/Dorothea-Lambert-Chambers
I think Martina Navratilova is the greatest of all time and not Steffi Graf. The Monica Seles stabbing really helped Steffi Graf and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario to win more slams when Seles was off the WTA Tour. Martina is the best because she did so well in singles and doubles.
Serena is definitely up there people seem to forget Serena is an incredible doubles player too she's won all the four grand slams and double Olympic gold medalist with Venus.
I think Serena might need to win the French Open ONE MORE TIME to help her legacy. I wish Serena had won the French Open this year.
Nobody knows for sure what would have happened if Seles were not stabbed. However it is entirely possible Graf would have ended up with a record of say 7 Wimbledons, 4 French Opens, 4 Wimbledons, and 4 U.S Opens, and if she did most would still regard her as best ever, atleast until Serena. Seles was not going to win every Australian, French, and U.S Open for 6 years in a row, sorry but that is crazy to imagine, and she obviously was never going to beat Graf at Wimbledon either. Given that Seles managed 0 slams the last 7+ years of her career (an extremely weak showing even considering her various issues) even giving Seles a projected 6 or 7 slams from 93-January 96 would seem generous, and even that would leave Graf with probably around 4 or 5 of the 7 she won that period, having marginal impact on her totals.
I dont think Navratilova is better in singles. Graf on clay is way better than Navratiova, on hard courts they are closely matched on fast but Graf is way better on slower ones, Navratilova is very lucky the Australian Open was not on rebound ace in her day or she might have won only say once there considering she could only win it 3 times on slower grass, and that a 34 year old Evert walloped her on its first year on the court. Navratilova is only slightly better on grass and carpet. Graf is definitely a superior all surface player to Martina. However Martina probably should rank ahead because of her doubles career, just like Court should for the same reason. Evert should rank ahead of Graf for her longevity and consistency records. So I do still agree Graf is overrated and should not be rated the GOAT like she is by most people.
You know both Evert and Martina benefited in their major and tourney counts from the dual injuries of Tracy Austin and Hana Mandlikova which ended Austins career and severly hampered Hana's growth as a competitor. We don't even need to ask how much Jaeger might have been a threat. A generation of competition withered to nothing . If Austin grabs an open or two and Mandlikova wins a couple of grass majors either at wimbledon or australia in the 80's, they come from Martina or Evert, more likely Martina. Is the fact that Seles injury was an intentional act of criminal conduct that distinquishable when the outcome is the same? Fortune and misfortune plays a role in every champion's career. Not just Graf's.
You don't say. I mean you DON'T say ? ! ? Because that's not what I've read from you before.
And scandalous! How could you possibly state Mons was not going to win every Australian, French, and US Opens for 6 years! She was Mons. She was born, therefore she wins! Have you truly lost your mind?!
Could you stop including Serena. She's not in the goat conversation(not yet). However, she is in the top 10.
No doubt she is clearly a top 5 player. I think Martina was the only one better because she excelled so much and in all 3 different phases(singles, doubles and mixed) and she did it for so long.
Out of interest, why, wen comparing men's greats, do we generally only look at singles achievements?
Yet, when looking at the women's game, people always feel the need to bring up the fact that Martina Navratilova excelled at doubles as well?
IMHO, it's close to irrelevant for her ranking.
Well the poster who thinks Hingis would of owned peak Seles has cheered me up after Rafa's withdrawal. The closest Seles came to peak form 95-03 @ RG'98 she completely toyed with Hingis. Monica looked matronly @ the Canadian same year and beat Martina in three, never should of happened!
Serena's a great player and would of been in any era, what does her no favours is there's been a lack of great players for at least half an era. Steffi's RG'99 win was far more impressive than Henin's in '07 who basically turned up and was overpaid for her 'efforts.'
