Thanks to BridgeportJake, curtj, GoMonica!, and The Hammerman for being our inaugural group of Outsports Tennis Pollsters! Woo Hoo!

We've come up with women's and men's rankings for the year, and I think the results may be a little surprising for some... Check 'em out and see what you think!:
http://www.outsports.com/tennis/2002/finalrankings.htm

You can post your thoughts, or even your own rankings, here!

Interesting. Pretty good call, guys. Not too much to debate, really, except that I think the only woman to win a Grand Slam besides Serena in 2002 shouldn't be tied for No. 5 with Monica Seles. I have been a strong Capriati detractor since 1990, but you gotta give her props for the comeback in Australia, despite a lacklaster year title-wise. She did make the quarters of Wimby & the US Open...and I think Roland Garros, too, but I can't remember. Jenny shoulda been No. 4, Clijsters No. 5, and Seles No. 6.

You're right on with Amelie at No. 3, though, which is all I really care about. (Assuming retired Argentine superstars were never in the running....)

For the boys, I think Marat was the third best player of the year, despite only winning the one title. It was a Masters Series event, though! Similar to JennyCap falling behind Kim, it seems like Marat was short changed because of the good year-end championship run of Juan Carlos.

Hi, Gaga - I completely agree with that assessment. I love Monica more than my Prada shoes, but JCap won a Grand Slam, and that should put her solidly ahead of Monica.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Ok, I have to defend Monica here. I know, I am biased, but she had a fantastic year. She made the quarters of every Slam, and beat Venus to get to the semis of the Aussie. She also had two titles during the year, and just solid results in every tournament she played. Injuries are the only thing that kept her from winning a couple more titles, IMO.

JenCap seemed content on winning the Aussie and let the rest of the year just fizzle. Especially at the end, you never knew if Jen would crash out in the first round of a tournament or not. That kind of consistency doesn't belong in top 5 tennis. I say her Aussie title was a reason for her to let the rest of the year go to hell.

That said, winning a Slam is no easy task, and JenCap played well down under. Too bad she didn't have a solid year to back it up.

I liked the fight that Capriati showed at the very, very end of the year. Almost like she knew her results were a mess. I think Capriati DOES want a legacy (I know, I know...who doesn't?!). It'll be interesting to see what she can do next year. Some of her matches have been really, REALLY close. I wonder, really, if she'll be able to beat Serena in 2003.

JenCap was able to defend one title this year, the Australian Open, and she got lucky there even though I will give her credit for hanging in on that one. I don't think she deserves her ranking and predict that she will self destruct in 2003. I believe Dokic doesn't even belong on your list--her titles are a few tier 3 and 4, nothing major and as I remember whe was never really a threat at the big events. Your failure to include Hingis on the list also indicates that you have forgotten her tremendous start to the year. I really think she will be a major player again in 2003. And I can't wait to see Guga back in top form.

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: shore ]

Are we rating where people were at the end of the year, or their year overall? If the former, then Clijsters should probably be #3, Davenport should be higher, and Rubin should certainly be in the top 10. Though she played a good match in the WTA Championships, Capriati really was poor toward the end. Monica had a good year overall, but struggled with injuries toward the end.

But if we're looking at her year overall, then Jen should probably be #4 at least. Winning a major is big, and she was in the finals of some important tournaments, too. I agree that Dokic shouldn't be there (I'd take Chanda Rubin over her, even for the whole year).

Hingis did start well, but her return was unsuccessful. Whether she can compete in 2003 will depend on her mobility. She has a ton of points to defend in January, and if she doesn't approach last years results, her ranking will plummet, forcing her to enter some tournaments unseeded. It's going to be tough to get back to the top.

The way that I viewed the rankings, I ranked the players according to their play for the entire year, as well as the amount that they played. For myself, it was hard to rank Lindsay very high because, while she played very well in the tournaments that she did play, she did miss half of the year. Would she have been ranked higher if she played more of the year? Probably so, however, I didn't want to think about what she could have done in 2002, I looked at her results. Same goes for Hingis, but to a lesser extent. She played well before her ankle surgery, but was nowhere near the same player afterwards. Hopefully, she can get back on track for 2003. With respect to Chanda, she missed half of the year too and while she played well between the French Open & the US Open, she played poorly on the European Indoor swing. 3-4 just doesn't cut it for me. Then, after losing to Clijsters 1 and 2 in LA made it impossible for me to put her in the Top 10 players for the year.

