The next 4:

16. John Newcombe
15. Mats Wilander
14. Stefan Edberg
13. Monica Seles

Somehow it seems appropriate that Monica would end up as unlucky # 13.

ha ha.

Monica's placement is interesting. If you read back through this thread, most people ranked Monica much higher on their list of predictions. Do you think TENNIS took into account the stabbing or just went with the black-and-white stats? It looks to me like they may have thought, "hey, it's a shame ... she could have been much higher," but decided to rank without an asterisk by her name.

Well, comparing Monica to the women only, I guess you have to say Martina, Chris, Billie Jean, and Steffi would all be ranked higher. Steffi being on there sticks in my craw, but it is what it is. So # 13 is probably not far off the mark. What I think is interesting is that in 15 - 20 years if the list is assembled again, I think Monica will still outrank all the women currently on the Tour. I don't think there's anyone playing today that will retire with as many Slams as Monica had won by her stabbing at age nineteen or so.

Steffi won the Golden Grand Slam. I know these are fightin' words around here, but I think she would have ended up higher than Monica regardless of the stabbing. Monica would have been further up and perhaps Steffi further down, but I still give the edge to Graf.

You don't think Serena has one more slam in her, Munson Man?

I really feel Serena is never going to want to focus on tennis again the way she did a few years ago. She doesn't even care enough to get in shape right now. She's almost 24, and by the time she realizes that she needs to re-dedicate herself it may be too late.

Now watch her mow down the field at the US Open and prove me wrong.

I think Tennis Magazine strictly went with the black and white numbers regarding Monica Seles. I like Seles, and I can only imagine how much more successful she could have been had if it wasn't for that moron. But, nevertheless, it did happen, and Steffi Graf had a more successful career. Graf should be ranked higher than Seles. Regarding MM's thoughts about Serena Williams, let me just say that I have NEVER been a fan the whole Williams sisters thing. But, I made the conclusion that Venus Williams was done, and she proved me wrong at Wimbledon. As a result of that, I accept the fact that Serena has at least one more Slam left in her. Unlike the men's game, there is not one player clearly better than everyone else on the court. Anyone in the Top 15 could win a Slam at this point in women's tennis.

I'd be shocked if Serena doesn't retire with double-digit Slams. I think she's got at least a couple more Wimbledon titles in her ...

as a diehard monica fan i think it's crap that she's ranked out of the top ten...stats or no stats, just a personal thing. she'll always be the greatest. it'll be an argument for infinitum how many more she would've won, but there' no doubt she commanded the game unlike any before or since. certainly ranks as one of the greatest comebacks in sports history, any sport.

There are alot pf players out there where you could say "what if?" about. How many more slams would Goolagong have won had she not had babies? If Mo Connelly had't had the riding accident? If Hingis hadn't had her chronic foot problems? Had Navratilova sought asylum years sooner? The facts are the facts. Unfortunately for Seles, she was the victim of an horrific attack. Martina N., Evert and Graf all had better career stats. And they all had career Grand Slams whereas Seles couldn't get Wimbledon. Would she be rated higher if she hadn't been stabbed? Most likely yes. But all facts taken into account, she is right where she belongs, IMO.

I have to jump on the "it sucks for Monica" bandwagon.

There's no doubt in my mind she would have won a truckload more slams, including an eventual Wimbledon had it not been for the stabbing. Yes, Graf still had to go out and play and win all those matches during Monica's absence, but for quite some time, it was "three tier":

Tier 1: Monica Seles
Tier 2: Steffi Graff
Tier 3: Everyone else

Seles owned Graff at the point she was stabbed. Sometimes, Arantxa could move into "Tier 2" and challenge Steffi, but only on occasion. Capriati was moving along nicely, but that's another "what if" story as well - not as sympathetic, she brought it on herself.

I always wondered how Chris and Martina felt about it, too. If you think about it, if Monica hadn't been stabbed, they probably would still be tied for the most career grand slam titles, unless Monica's domination had lasted even longer.


Maybe it would be a fun thread...the "what if" thread where you discuss how the stabbing never occurred. Would Monica have tied or surpassed Evert and Navratilova in grand slams singles titles? Think about it, when Hingis was coming up, Capriati was still not near her potential when she finally came back, and the Williams sisters weren't playing a lot, and were still quite young and not near their potentials either. Other than Davenport, who were the big-ball-bashers at the time? It's the power game that drove Hingis out (I don't care how many excuses the little bitch has). When she was dominating in 97, who else other than the seldom playing Graff (who only bashed on one side anyway) was there, other than Lindsay, that really struck the ball hard?

I believe if Monica had gone uninterrupted, (and Cappy too) Hingis wouldn't have had the success she did. When Monica was on after her comeback, she trounced Hingis a few times, as did Capriati, and Mauresmo, and Davenport, and the Williams sisters, etc...yup, the least common denominator was the power game. Hingis came at an opportune time.

I agree, you could play "what if" until the cows come home, the only thing that really counts are the facts and actual results. I think my peeve, like many, is that with a lot of "what if" scenarios you get the feeling that players did a lot of things to themselves, bad coaching decisions, getting out of shape, not playing enough, temper tantrums, egos, etc...this wasn't the case with Monica, some ass**** did that to her.

Sigh.

I agree....I still get a stomach ache when I think of what might have been.

NJ

I'm sorry, but Seles did NOT own Graf. In the years of Monica's dominance, they played only seven matches. Here are the results:

1990 Berlin - Seles 6-4/6-3
1990 French - Seles 7-6/6-4
1991 US Hardcourts - Graf 6-4/6-3
1991 Citizen Cup - Graf 7-5/6-7/6-3
1992 French - Seles 6-2/3-6/10-8
1992 Wimbledon - Graf 6-2/6-1
1993 Australian - Seles 4-6/6-3/6-2
That's a 4-3 edge for Seles, hardly ownership. If anybody owned Graf at that stage of her career, it was Sabatini (who really was dominated by Seles).