In fairness to Hingis, Hingis was playing far from peak tennis in the middle of 1998. I think she even lost a match to Dominique Van Rost at one point. She had gotten lazy and overconfident and payed the price, and Davenport and Venus's surges and increasing victories over her had damaged her pysche, opening the door for lesser players (and at that point Seles would clearly be in this category) to also have success vs her. Prime Hingis mostly destroyed post prime Seles with lopsided straight set wins, numerous bagel or breadstick sets, and a 15 year old pre prime Hingis even gave fat Seles a 0 and 2 drubbing which even prime Graf wasnt close to doing vs fat Seles, so it isnt impossible Hingis might have the overall edge even prime to prime. That isnt to say she is better than Seles, just that she might be a bad matchup for her. After those 2 mid 98 wins over a clearly slumping Hingis, when Seles was btw in by far her best ever post stabbing shape, at 98 RG she was even probably 95% as physically fit as her prime and looked skinny unbelievably, she would not beat Hingis again until late 2001, over 3 years later, when Hingis was clearly crashing towards retirement herself.
As for your latter point more impressive or not Graf of Roland Garros 99, or any Graf of 99, would have been destroyed by Henin of 2007. Graf was clearly past her best at that point, and basically needed a total meltdown from Hingis in the final to avoid a 6-4, 6-4 loss and prime Henin (let alone the peak of peaks Henin of 07) >>>>>>> prime Hingis on clay atleast.
I never guaranteed Seles winning every slam for eternity. I just said it was fairly obvious she would have won alot of slams from 93-95, probably minimum 4 additional ones, and have a greater career than she currently does. Graf would also probably have atleast 2 less than her current 22. I dont think that is at all unreasonable but apparently to some Graftards it is unbearable.
Oh darling, nice try.
*Still* playing the woulda, coulda, shoulda game?
How sad, and pathetic!
What an existence?
So how is Mons these days? Wait........... did you say sad and pathetic? Now, I know where you get it? :cry:
Speaking of, how is Mrs. Agassi these days? The only news I ever hear is how absolutely fabulous happy, and absolutely unconcerned with all the woulda, coulda, shouldas of this world.
Hard to say where to put Connelly and Seles. Either could have been the best ever, but the careers were cut short. Somewhere in the top 10 certainly - Connelly best ever if you don't count longevity.
Graf, Navratilova, Court, Lenglen - by far the best of their eras.
Evert, Wills, S. Williams behind them.
I guess Hingis for 10th, but I'm not really sold on that.
Why on earth would Steffi be concerned with coulda, woulda, shouldas? Last time I looked Monica was stabbed having won seven of the previous eight she'd competed in. Anyone in those circumstances would coulda...
The only reason Hingis was a bad up for Seles is she moved the ball away from Monica and anticipated better than just about anyone. Monica didn't have movement problems in her peak and was also brilliant anticipating the ball. Fail to see how she'd be a bad match-up for Seles in her peak. Hingis in a slump RG'98 till she reached US open final? Similar to Federer suffering mono all 2008 till he swept the US open, not buying them plums.
I agree with the names, still Connolly and King should be in the top 10.Maria Esther Bueno should be considered, too.Maybe Alice Marble too.In terms of raw talent, of course, few have been more talented than lesser ranked women like Hingis,Mandlikova,Goolagong.
Hingis was only in the U.S Open final since Jana Chokevotna choked in the semis, after having a 4-1 two break lead. She then proceeded to be spanked by Davenport who choked badly in the 2nd set herself, blowing a 4-2, easy shot for 5-2 to go down 6-5, but still won in straights. The fact Jana Novotna of all people had become a nightmarish opponent for Hingis on all courts for awhile, says enough about her form at the time.
A 35 year old Chris Evert beat Seles, who was only 15 but had already taken Graf and Navratilova to 3 sets that very year, and was probably closer to her prime than granny Evert, 6-0, 6-2 at the U.S Open. Hingis is basically an Evert clone with better volleys but far less determination to win.
It is not true at all Seles at her peak was some fabulous mover. She was an adequate one at best, better than say Davenport or Pierce, but that is it. She didnt even have to move pre stabbing anyway, only Graf and sometimes Capriati could make her do anything other than dictate all the points and run her opponents around, but with people like Hingis, Venus, Serena, Davenport, and Pierce around in her second career this had changed.
Hingis, Mandlikova, and Goolagong might be the three most talented players in tennis history, well atleast before Serena and Venus who despite their towering greatness are also both underachievers. If they had the work ethic and fighting spirit of Sanchez Vicario, tennis history would look alot different.
Separate names with a comma.