As for the Seles-Capriati debate, I put Capriati ahead of Seles, although it was very close. While JenCap won the Australian Open in January, she did not win another tournament the rest of the year. She played horribly in Europe after the US Open and Mauresmo had her number before that. If she doesn't defend in Australia ... hell, I'll say it now, she will NOT win in Melbourne ... she'll definately be behind Mauresmo, Henin, Clijsters and possibly Hantuchova.

As for Seles, the fact that she didn't play much after the Wimbledon (her only tournament btwn. Wimbledon and the US Open was LA) and the US Open (only Bahia and the Championships) didn't help her rankings much. Her win against Lindsay and her solid play against Venus in LA showed me that she's getting back in shape. However, I had to put her behind Jennifer because she didn't play as many tournaments as Jennifer.

Finally, I'm a huge Dokic fan, and while I included her in my poll at #10, I was going back and forth between her and Myskina. I think that the fact that Dokic won't play Australia because of "her poor treatment" by the Australian officials is pathetic. It's a Grand Slam with major bonus points to be gained, get over it! I decided to put her in the Top 10 because she won 53 matches in 2002, winning 2 tournaments, and reaching the finals in 3 others. Like Capriati, she sucked it up at the end of the year, but she had a great NA hardcourt season and made it to the quarters at Roland Garros.

Nick

It's useful to step away from the year for a couple of weeks before assessing, and I needed time to process my hurt over not being asked to participate in this panel in the first place...

Without thinking about it too in depth, just sharing what comes to mind immediately, here are my top ten items about the WTA in 2002:

1. Serena, obviously. Three out of three in the grand slams is the stuff of all time great champs. She could do it again. 2002 was Serena Williams' serious debut as an all time contender.
2. Venus...is number two? What a concept. What a game this woman has and she's #2. Go figure, big sis.
3. Kim Clijsters...is for real. She's a truly formidable player. Serena may have been a bit fatigued at the end of the year final, but Kim Clijsters has shown that she's got it all and she's going to use it. Watch out, Williams.
4. The top ten. The WTA top ten is incredible. That's as much talent in a top ten as ever in the history of the sport.
5. Injuries. The last two years have seen the WTA top ten go through a remarkable number of serious injuries. Venus and Serena had their first relatively injury free year and I say that even taking into account Serena's injury absence from Australia.
6. Capriati, Seles, Davenport - all veterans, all still capable of brilliance on any given day. Seles showed us at the end of the year that she's surprisingly and amazingly still capable of top Seles tennis. Her pummeling of LD at the season ending championships was a triumph of both mental and physical Seles - As usual, there's that big IF around Monica: IF she actually gets into tip top shape, can she compete for #1 or #2? She beat LD and had a phenomenal battle with Venus and I'd say she's still capable of getting in a lot better shape. That's pretty remarkable.
Capriati got a little lucky again down under though all three of her grand slams titles have had tangible luck. But hey, she kept going when Hingis wilted. She gained a potent nemesis in Amelie but can still go toe to toe with Serena, mostly. Lindsey came back from a long layoff and played some great tennis. It only took her a half a year to make the season ending championships. She mentally wilted though in all the finals she reached though. Seles beat her for the first time in a long time and that's probably saying more about Monica's ability than Lindsey's but LD better take inventory of her mental game.
7. Amelie - Is she finally coming on all the way? I think so. Her variety could be the thing that makes her rise further.
8. Hantuchova - the future is inching closer.
9. Young Russians. Awesome and capable. Let's see just how far they can go.
10. Hingis. Where is she going? The biggest question mark to come out of 2002.

I like your assessment and the inclusion of injuries to the list. Also, i think you see something when you ask where will Hingis go from here? It really will be one of the first questions of the new season. Bring it on, I can't wait. OH NO! I just read on ESPN.com that Hingis is skipping the Australian open. Yikes. She will be sorely missed.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: shore ]

It will be true testament to Hingis if she can come back to top form after such a downward spiral physically and mentally. I'm skeptical myself. 20003 will also be a critical year for JenCap. If she doesn't start (re-start?) being a threat for titles this year, say goodbye. All in all, even with Serena's domination, the women's side of things has been alot more compelling than the men's.

why is the wome's side more compelling than the mens game? Late in the year I got interested again in the men's game because of Hewitt, but so often it just doesn't interest me, not the way it used to. I will again be interestd when Guga starts playing well and Juan Carlos gets his head on right. And when all the hype settles over a re-emerging Sampras. Has anyone played ATP fantasy tennis?