As to Hingis being driven out by powerful players. First of all, ALL current top players are power players, so the fact that the players who can beat her all hit the ball hard is about as significant as the fact that they're all female. Obviously 1997 was a weak year for tennis in general (Amanda Coetzer & Iva Majoli reached the top 5!), so Hingis was not going to continue to dominate like that. Still, until her game went into clear decline in the Spring of 2001, Hingis actually had very good career records against the players mentioned. Through Australia 2001 Hingis records were:
S. Williams 6-4
V. Williams 10-7
M. Seles 12-2 (now that's ownership!)
J. Capriati 5-1
A. Mauresmo 6-2
L. Davenport 10-12

Granted, some of those records were beefed up by Hingis dominating the players in '97-98, but the fact is, even in '99-'00, Davenport was the only one with a significant edge on Hingis.

In slams, which is what this is about, it was 3-1 for Seles, so I disagree, Monica DID own her in the slams. I should have been more clear. That 92 Wimbledon and the \"holding back of the grunt.\" Ugh. She just should have grunted.

In non slams, around that time, yes, Gabby owned her:

1990 US OPEN SABATINI 6-2 7-6(4) 1/1
1990 EUROPEAN INDOORS GRAF 6-3 6-2 1/1
1990 VS OF NEW ENGLAND GRAF 7-6(5) 6-3 1/1
1990 VS CHAMPIONSHIPS SABATINI 6-4 6-4 1/1
1991 PAN PACIFIC SABATINI 4-6 6-4 7-6(6) 1/1
1991 VS OF FLORIDA SABATINI 6-4 7-6(6) 1/1
1991 MIAMI SABATINI 0-6 7-6(6) 6-1 2/1
1991 AMELIA ISLAND SABATINI 7-5 7-6(3) 2/1
1991 WIMBLEDON GRAF 6-4 3-6 8-6 2/1
1992 MIAMI SABATINI 3-6 7-6(5) 6-1 2/2
1992 AMELIA ISLAND SABATINI 6-2 1-6 6-3

I think if Gabby had made more slam finals, it would have been more interesting, but she only met Graff in 3 grand slam finals, and Graff had a 2-1 edge there. (although all three of those matches were great)

Current being the key word, and the point I made quite clearly. As I stated, in 97, the Williams sisters weren't remotely near their peak (Serena wasn't even playing that much), Davenport's condition wasn't as good, Graff wasn't playing a lot etc... From 98 on, Hingis only won two more Australians (98 and 99), nothing else (no slams, I reiterate), which coincides with Lindsay's fitness improvement, Jenny's final realization of her potential, and the Williams sisters' games' maturing. You throw in Mauresmo and the Belgians coming in around that time, well, you get the point. As you stated, your numbers are high because of all of those favorable factors of 97. But you can't say with a straight face that the power game of all these players now (and even the power game as far back as 2000) existed in 97, Hingis's dominant year, which it clearly didn't.

Great discussion. Really great, and everyone pulling in all the stats, etc, I love reading it. I'm not good with stats off the top of my head--that's what research is for--but I do belierve Monica would have won six slams at least in the two years she was out, she was simply getting into the groove, just reaching her prime, and I think she would have continued to win in the late nineties. She would have eclipsed Graf, and affected the stats for Evert, Navro, Hingis and maybe even Davenport during that time. And she would have won Wimbledon--yep Alan Mills and that whole grunting thing was/is stupid--another injustice done to tennis' classiest player. It's a horrible thing that happened to her, simply horrible. I think Tennis is simply going by the numbers and that's no suprise. And Serena has seven slams with two more to go to tie Monica and three to pass her--not sure she'll be able to do that, and hope she doesn't.

Did Seles own her at the slams or just on slower surfaces? There's something striking to me about her career record against Graf on various surfaces.
Clay 3-3
Rebound Ace 2-0
American Hardcourt 0-3
Carpet 0-2
Grass 0-2

I just don't think it's realistic to project Seles with 3 majors a year for five years just because she did it in '91-'92. Seles would obviously have won more majors, but some of those would have been taken from Arantxa (or Conchie) rather than Graf, so I'm not convinced she would have wound up with more majors than Graf. And who knows? Maybe her foot problems would have surfaced earlier if she hadn't had a three year break.


And sorry 3-1 is hardly ownership, especially when won of the matches went 10-8 in the third--that's awfully close to parity if you ask me.

I conceded that 1997 was a weak year for tennis. It isn't just a question of power--there just weren't very many good players in any style. Hingis was not going to win three majors a year for the rest of her career. But for two years after she won her last major, she continued to be a significant force. She reached four more slam finals, so she was still clearly a top player. She was not a clear #1, but as good as anybody up until 2001--her results were a bit like the ones that got Clijsters to #1. And yes, I believe that a healthy Hingis in top form would still be a threat. To be specific, I think she would definitely have won the French in 2004.

And by the way, Clijsters has never won a major and Lindsay hasn't won one in five years, or Monica in seven. I guess they can't beat power players either.

There's no way Hingis would be a threat in slams now, or would have been last year, or the year before, and wasn't the year before. John McEnroe and Mary Carillo were commentating on matches at Wimbledon and McEnroe gave his usual \"I'd like to see Hingis be back in the game, I think she could get back into the top 10, maybe...\" and Carillo just politely said \"no way.\" She explained how Hingis never improved her serve, and it was becomming more and more a liability with the power players' returns, especially her weak second serve. Hingis's tired excuse of \"I'm too small\" was just that, tired. Look how small Henin-Hardenne is and she coped with the power players quite well when she was healthy, and she herself is a power player like the rest of them. Just because Dementieva and Myskina delivered a comically nervous and error-prone joke of a French final in 2004, doesn't mean Hingis would have been anywhere near that final. Some other player (since as you've stated, all top female players are power players in the women's game now) would have easily beaten her, if not Dimentieva or Myskina themselves. We'll have to disagree on this \"what if.\"

Well, according to you, ALL top female players are power players now, so that argument kind of falls flat, when you apply your own logic, huh?

Clijsters is the closest thing to a fair comparison there, because of her age. But comparing Monica (who hasn't formally retired yet, but also hasn't played a lot the last two years) and Lindsay at their ages while still playing for the last three years, to a non-playing and much younger Hingis?