Hey shore, I did the ATP Fantasy League last year...a LOT harder than it seemed...A LOT!

Let me know if you do it again. Just two people from Outsports participated last year...

I always find the women's game more compelling but the men's game was equally great to watch at times. I certainly appreciate Sampras's big win but the hype and the constant retirement talk couldn't bore me more. Agassi is capable of so much but his inconsistency says that age is making him vulnerable regardless of the fantastic shape he's always in. Safin is an incredibly talented train wreck who'll keep winning big matches here and there..and losing them. There are too many men to mention capable of doing great stuff out there. I love watching the men...it's always brutally competitive from round one...

I think you guys are being awfully generous to Mauresmo. I like her too, but let's not go crazy. She has tons of variety, athleticism, strength and grace. But she is mentally decimated. She is probably the most consistently weak mental player on the tour. Actually, she is the complete reincarnation of Gabby Sabatini, whom I also loved, but who was also a mess. Amelie and Gabby both had some amount of success because they just have so much talent and win despite themselves on rare ocassion. But it's nothing to hang your hopes on. The only thing Amelie really did this year was beat Jennifer, the only person who can have lower lows than she does, but of course, Jenny has higher highs too.

[quote]Originally posted by mattkorey:
She has tons of variety, athleticism, strength and grace. But she is mentally decimated. She is probably the most consistently weak mental player on the tour. Actually, she is the complete reincarnation of Gabby Sabatini, whom I also loved, but who was also a mess.

---

That sound you just heard was Gaga4Gaby's head exploding.

Seriously, I think Mauresmo deserves more credit than that. Remember, people said the same things about The Real Martina, plus she was in bad shape to boot, but once she put it together in her mid-twenties (Mauresmo is 23 now), she changed the game.

mattkorey, out of interest, how would you have ranked the players for 2002? The 2002 tennis season was a tough call because other than the Williams clan, the rest of the players were hot and cold at some point of the year. Clijsters was shaky from Hamburg to Wimbledon, JenCap wasn't anything special after Australia, Justine was a solid #3 but collapsed after Wimbledon, Seles just didn't play enough after Wimbledon because of injury, Hantuchova played well and I should have ranked her higher but Amélie went further in the Slams, Dokic was totally Dr. Jekyll/Ms. Hyde, neither Lindsay nor Chanda nor Hingis played enough to be ranked that high, Myskina didn't do much in the slams ... and the list could go on forever. While it may not seem like Amélie should be ranked that high, I don't think anyone else could justify that ranking either.

Nick

Edited to ask The B Man, where do you get involved with fantasy tennis?

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: The_Hammerman ]

I guess I would rank them relative to their realistic abilities and not according to exactly what they won this year, so I don't know that I would be doing it the way you guys are. But then again if we were doing it that way, we'd just go straight by the WTA rankings.

I would go with:

1. Serena
2. Venus
3. Jennifer
4. Lindsay
5. Kim
6. Jelena
7. Justine
8. Martina
9. Amelie
10. Daniela & Monica (tie)

mattkorey, what do you mean when you say "realistic abilities"? Do you mean by virtue of their talent? I figured that the rankings for 2002 would be ranking players on what they showed us for 2002, not on how well they could play. When I looked at the entire year, Amelie showed us that she me that after Serena, Venus and Kim that she was the 4th best player on tour. She's far more mentally tough than she was in 2001, and if she would have been healthy for the last month of the year, it's conceivable that she would be #3 right now.

It's good to rank players by their potential, but most players rarely play to their potential in every single match. Venus played a poor match against Maleeva in Moscow, so would Maggie's realistic ability be above Venus because of that win? Point being, Venus should take out Maggie any day of the week, but upsets happen, and that's why the rankings change. I'm just confused by your term "realistic abilities" because in the world of sport, who you should win against and who you actually win against are two drastically different entities. Especially on the tennis court, just because someone has a bigger serve, gets more depth on their groundies and can volley better than me doesn't mean that they'll win against me. They may have more talent than I do, but it doesn't mean that they're a better player than I am. Lucic has some major weapons but she can't seem put it together in a match.

Nick

Matt, I agree with your comments/assessment of Amelie Mauresemo (Sorry, Gaga4Gaby) but putting Seles at number 10? Seles had a very strong year and I'd have ranked her 4th or 5th for the year.

I had to settle this for myself, so devising a plan to award points for play in the top 15 tournaments(10 for winning, eight for finalist, 5 for the semis and 3 for the quarters; points double at grand slams and year end) and then dividing by the number of tournaments played, I came up with this year end rankings:
1. Serena 107 points/ 13.37 factor
2. Venus 79/ 11.28
3. Hingis 40/8
4. Capriati 86/ 7.8
5. Davenport 31/ 7.75
6. Clijsters 44/ 7.3
7. Henin 48/ 6.85
8. Mauresmo 47/ 6.7
9. Seles 40/ 6.5
10.Dokic 25/ 6.25
This hurts my girl Seles, but so are the numbers. If you are interested, I selected the top 15 purses as the deciding tournaments. For the men, my system does not apply because there were too many one-hit wonders (Sampras, Costa, johannson, Nalbandian) but here's my pick, sorta using the above system:
1.Hewitt
2.safin
3.Agassi
4.ferrero
5.Moya
6.Henman
7.Federer
8.Roddick
9.Haas
10.Schalken(he was a spoiler at the Slams, if I remember correctly)

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: shore ]

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: shore ]

Personally, I think of Amélie's career more akin to Jana Novotna than Sabatini. Jana, like Amelie, had a horrible time closing out big matches. While Gaby was prone to this as well, she has nothing on Jana and Amélie. Jana's match against Steffi at Wimbledon is a classic match as well as her crash against Rubin at Roland Garros. Amélie had her monumental collapse against Kandarr in the 2001 French Open and she had a huge opportunity against Venus at the US Open this year.

Another difference is that Gaby was in the quarters of each every slam from 1990 to 1994, while Jana would have her crash and burn Slams, as has Amélie. Losing to Nicole Arendt in the 1997 French Open would not have happened to Sabatini in her prime. Fortunately for Jana, she FINALLY put things together and won Wimbledon and I hope the same success for Mauresmo. She was MUCH more mentally tough this year ... taking out Capriati three times, Clijsters at the US Open 7-5 in the 3rd, Seles and Hantuchova in 2002, and if she can build on that success, she'll be solidly in the Top 5 in 2003.

Nick

I think it's too early really to summarize Amelie. Her specific personality has needed time to mature and settle down. She showed great improvement this year and much stronger mental abilities on the court. I think she'll keep it up.

I rewatched the Seles/Venus match from the Aussie Open and was highly impressed with both players. They were hitting so hard and so well from point one of game one. Even when Venus was experiencing pain from her leg issues, she still ran and ran. After the trainer came out, she improved but it was too late. Seles played a truly fantastic match. When you look at that match to start the year, and then Monica's closing matches against LD and Venus, it's clear that she can go shot to shot with anyone...

I'm really looking forward to 2003...

I'm not trying to say that Amélie is going to follow a similar career path as Novotna, I was commenting that her match results thus far look similar to Novotna's at similar stages of their careers. I read an article by Wertheim a few months ago where she addressed the mental toughness issue. She said that she spent the early part of 2002 working with a sports psychologist in an attempt to overcome her nerves in tough matches. It seemed to pay dividends from the California hardcourt through the end of the year. If only she were healthy enough to play LA. I think she'll prove to be a worthy opponent to the Williams clan for 2003.

Nick

That sound you just heard was Gaga4Gaby's head exploding.

It's true. Sorry I wasn't able to respond earlier, but I was in the recovery ward and didn't have access to the internet. lol.

For the record, as much as I love Gabriela, I know that it was her mental weaknesses that kept her agonizingly out of reach of the top echelon in tennis and I take no offense at people pointing that out. I go off the beam when people start insulting Gaby, as if she let everyone down somehow by not being what the prognosticators wanted her to be. A couple obstacles by the name of Graf and Seles had a lot to do with that. But I digress....