[ July 25, 2005, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Tennis Guy ]

Was Hingis' second serve any worse than Dementieva's? She got to two major finals last year.

I just don't buy it. She was competitive with Davenport in 2000 and I don't believe Davenport is any better a player now than she was 5 years ago. I realize Davenport dominated her in head-to-head, but Hingis did better against the other top players, particularly the Williams sisters, so I think you could legitimately say she was playing at a similar level.

It's your logic falling flat, not mine. The same was true in 2000 (other than Hingis herself). I wasn't the one who claimed Hingis couldn't beat power players based on the fact that the players who beat her hit the ball hard. Name a top 10 player who doesn't. Even Patty Schnyder clocked a 117 mph serve this week.

I honestly do think Lindsay is the player who is most bothered by hard-hitting players. Yes, she hits really hard herself, but against players without a lot of pop she can dictate play. When she loses, she generally loses to players who have enough power to put her on the defensive.

Worse than Dementieva's? No, because that just isn't possible. The big difference is that Dimentieva's got the groundies to almost compensate for such a sad 2nd serve. Hingis didn't. And yeah, Dimentieva lost BOTH of those finals. As bad as her second serve is, she'd kick the living tar out of Hingis.

Hingis did better than Davenport against them, but Hingis had losing records to both the Williams sisters from 1999 on. Granted, Hingis had the slightest of edges in career head-to-head with Venus (10-9), but from 1999 until she whimpered into retirment, Venus had a 7-4 head-to-head with Hingis, although 2-2 in slams. Venus had clearly overtaken her.

1999 ITALIAN V. WILLIAMS 6-4 1-6 6-4
1999 SAN DIEGO M. HINGIS 6-4 6-0
1999 US OPEN M. HINGIS 6-1 4-6 6-3
1999 GRAND SLAM CUP V. WILLIAMS 6-2 6-7(6) 9-7
1999 ZURICH V. WILLIAMS 6-3 6-4
1999 CHASE CHAMPIONSHIPS M. HINGIS 6-4 7-6(2)
2000 WIMBLEDON V. WILLIAMS 6-3 4-6 6-4
2000 US OPEN V. WILLIAMS 4-6 6-3 7-5
2001 AUSTRALIAN M. HINGIS 6-1 6-1
2001 ERICSSON V. WILLIAMS 6-3 7-6(6)
2002 HAMBURG V. WILLIAMS 7-5 6-3

Hingis actually had a losing career record against Serena (Serena has 7-6 edge) but again, from 1999 on, Serena also had a 7-4 head-to-head with Hings, 2-1 in slams.

1999 MIAMI S. WILLIAMS 6-4 7-6(3)
1999 ITALIAN HINGIS 6-2 6-2
1999 LOS ANGELES WILLIAMS 6-3 7-5
1999 US OPEN WILLIAMS 6-3 7-6(4)
2000 LOS ANGELES WILLIAMS 4-6 6-2 6-3
2000 DU MAURIER HINGIS 0-6 6-3 3-0 ret.
2001 SYDNEY HINGIS 6-4 7-5
2001 AUSTRALIAN HINGIS 6-2 3-6 8-6
2001 US OPEN S. WILLIAMS 6-3 6-2
2002 SCOTTSDALE S. WILLIAMS 6-1 3-6 6-4
2002 MIAMI HARD (O) Q S. WILLIAMS 6-4 6-0

The Williams sisters dominated Hingis from 1999 on.

Lindsay seems to fall apart lately in semis and in finals of slams. It doesn't seem to matter who it is, (Sharapova, in last year's Wimbledon, Kuznetsova in last year's US, Serena in this year's Australian, Venus at this year's Wimbledon) it seems she can't close. She did win Wimbledon in 99 against Graf, who was a power player on one side anyway. You're right, Lindsay has a 14-10 career, but again, look at 1999 on, she was 8-3 over Hings, and 11-5 from 1998 on.

OK, no more digressing. Look at Hingis's slam results from 97 on:
(sorry for the formatting, UBB here doesn't seem to allow tables)

-----98----99----00----01----02
AUS--W----W-----W-----F-----F
FRE-SF----F----SF----SF
WIM-SF---1s----QF----1s
US---F----F----SF----SF----4t

If this doesn't demonstrate a downward trend, I don't know what would.

Davenport OWNED Hingis from 98 forward, and the Williams sisters owned her from 99 forward. Capriati OWNED Hingis from 2001 forward (4-0). How anyone could believe that Hingis would have had a shot at another slam after this downward trend, and horrible records against these top players of those years, is just beyond me. She ran with her tail between her legs. And from 99 on, I saw no indication that she'd be able to keep up with the power of 99-present.

I guess it's obvious that we agree to disagree.

[ July 25, 2005, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Tennis Guy ]

Wow, poor Hingis, she may never make it to the Hall of Fame if Tennis Guy and JC are on the committee. Or she will have to go in with a BIG asterick by her name **Hingis, Martina, played and won when no one else was around or watching**.

I like Hingis and I still hear her saying how hard it was to beat both the sisters in one tournament, and I think that was the biggest obstacle to her winning Slams again. She had to face both of them to win the damn title, and who was the last person to do that? Yes, you have to give credit to the Williams for raising the level of power in the game; and Hingis surely raised the level of smarts in the game. When she was assaulted by the power her body could only withstand so much, and when she tried to generate power it was either insufficient or her game and game plan went away--I always thought she lost to Capriati and the Williams because she tried to hit with them instead of outsmarting them. She made the women clean up their power games and when they did and the power remained, she tried to power play them instead of continuing to play smarter tennis.

Okay, back to my point: she had to defeat both sisters to win a major, or one sister and a Capriati or Davenport, and my point here is the depth has so improved that it really is a challenge to win the big tournaments without some luck. In earlier eras who could defeat Navrotalova and Evert or Graf and Seles in the same tournamnent--come on stat boys, give us this one. So I don't discredit HIngis for stating that it was getting tougher to win, but I do discredit her for not getting stronger.

Oooh! This is fun!

I am inclined to agree with JC. Monica Seles did not own Steffi Graf during her dominating days in the early 90s. When they played, the matches were usually close, but there was a reason they only played seven times in those three years ... and that reason was Gabriela Sabatini. Particulary in 1991 and 1992, there was a three-way race for number one going on. It was so tight between those three women that Sabatini, who was never actually ranked higher than No. 3 in the world, came as close as one match win away from the top spot on more than one occassion. Graf could beat Seles and, if not, go down in a very close contest; however, Graf was losing big time to Sabatini, who was only able to beat Monica three times out of twelve, and only twice once Monica was the Monica we all know and love - both at the Italian Open. The reason Sabatini didn't factor into the Slams as much is because as No.'s 1 and 3, she kept meeting Seles and not Graf in the semifinals. (Seles did not play the 1991 Wimbledon, although I do think that Gaby would have beaten Monica on grass at that point in time.)

Moreover, the only constant in tennis is change. It seems like a player who is dominating will dominate forever, but the other players catch up. It usually takes one or two players to shatter that aura of dominance and then the intimidation factor goes away, other players begin to believe that the woman who once dominated is, in fact, beatable. Steffi did it to Martina. Monica and Gaby tag-teamed Steffi. [Then we enter the dark years where Arantxa took over number one.] Hingis did it to Sanchez-Vicario. Davenport did it to Hingis. Venus did it to Lindsay. Serena did it to Venus.

For as great as Monica Seles was, her game was very one-dimensional, and she was (is?) terrible at the net. Players would have learned to exploit that. She would have definitely continued to win Slams, but I doubt it would have been three a year. And I don't like her chances at Wimbledon against Steffi at all. Steffi played better at Wimbledon than anywhere else, no matter the state of her game or confidence going in. Again, I agree with JC, Monica's only theoretical shot at that elusive Wimbledon title would have come at Conchita's expense.

As for Hingis, Shore is dead on in his assessment. Her problem wasn't that she was overpowered so much as that she allowed the rise of more power players to change her game. It's very difficult to assess Hingis, because she was one of - if not the - smartest players to ever step foot on the court. She made people look silly with her tactics and anticipation; it's not as easy to appreciate that style of play in a way, because it's not as obvious as slamming a return winner or hitting ace after ace. Not too many people can play the cerebral brand of tennis that Hingis played. I think she was a victim to a moment in time; the rise of the Williams sisters made her believe that she too had to play that style of game, when in fact she would have been better off to continue trying to outsmart them. Another big problem with Hingis is that she's spoiled and she's lazy. She doesn't have a good work ethic. Once beating the Williamses didn't come as easily, once she needed guile and endurance and even then was not guaranteed a win, she lost interest. I do think, though, that a fully healthy and committed Martina Hingis today would be in the top ten and would contend for Slam titles.

You know I think you are just too cute, G, and so good with your comments and details. But have to pick on this one comment. I'm ok with assessing Hingis as one of the smartest tennis players.... But not the smartest. Not unless you completely ignore Chris Evert.

To me there's no ignoring Chris' tennis brain or her will to win. She won because she was so consistent, made so few errors, and kept her opponents pinned back, under control. But the main reason she won is because she figured out her opponent's (relative) weakness during that particular match and pounded it purposefully and strategically, while giving virtually nothing away from her end.

Her tennis smarts allowed her to compete successfully against extremely talented and athletically gifted players such as Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Evonne Goolagong, and, of course, Martina N. And her smarts and will to win allowed her to adapt her game over time and as conditions, technology, and opponents changed.

Of course, I know the real reason I'm regaling you with stories of what might seem like ancient history...because you're such a young pup you probably don't remember Chris dissecting her opponents, or playing the style of game that Hingis unconsciously followed in. That's ok. I like having a chance to remember the subtle brilliance that Chris brought to the court, especially in this day of straight power.

My additional 2 bits...agree with many that while Monica had the advantage at slams, she didn't own Steffi. Hadn't realized that Monica was so dominant on slower, Steffi on faster. Another reason to lament that horrific attack...in tennis terms they might have developed/continued a rivalry similar to Chris and Martina, who had distinct advantages depending on the surface.

And anytime we're reminded of the best time of Gaby's career is good. Loved her game once she started attacking the net. The beauty of it finally matched her physical beauty.

[ July 26, 2005, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Good Hands ]

I remember Chrissie. The queens in the gay tennis league here would never let me forget, even if I wanted to. Her salad years were before I was truly into tennis, but I have a couple of her wins over a very young Gaby Sabatini on VHS, so I've seen the mind of Evert in action.

And I agree with you 100%. Evert is probably the biggest reason I didn't flat out proclaim Hingis the smartest ever. I'd say it's very close. But, to me, Hingis didn't need to pinpoint one weakness as much because at her best she made any opponent look out of position, whether they were going for their best or worst shot. Martina had this uncanny knack for being two or three steps ahead of everyone she played. But Chrissie was definitely of the strongest mental players in the women's game. If you want to call her the smartest ever, I see your point.

You didn't even have to butter me up with the Gaby compliment at the end. But that's always appreciated!

note to tennisguy: a 7-4 record is not "owning" someone.

Tennis Guy, do you really believe Dementieva would crush vintage Hingis? On clay? You think Dementieva is a much better player than Venus or Lindsay were in 2000? Sure she has bigger groundstrokes than Hingis, but she also hits a lot less precisely, and with a lot less variety. She doesn't have nearly as good a net game, either.

As to your stats, five of Hingis' losses to Venus and Serena came after the 2001 Australian open when her foot problems began, the year she began to complain of foot problems. So no, they did not dominate her from '99 on. In fact, Hingis in 2000 split her matches with Serena and even went 2-3 against her real nemesis, Davenport. She lost twice to Venus, both times in three tough sets, and had won their last meeting of '99 and would win their first '01. Oh, yeah, clearly she was out of her league.