I am a huge Mauresmo fan because Amelie reminds me so much of Gaby in the way that she plays, so it'd be hypocritical of me to say that the comparison is off the mark. I couldn't believe when Amelie's head started keeping her out of matches...I thought that there was no way I could go through all of that again. But, here I am, bleeding for Amelie with every match. I'm happy to see Amelie coming to the net, which is what eventually produced the finest hour for Gabriela. I think that may well prove true for Mauresmo. She's coming into her own and it's exciting to see. I particulary like her chances Down Under, where the surface suits her to begin with.

And, again, I more than think she deserves the Outsports No. 3 slot. Considering that it was Serena and the rest of the pack, I think her year was second only to the Williams girls.

Gaby was a vision and a joy to watch. I think Amelie's game is similiar and it's terrific watching her develop and improve.

A side note about these famous "choking" matches. Jana's wimby loss against Steffi is arguably one of the all time biggest chokes, but, if you take a look at another huge choke: Hingis vs. Steffi at the French when Hingis completely fell apart - you see one thing in common beyond it being a grand slam final: Steffi. Graf is arguably one of the top two or maybe three mental players of all time. Both Jana and Martina had big leads against her, but Graf sometimes seemed made of steel.

And, as Gaga4Gaby mentioned, another impressive mental player, Seles, was one of Gaby's two main competitors in the early nineties. Seles and Graf and even Martina N. were all playing elite tennis during Gaby's big years...that's one tough field.

By realistic abilities I mean not what level of talent people have necessarily, but whether they have the other things that go with it to make them win. Lucic is a great example. She hits the ball as hard as anyone ever has, but she is a nut case and it bled over into her tennis. She is the reincarnation of Mary Pierce, who managed to shake her insanity, however briefly to win some big ones. But it seems that those players who have that very apparent mental "offness" on the court, I'm referring to nerves, nervous tics (Mary is the queen), irrational outbursts (Jennifer), tend to only have their moments in the sun for a brief time if ever. Gaby didn't have it in her to win more than one slam. She had to play the net to do it and it was too much pressure for her to keep coming in. After that U.S. Open she looked like she was ready for the psych ward. After Mary won that last French she also looked as though she was ready for a padded room, injuries aside, you could just see it. She was through, her mind had been through too much and she couldn't hold it anymore. Amelie seems very similar and I see her going the exact same way, meaning she might well take a slam, but next thing you know she'll implode. Just seems to be a formula that is as old as tennis. You see Chris, Martina(s), Steffi, Monica, even Arantxa to some extent and they are mentally tough as nails, and its not a fleeting state for them. Even though Navratilova is very emotional off the court, she could cast it aside on the court and did so for a good 15 years.

I see Hingis as a far safer bet than Mauresmo for a resurgence. Whether or not people hit harder or are more athletic, or faster or whatver Martina has "it", much like Evert. Even after she had lost to Navrailova a zillion times and people counted her out she pulled out two more French Opens. She had it. I don't think Mauresmo does, as much as I would like her to.

All that said, Jennifer is my favorite player of all time, followed by Gabriella. Just goes to show.

That'll be interesting to watch, because I definitely see your point and probably would have agreed wholeheartedly before 2002...but Amelie showed some real mettle this year and my sense is that she might just prove you wrong.

Great point about Hingis. She's mostly been a very, very strong mental players. She's certainly had her collapses but by and large she's got it. There's nothing like an injury or too much time away though to challenge certain players. Seles is an exception: she's always come backs remarkably strong after injuries and time off. Davenport came back strong this year but couldn't win a final... Graf used to come back from her repeated back problems and kick butt (except against Coetzer in 97 ). Hingis is such a smart all court player; I can't imagine her not doing well if she's fully recovered and trained. In fact, it may just be a matter of being away long enough to get seriously hungry again. I would love to see her at her best again just to see how that competes with the top seven or eight women.

I'm not as confident as some people about Hingis' chances in 2003. In '97 when Hingis won everything in sight (it seems like it was a decade ago), she had an aura of invincibility and had the swagger to go with it. She KNEW that she could triumph over whoever was on the other side of the net. Some players could get a fluke win, like Majoli at the French, but for the most part, she was a step faster and was a shot ahead than her opponents. The players on tour who had the weapons to cause her problems were very inconsistant.