Totally agree with you shore and gaga, on Hingis. Evert's an interesting comparison, because in many ways Hingis was her modern counterpart. Evert would have fought more successfully to remain on top, but would have had similar problems in the modern game, especially on faster surfaces. Maybe in a way Hingis was too talented, so that things came too easily at the beginning. I think that may have been part of the problem for the Williams Sisters in the past two years.

Edited to add:

Sure if she continued to decline from 2000 on, she wouldn't win majors. She certainly was not as good a player in 2001 (though she still nearly won the 2002 Australian Open). But why would you project a player in her teens to deteriorate? Chris Evert was much older and much more completely dominated by Navratilova in '83 & '84, but she came back to win majors. My argument is that at the level she was playing in '99-'00, she could have won the French in 2004. There's no reason a healthy and committed Hingis couldn't have been as good a player at 23 as she was at 19.

[ July 26, 2005, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: JC ]

Beating someone almost twice as much as they've beaten you isn't? O....K....


Absolutely. Are you forgetting that Seles kicked the living crap out of Hingis in the 1998 French Open? You know, back when Hingis was still \"healthy?\" I remember it well, with Seles blowing shot after shot past Hingis. (It was such a disappointing final for me, because I wanted Seles to get another Slam, but she couldn't hold off Sanchez-Vicario. This was days after her father dying, too.) And using everyone else's comaprisons, Deimentieva isn't good at net, neither was Seles, etc..., there's no question in my mind. However, Seles's serve was much more formidable than Deimentieva's, too, not as though that takes very much.

She was out of her league. She had losing records to those top players, no matter how you want to slice it, and it appears you do want to slice it by saying things like, \"well, don't include 2001 because of her foot, and this match was close at 3 sets, and..and...and, etc...\"

Look back at her declining slam results and her results against those top players, obviously that isn't enough for you, you're still disputing it. It's OK, to disagree, but look who DID win those slams from 99 forward. Graf at the French, Davenport at Wimbledeon, Serena at the US, and from 2000 on, Davenport, Capriati and the Williams sisters winning until Justine, etc... You really believe from 99 on she was still competitive with these power players? I'll give the little snot this, she DID make the Australian final in 01 and 02. Capriati trounced her in 01, but those two had a close match in 02. But from that point on, she didn't even make another slam final (in fact she only made it to one final the previous year, winning her last at the Australian). I think those two Australian finals were flukes, and not the norms she had in 97. We can throw result after result at each other, and then spin those results to our liking (as we've been doing) but to this day, I never considered her a threat from 99 on.

I think the 2001 Australian best sums up my point (before the \"oh my foot hurts\" drama). She FINALLY beats both Williams sisters when they're pulling ahead of her, Serena in the QF and Venus in the SF, but then loses to Capriati in the final. Then, look ahead to 2002. She makes the final at Indian Wells, and loses to a relatively new Hantuchova. The power players were coming out of the woodwork, I guess. (I hope Hantuchova gets on a roll at some point I really like her) There's now Mauresmo, the Belgians, and some upcomming Russians. When Hingis was losing to players like Lindsay, Jenny, Williams sisters, when she was \"healthy,\" (or vintage if you want to call her that), how can you say she'd be competitve now? Do you REALLY think the players are hitting the ball any softer now? How you believe she could stand up to the likes of Sharapova, and healthy Williams sisters (who are dedicated, read: Serena, get off your butt and get back into it) and Davenport and Hennin-Hardenn, or even a Dimentieva or Kuznetsova, is beyond me. I just don't understand that.


Why would anyone project a mere 22 year old to retire, as well? I never really bought the foot injury 100%. I have no way of knowing, but I'm pretty sure she came to the realization that she couldn't win the slams, and later, other tournaments against these stronger players, so she found an out. Yes, it's speculation on my part. But you assuming she would have "come back" in her 20's against a style of game she wasn't able to cope with is speculative as well.

Even with the "turmoil" of a lack of a dominant player the last two years, there's no way I'd believe a healthy Hingis would be anywhere remotely near a slam final in 04. Not even close.

But as the entire premise of this discussion, how many more slams would Monica have won? Would Hingis have ever won another slam? We'll never know.

[ July 26, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Tennis Guy ]

I remember it being a big deal when Mandlikova beat both of them (Evert and Navritilova) in the 85 US Open. That's a good analogy.

[ July 26, 2005, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Tennis Guy ]

Early in Chris' career, players and commentators regularly commented on her anticipation, how she seemed to know what was coming. They spoke of her anticipation especially in context of her being a little slow, not so athletic. The style of game in the 70s and 80s was different than the late 90s and today, but some of the strengths and weaknesses Chris had were echoed in Hingis' game.

Didn't mean to suggest that Chris overplayed an oppenent's weakness. Rather that she seemed to understand what it was during the match, and at the right moment would play to it. She was a counterpuncher when her oppenent attacked, and a controller of the point when she didn't. It almost always took players of top ability to beat her, as seen in her alltime best match winning percentage.

Of course, later in her career, particularly in response to the challenge of the mighty Martina, Chris got herself into top shape, shed the extra weight, became quicker, so much so that being a little slow was not a description that was used about her. She also improved her serve significantly, became more adept at the net, and attacked more, developing her game to be able to continue to challenge for the majors even in the face of Martina N.'s formidable talent and determination. That type of drive and effort has not been seen from Hingis, sad to say.

1986 French Open against Gaby. Is that one you have on tape, G? I remember watching that thinking the young Gaby was going to take Chris right out, before she tired out and Chris gained control.

Right, Tennis Guy, Hingis beats Serena Williams 3 times (something Monica never did to Steffi Graf who she supposedly owned). What a fluke. She beats the Williams Sisters back to back to reach the Australian Open a fluke. She reaches the Open Final again the following year--fluke.

Monica Seles on the other hand, wins one match against Hingis after losing six straight, then wins their next meeting before hingis takes their next six meetings. Clear evidence that Hingis can't handle her power!

I think the significant thing about the Mandlikova result in the 85 US Open was that it was one of only two times in a Slam during the Chris/Martina domination days when they were both beaten by the same player. Tracy Austin did the same thing at the 79 US Open.

Martina won her first Slam in 78 (Wimbledon of course) and Chris won her last in 86 (French of course). In that span, the two of them won a total of 26 Slams. The total number played in that time was 35 (no Aussie in 86). The two of them skipped 3 of the 35 (78 French and Aussie and 79 Aussie). So , they won 26 of 32 Slam events played. Hana won 3 of the other 6, Tracy won 2, and Evonne won 1. Hana beat Chris in 2 of hers and Martina in one. Tracy beat Martina twice and Chris once. Evonne beat Chris in the 80 Wimbledon final.

Chris is considered by most experts to be the smartest player to ever be in the game. The thing is she could beat anyone on any surface. She was actually a great mover -- always in position. People would always coach players to emulate Chris' footwork. She got in position, because she was always a couple of steps ahead of her opponents.

I think if she had come along today, she would still be a champion. She trained hard and had all the technical skills. More importantly, she had the mind of a champion and literally willed herself to many wins. That is still one of most important qualities in a champion today. She refused to lose. I mean, in what sport do you have a team or individual who won 90% of all contests over the course of a 19 year career? Unheard of in any sport anywhere.

I think Hingis' downfall was her strength -- her head. She let the power players get in there and shake her confidence. She did not get blown off the court by anyone. But she let players start dictating play on her.

In terms of Lindsay, I think she has caused some of her own problems. But lets review. She was hurt in last year's Wimbledon semi with Sharapova. Thigh strain. She still rolled to a set and a break lead and then the rain came and her leg tightened up and she tightened up. In the 2004 US Open semis she could barely move in the third set and still lost just 6-4 in the third. Many balls she could not even chase after. In the 2005 Aussie finals she had played HOURS of tennis and literally ran out of gas. And in the Wimbledon final, she all but won the match despite her lower back strain.

She should have found a way to win some or all of these matches. But it is really hard to go out and compete that well when you have pains preventing you from going 100%.

Monica didn't beat beat Steffi in 3 out of 4 slams in the early 90's? You mean, Seles didn't beat Graff in the 90 French, 92 French, and the 93 Australian? Those 3 were all an illusion? She clearly did beat Graff 3 times. OK, so 3-1 in slams may open to \"ownership\" debate, but I'm not sure how you can say Monica never beat Steffi 3 times, like you did above. That's not really debateable, is it? (Although I have a feeling you'll keep trying. wink )

And what \"3 times\" are you talking about in regards to Serena beating Hingis? What's the significance of the number 3 in this statement? The 3 times from a certain point forward? She beat Serena 6 times in her career, so what? Serena beat her 7 times. What's your point?


And she didn't even reach a final of the other 3 slams inbetween, in fact she lost in the first round of Wimbledon 01. And won neither of those two mentioned Australians, and no slams after, and made no slam finals after, in fact went out in the 4th of the US Open of 02. So yeah, I'd say those two were flukes at that point in her declining career.


You're really desperate just to argue and be sarcastic at this point, huh? My point was NEVER that she couldn't beat Hingis. I'm not sure how you came to that. My point with Seles beating her at the 98 French was in response to your Dimentieva comparison on clay. In 98 Hingis was "healthy" and still lost on clay to a power player, even though she had a much better head-to-head with her, one with good strong ground strokes who wasn't great at net.

I agree, Lindsay played a lot of doubles with Morariu, they made it to the doubles finals of the Australian this year, and that exhausted her. I know hindsight is 20/20, and Lindsay is such a nice player...but I really think she should have pulled out of the doubles. From the middle of the second set on in that singles final, she looked absolutely drained. Tough position to be in, though. I'm sure Morariu would have understood, but how do you say no to a great friend and doubles partner you've known for years who survived a scary bout with cancer?

As far as the Chris/Martina/all the rest point? I agree, they had quite the stranglehold on the slams for quite some time. I don't want to offend whoever said it (although I've clearly struck some nerves in this thread) but someone said that it really wasn't a rivaly between Chris and Martina in another thread. I never really understood that mentality, I think it's one of the best rivalries in all of sports.

My only slight disagreement with you is on Hingis. You said that she started to let people dictate play on her. To be honest, I don't think she had much choice, or chance in the matter. Her serve was never commanding enough, especially her 2nd serve, and her ground strokes weren't as strong as the other players either in the 98 and later timeframe. I don't think it was that she let them do that to her, she just didn't have the firepower to stop it.

I have the semi, which is 1985, I think. 1986 was the quarters, no? Either way ... it sucked in my book.

Tennis Guy, I don't think that you've really struck any nerves so to speak. This active debate has gotten alot of people involved and I think everyone is enjoying the discussion. It's getting to the point where people are splitting hairs now, though, largely I think because you don't appear to be giving Hingis any credit for being the elite player that she was. Your perspective is understandable and I'm sure plenty of people agree with it in part or in whole, but you sound as if you think Hingis's greatest asset was luck, which is simply not the case. Like her or not, think she could come back or not, the woman deserves more credit than that.

Never thought about it that way, but that's a good analysis. Reminds me of the most challenging times of Chris' career, first from Tracy Austin and then from Martina. Chris actually got intimidated and unsure of herself against Tracy in 79/80, losing many times in a row to her. To the point when she clearly didn't think she could beat her, which showed in how she played. The same thing happened with Martina in 83/84.

That's not to take anything away from how well Tracy and Martina played, of course. But during those stretches Chris didn't believe she could win, and sometimes played like she wanted to get a respectable score, rather than playing to win. Yet, she worked through the mental barrier, pushed herself past the fear and doubt, and laid it on the line. The 1980 US Open semi against Tracy and the 1985 French final against Martina were live examples of how to work through the challenge posed by champion opponents, and her own self-doubt. In 1980 Tracy could physically do everything at least as well as Chris could. And Martina was physically superior in ability in so many ways. Chris knew that, but finally was able to accept the challenge of beating them anyway.

Liked what you said too G. This seems to be an enjoyable discussion (anytime I can go on about Chris' strengths, with Gaby's good times thrown in, it's good ).