Then came along Davenport, the Williams clan, a resurgent JenCap, the Belgian Bloc as well as the Eastern Bloc players like Dementieva, Hantuchova, etc. Each of these players have so much power and, more importantly, consistantcy that quickness and guile may not be enough anymore. Her first serve is by far the weakest in the Top 20 and last year, and she looked incredibly vulnerable against players with pace. Hingis can retrieve with the best of them and she has the best shotmaking ability on tour, but if you can't hit with the pace to put the ball away consistantly, it'll be hard to win matches against the Top 10. Her match against Hantuchova at Indian Wells is a perfect example. Her guile kept her in that match in the second set, but when crunch time came, Hantuchova just hit the hell out of the ball and there wasn't anything that Hingis could do but watch the ball fly by. I think that Hingis is one of the most exciting players on tour, but I'm not expecting any type of a resurgance in 2003 until she changes her game. She can't rest on her laurels and expect to become #1 again. She'll have to find a way to gain that mental invincibility that she had a few years back.

Nick

Hingis wins when she plays her all-court game and doesn't really try to hang with the power hitters. But the power hitters can't be playing at 100%, or even 90%. She needs them to be off for the day, or worn down by an earlier opponent.(I know this from my squash playing.) For example, I really think Clijsters beat Serena only because JenCap wore Serena down the day before. Back to Hingis: her all court game always(nearly) wins against the power of Seles; Seles outserves her, out returns her and out powers her, but Hingis wins because she plays her game, not her opponent's. Hingis is capable of frustrating the hell out of her opponents, I've seen her play in person and she's brilliant, but she has to give up trying to be a power hitter and go with what she is. Suddenly I'm reminded of Testud's success with Venus and how she causes Venus all sorts of trouble on the court--she throws the kitchen sink at her and sometimes it worked. That's what Hingis needs, her old game back and a lucky break. (Okay, I'm rambling)But, she really needs a lucky break also, remember how many times she had to face one Williams sister only to follow it up with the other? Tough draws. I hope and think she will be a major factor in 2003.

I think that is exactly right. Martina seemed to think for a while there that she needed to become a power hitter too to compete, but she needs to stick to her game because that's what got her where she was. Go with your strength I say. That's why Monica beat her last time, she tried to hit with Seles instead of outfox her. That isn't the way to go. And I also think she's getting too worried about her serve too. She's hearing everyone say how weak it is. I say she should take her chances with it and just be ready to receive a line drive coming back at her. People love to say how Justine Henin is even shorter and thinner than Hingis and serves 25 mph harder. Yeah, well she serves like hell too. She doubles faults 15 times in a match and it doesn't matter how hard you serve if you just give it all away what good is it? Martina needs to improve what she can, but keep focusing on a tactical game, not a power game.

Gaby didn't have it in her to win more than one slam. She had to play the net to do it and it was too much pressure for her to keep coming in. After that U.S. Open she looked like she was ready for the psych ward.

Okay, now you may really HAVE heard my head explode!

First off, you say "she had to play the net to do it" like that's a bad thing. That was a wonderful thing. Winning the U.S. Open captapulted Gaby into the most dominant woman in tennis -- Monica Seles included -- during the first half of 1991. She went into the Wimbledon final with something like a 51-4 record and having defeated Graf all five times they played that year. Coming to the net on a surface she was completely uncomfortable on, Gaby nearly won Wimbledon, serving for it twice and coming two points away at 6-5, 30-30. That year, Gaby would have been number one in the world had she (1) beaten Anke Huber in the quarters of the German Open, the day after her 21st birthday, but she lost; (2) won the French Open, where she lost to Seles in the semi's; or (3) won Wimbledon, which she almost did. I will grant you that her aforemention nerves kept her out of that top spot, but it's hardly an indication that she was "ready for the psych ward."

Gaby was a serious major contender after winning the '90 open. In 1992, again she would have been number one if she could have won the French, where she lost to Seles in a great semifinal match. She was up 4-2 in the third set, but Monica came up with winner after winner. That was not a Sabatini choke. The big choke came at the 1993 French. I swear to this day that Gaby would have won it all if she coulda taken one of her five match points against Fernandez in the quarters. I've never seen her play better up until the first match point of that encounter, when she double faulted. Ugh. It still hurts. Anyway, it was after that horrible loss that Gaby looked like she was ready for the psych ward.

And that's all I have to say about that. Kiss Kiss. Love you. Mean it.

Jon Wertheim's "Baggie" Awards for 2002, not a Top Ten, but still a "Best of...":

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_ga.../12/16/mailbag/

I certainly didn't mean that playing the net was a bad thing at all. What I meant was that it was a horrifying thing for Gabriella. It was totally against her nature and it was absolutely all she could do to force herself up there to do it. That's what put her in the psych ward. She would still be playing today if she didn't have to play the net or serve, both of which made her so nervous we all needed tranquilizers after watching her play.

i loved gaby and while she was competing for most of the top prizes in 90-92, I wouldn't quite call her the most dominant player of the first half of 91 - Seles beat her at the 90 year end, then Seles won the 91 Aussie Open, and beat Gaby at the 91 French - so Seles, Graf, and Gaby were fighting for that top spot for the first half of 91 but Seles was the one who'd won the first two majors of the year....Gaby beat Seles in Rome in both 91 and 92 and then Seles beat her at Roland Garros both years...

Having to go to the net repeatedly makes me crazy, too!

In saying Gaby was the most dominant player of the first half of '91, I'm talking match record through Wimbledon. Every tourney, not just the Slams. Gaby's was the best record in tennis period, men's or women's tour. Yeah, Monica, Steffi, and Gaby were all very close, so you can make a good case for Seles (or Graf too). Seles had won the two majors, but Gaby had won five tourneys up to that point -- more than any other woman.

I respectfully disagree on the notion that Gaby was terrified of playing the net and that it was against her nature. In fact, as a junior, she played the net because it wasn't fun to stay on the baseline. As she got older, coaches began to have her stay back because she hit so hard. Carlos Kirmyer reintroduced her to another way to end points. He made her smarter. The years she attacked and played all-court tennis were the happiest of her career.

I get what you're saying...Gaby had won five tournaments and had the best match record through wimby, but, 91 was all about Seles...going into Wimby, she'd won four tournaments, two of which were the Aussie Open and the French - that's the dominant player...she ended up winning ten tournaments that year including the US Open and the season ending championships....the fact is, during 90-92, we had Graf, Gaby, Seles, and Martina N. all battling for virtually everything - an amazing time for women's tennis....

I believe '91 was the year Monica was being all flakey, wasn't it? She skipped Wimbledon and wouldn't say why; was off trying to be a model; etc., etc., etc. I think that's one of the reasons she hadn't won more tourneys halfway through the year. Obviously, I'm biased here, so we'll have to agree to disagree By the time 1991 ended, Seles had a chokehold on the WTA Tour. Still, I don't know how clear that was in early summer....

But I am 100% with you on how great those days were for women's tennis. As fantastic as the game is today, those will always be the glory years for me.

I agree and the '91 U.S. Open was my favorite of all time. I have the U.S. Open '91 highlight tape and I have probably watched it 60 times. The Jimmy Connors saga was epic, as was the match between Jennifer and Monica. And they were so cute then too, which is fun. They had some footage of Gabriella, Jennifer and Monica at the tourney banquet and they were all so precious dressed to the nines trying to look fabulous. Gaby had the biggest lion mane in history.

Jennifer's win over Gaby in that tourney, Martina's over Steffi, Monica's over Jenny and then Monica over Martina, it's was simply the best possible, other than if Chris Evert could have managed to stay standing another few years and put a few more backhands up the line. She and Martina starred in my second favorite tourney(ies) the 85 & 86 French Open. If those finals weren't the greatest then I don't know what was.

Since this thread has taken a different tone since the last time I posted ... I was 10 when Gaby won the US Open, so I don't really remember many of her matches ... I'll go back to the safe confines of the Hingis debate. I agree that someone should play the game that took them to the top. However, when the game has changed drastically since 1997. Tactics are only part of the equation, you need to have some weaponry of your own. I watched Hingis' match against Seles and while she did make a bunch of errors in that match, she was being dominated on her serve, winning only 38% of her first serve points. Monica hit 12 clean winners off of Hingis' serve. It's hard to play tactics when you can barely get your racquet on the ball. I'm all for her playing intelligently, but you have to have something to keep the power players at bay ... whether it be slicing the ball or hitting the ball flatter.