Anyway, back to Monica . I think Monica, like Chris before her, had a mental toughness and focus on tennis to the exclusion of so much else, that distinguished her from most other players. Given the lifespan of tennis players, I think it's tough to assume that a healthy Monica could have stayed on top until past her mid-twenties. But if the attack had never happened, I think it's a given she would have been contending for Slam titles for about another 6 - 7 years, and I think it's reasonable, if not conservative, to assume she would have won another 6 or 7 Slams. That would have put her at about 15 or 16 total Slams. It also seems likely that Steffi would have won a few less Slams. That would have put Steffi at the same 15 or 16. That would have been appropriate. Unfortunately, though you can't change history, and if you do look at the results objectively - eliminating all the sad backstory - you do then need to rank Monica behind Steffi and the Big 3. Yes, it's unfair, but history is often unfair.

Now back to the heated sidebars......

But Tennis Guy, it was one match. Of course, she could lose one match at any point in her career to a good player of any style on any surface. In 1997, she lost to Amanda Coetzer on carpet. Maybe you misread my meaning on Dementieva. Of course, Dementieva *could* beat her on clay. I just think Hingis would win most of the time, just as she did against Seles. However, with Hingis' playing style an aggressive top player who really zones is going to beat her. The same is true of Lleyton Hewitt, but Hewitt continues to be a threat to win majors because (with the exception of Federer who owns him), the big guns can't bring it consistently. But there's currently no woman equivalent to Federer. There's also only one woman on the tour who really plays well on clay, which is why players like Dementieva, Myskina and Pierce have made the French Open final. So if Justine's not around, or has a freakish early loss as she did in 2002, the French becomes a wide open tournament.

Even in 1998, Seles was a far better clay court player than those finalists--no comparison at all. Other than 2004, Dementieva's never made the quarter finals of the French and Myskina's never made it to the 3rd round! A healthy Seles might well have won the French in 2004, too.

When a player wins a particular major three times and makes the finals six consecutive times, don't you think it just might be that she plays particularly well on the surface? As to no more finals after that, she only played one more. She sat out the French and Wimbledon because she was having a second round of surgery on her uninjured foot.

To clarify my opinion on Hingis' career. In 1997, she burst onto the scene and dominated, but I think part of that was timing. I don't think her physical game deteriorated from 1998 to 2000, but the field got stronger and she didn't get the breaks she needed to win majors. A few points here and there, and she could have had a couple more, though I do think her mental game deteriorated after losing to Graf in 1999. In 2001-2002, her play was definitely off, (just as Hewitt's was in 2003, or Venus' was up until Wimbledon). As much snickering about the injury as people have done about Hingis, the fact is she did have surgery twice. In both 2001 and 2002, she started off the year terrific and then deteriorated as the year went on, which seems consistent with a problem that gets worsened by play. To my eye, she did not appear to be moving well at the US open in 2002, so yes, I believe her feet did contribute to her poorer results in 2001-2002. And even then her results were only poor by comparison to her peak, she still made the semis of 3 out of 4 majors in 2001. The only current player to have made the semis of 3 of the last 4 majors is Davenport.

Anyway, Venus' career looked to be in much worse decline than 2001 Hingis, prior to Wimbledon. Davenport had long losing streaks against all the top players in 2002-2003, yet has returned to the top spot.

I agree that Hingis' mental game did deteriorate. I think she started to doubt herself after the '99 meltdown against Graf.

The comments on Evert's always being in position reminded me a little of a comment Andre Agassi made recently. He said that Steffi still has better footwork than he does.

By the way, my comment that Evert might have had similar problems to Hingis in the modern game should not be construed as suggesting a modern Evert would not still be a top player. With the will and mind, she certainly would have been, though I think her serve would have been vulnerable at Wimbledon. On the other hand, though she could win on every surface, she was nearly unbeatable on clay. The spooky thing about Evert's French Open record is she didn't even play the tournament every year. She probably would have won at least 10 if she had.

I guess when the very first thread I ever posted here contained an entire paragraph about why I couldn't stand Hingis, I kind of set the stage, and not necessarily in a good way. I'll admit, I must seem outspoken in my dislike of her. (ya think? ) I'll try to throttle that back.

There's no question in my mind that Hingis will make the Hall of Fame, and that she deserves to be there. I never meant to insinuate in any way, shape, or form that her successes were attributed to just luck. I do think 97 was a weaker year, kind of a transition time, but she still played very well and dominated the game, no question. I think what made her that great was her court saavy. She could mix things up well, anticipate as though she were clarevoyant, and move nicely. As much as I didn't care for her personality and comments, there's no denying the fact she was a very calculating, smart, and instincitve player.

What started this was the Monica "what if" scenario. For reasons I've stated ad nauseam earlier, I think Hingis and others, although still would have probably been successes, probably wouldn't necessarily have been as successful had the stabbing not occurred. Some agree with me on this point, some don't. No biggie. :cool:

A lot of people saw the meltdown at the French in 99 to Graff as the beginning of the end for Hingis. Some thought she was still a threat even until 02. I actually felt the beginning of the end in 98 for her, with both Williams sisters coming into their own, and the "younger one who shouldn't have won a slam first"...I saw that as real foreshadowing. Again with points and statistics a-plenty above. Enough agreement to disagree on these varying mindsets of when and how Hingis lost domination.

JC, I agree with a lot of what you're saying on how clay can be a "wide open surface" for the slams, since there aren't as many specialists, like on the men's side on the surface. But I think we can all join in for a friendly chuckle at the irony...you were stating you could believe Hingis could have won the French even as recently as last year...and yet the one slam she never won WAS the French. I'm not being cold, I just thought that was a funny twist. (Although I'd be pretty psyched and floored if there were a miracle of miracles, and Sampras came out of retirement and won a French! )

[ July 27, 2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Tennis Guy ]

Way to "throttle back," TGuy. Knew you could handle it. And recognize some of the origin of the reaction. Good man.

Question on timeline. You site 1998 as the beginning of the end and reference both Williams. Think you're referencing Serena's defeat of Hingis at the US Open. However, that was the end of 1999, not 1998. Davenport beat Hingis at the US in 1998. After which Hingis still won the 1999 Australian. You still might think 98 was the beginning of the end for Hingis, just wasn't clear if you were referring to Davenport's arrival and the coming to fore of the power players, or really focused on the impending arrival of the Williams as major champions.