I remember Navratilova commenting during Martina's 2nd round doubles match against Hopkins/Granville and she said that even when she was the #1 player in the world, she knew that she had to continue to work on her game; improve her volleys, hit with more pace on her serve, and work on her conditioning because she had to evolve with the game. Chrissy had an awesome backhand and she knew that she needed something that'd neutralize it. Tactical play is paramount in tennis, but tactics will get you so far if you can barely get your racquet on the ball.

Nick

Gaby had the biggest lion mane in history.

HA! I know exactly what event you're talking about, because I have the 1991 JennyCap/Sabatini quarterfinal on tape and they show some footage of her. The hair got progressively bigger through 1993. On the cover of her autobiographical book for children, "My Story," her hair is GINORMOUS! (It's not gigantic, it's not enormous...it's ginormous!)

I was 10 when Gaby won the US Open

Oh, boy, now I feel old! I'm only five years older, but that just makes me feel so...dated. lol.

hey hammer, where martina suffers in here serve, lacking power, she is also one of the best placers of serve in the game. She uses the entire service box and that makes up for the power returners. Sometimes. Martina cannot afford to be off her game on those days, or yes, she's in trouble. But I believe if she plays tactically, using the full service box, serving to the body, and playing out of her opponents strike zone, her service game can hang in there. She has to be ready and she has to be confident, maybe confidence is the big IF for here these days.

All this Gaby talk started with a comparison between her and Mauresmo, so I'm sad to report that our Outsports #3 has withdrawn from the Australian Open because of her lingering knee injury.

I think Martina's decline in winning points on serve and struggling with it in general had little to do with any progression in the game or mastery by Monica or anyone else, it was just Martina's lack of confidence and taking all the bad rap she gets to heart. You can see that she is questioning her serve now, she's afraid from the get-go and then she bags it. Monica certainly doesn't hit harder now than she did last year or the year before and Martina routinely beat her, and 0 and 0 at one point. She just needs to be fearless again, and realize that people will hit winners on her, but so what. It's the overall result, not a few winners here or there. It's all a matter of conifdence for her. She's lost her swagger, but I think she can get it back if she doesn't listen to everyone's criticisms of her or glowing reviews of the big hitters.

I hate it when people mention Martina's double bagel of Monica without pointing out that Seles had a serious foot injury at the time, didn't mention it, and then stopped playing for a while after that match...Plus, when Seles gets in better shape as she was during summer 2001, she beats Hingis as she did twice that summer....When Seles is in her best shape, she gives Hingis a really good match. They had a great match at the Aussie Open 2002 in the semi's with Hingis winning in three tough sets and that was after Seles had gone the distance against Venus...during Hingis's big years, Seles was routinely injured and often out of shape...Hingis whipped her around easily....I feel better now..

With all this talk about Gaby and Martina, and where their heads may or may not be, how can we neglect to talk about the men's game? There are some major basket cases there too: Safin, and his explosive temper; Ivanesvic had his half crazy moments; where was Ferrero's head at the French this year? The men are just as lacking in confidence sometimes, maybe not as compelling as the ladies, but definately indicating that confidence is a fleeting and returning aspect of the game. I was really surprised, although I lost no sleep over it like I do when Hingis or Seles looses, when Ferrero lost at Roland Garros. I just stared at the television trying to understand.

Safin's obviously a head case, God love him. A very hot head case, but a head case just the same. I think Haas and Federer may have a tendency to let big occasions get to them, and obviously Ferrero has had a few moments. But for some reason, it doesn't seem as evident with the men. I think there's a level of machismo and swagger with the men where the top players don't take it to heart so much when they have a bad loss, at least not visibly in the way that women do. Emotions, both about oneself and one's peers, seem to play a much more obvious role in the women's game. I think it goes back to the social stereotype that women can show their emotions and men should not.

It was Lendl's lack of emotions on court that made me love him so much, and he was my first tennis crush also. Then that sexy Thomas Muster, rather more emotional. I think though the men are emotional on court, in different ways--look at Hewitt, Roddick, the French players.

The common emotion you speak of, however, is intensity...which is perfectly okay for a man to show. But the men don't display their subtler, more vulnerable emotions. By the same token, there also doesn't seem to be the same level of in-fighting and dislike of fellow top players on the men's side. No one hates Jan-Michael because he's pretty. Lleyton Hewitt doesn't seemed threatened by the abilities of his closest competitors, a la Martina Hingis or JennyCap. Etc., etc.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Gaga4Gaby ]