I also appreciate the irony that Hingis never won the French even though her game seems so well suited for clay against today's players.

Hingis clearly wouldn't be #1 or a dominating player today as she once was, but I do think she would have been a factor. She held 4 match points against Capriati in the Aussie Open in 2002, her last year on tour. She would still have a shot, maybe only an outside shot, at the Aussie and French. Her serve was clearly a weakness, but look at the fact that Dementieva and Myskina are in the top 10 with very weak serves. The increased power in the game really made her change her game around. She became much less aggressive, and resorted to a lot of defensiveness. Davenport even commented after she lost to V. Williams at Wimbledon in 2000, that she was surprised at how passive Hingis was. I feel like if she stuck to it she could have found a way to win like Evert before her. Unfortunately she didn't want to put in the effort and the foot injuries were a convienient way out for her. That being said her presence is sorely missed(not by TennisGuy, of course). She was one of the last players to really construct points instead of just bashing the ball. There was just such a tremendous amount of clarity in her game. She made her opponents look silly at times with her stategy. Maybe WTT will bring her back, she really seems to be having fun out there. Of course, that serve doesn't look any better.

[ July 27, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Puddy ]

No you're absolutely right, 98 was when Lindsay got her first slam and beat Hingis. Williams sisters' emergence although still somewhat incubating, Venus had already beaten her twice of their five meetings in 98 and Serena beat her relatively early in 99 at Miami. My point, poorly stated, was that that's when I got the feeling that other players (mostly Serena, Venus, and Lindsay) were catching up and no longer intimidated by Hingis, and that the remainder of 99 with Serena surprising many to be the first Williams to win a slam, further strengthened those feelings of mine.

[ July 27, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Tennis Guy ]

wow, haven't checked in a few days. i love a good argument. and the stats!, wow. 'ownership' is indeed debatable, but a tide had been created by monica's ascent. what really sucks is what graf's game might've evolved into in order to maintain the challenge. specualtion, of course. what made the evert/navratilova rivalry so great was evert's refusal to back down. she got more fit, became an aggressor, even started coming to net. never was a graf fan, but how fantastic would it have been if she had developed a serve/volley tactic? we all got cheated by the a--hole in the stands that day. enough. it'll be an argument forever. you guys are great...cheers

My subsciption to TENNIS expired - oops! - but I saw the latest issue at the gym yesterday. As Casey Kasem would say, "On with the countdown!"

12. Andre Agassi
11. John McEnroe
10. Ivan Lendl
9. Bille Jean King

(I'm pretty sure that's the correct order, but I'm going off memory.)

I think it's interesting that TENNIS isn't necessarily alternating two men and two women anymore, so it will be very interesting to see what happens when the final four are revealed.

wow, i wonder how pissed mac must be to see he's been pipped by lendl...

sal

When I was a boy, Lendl was my dream--I thought he was so exotic, and had the best body, particularly legs. I loved watching him play. I didn't really understand the game then, so I didn't really appreciate how smartly he played, but I'm glad to see him ranked so high.

McEnroe is very difficult to rate because for one year, he played as well as anyone in history. I think he was actually a break up and two sets ahead in that French Open Final. Had he won it, he would have not only had a grand slam, but gone undefeated for an entire year. However, the rest of McEnroe's career is not nearly so impressive. Lendl won more slams, was number one for much longer and was 21-15 against him head-head. I'm happy (and a little surprised) to see him get his due.

According to my handy dandy Bud Collins Tennis Encyclopedia, McEnroe went 82-3 in 1984 and won 13 of 15 singles tournaments. Maybe the other two losses came at the season ending round robin event?

The perception of Lendl being inferior to McEnroe is also largely due to the theory that he dominated during a "dead" period in the men's game. Borg was retired, McEnroe and Connors were waning a bit, the fields were preceived as not as deep and Lendl never really ahd that one great rival. Also, his futility at Wimbledon and winning only 3 of 8 US Open finals haunted him.

Maybe I've weirdly conflated McEnroe & Navratilova's years in 1984. I think that must be it. Still, he would have won a grand slam--it was an awesome performance.

I have to disagree with the assessment of Lendl dominating a down period in men's tennis. He was still winning majors up to '89 and a finalist as late as '91, so he definitely made it into the Becker/Wilander/Edberg generation of players.


I dislike that sort of thinking anyway. One could dismiss Sampras' accomplishments because Courier, Becker, Wilander and Edberg were fading and Agassi was inconsistent.

It annoys me to no end that people consider failing to win Wimbledon (he did make the finals twice so he wasn't totally futile on grass) such a big deal. And personally, I'm more impressed by a player who's 3-5 in US open finals than someone who's 4-0. Reaching eight consecutive finals in a grand slam is an extraordinary accomplishment. I think the American media just looks for ways to snipe at foreign athletes.

Well, I do think winning Wimbledon is the biggest victory in tennis, so I can understand why it's important. But despite the school of thought George mentioned, it's obviously put into perspective by people in the know, since Lendl is number ten all time on this list.

Hey JC, I was actually thinking that. Martina lost 1 time in 1983, at the French. Then lost on 2 times in '84 (early in '84 to Hana Mandlikova before going unbeaten until December at the Aussie Open, semis against Helena Sukova). And McEnroe was as dominant in '84 as mentioned, but didn't think he had lost only 1 time that year. Easy to mix up the details...they were both so dominant.

Liked what you wrote about McEnroe being difficult to rate. Because he was so brilliant in '84, won 3 straight US Opens, 4 overall, 5 straight Wimbledon finals, winning 3. Yet he didn't have the longevity of Lendl or Connors. And he missed the chance at the French in '84.

Don't know about American media picking on foreign athletes. McEnroe got a lot of justly deserved criticism for his attitude on court. (Of course, I thought he deserved more, so I'll ponder your point more. ) Lendl seemed to have a lot of negativity about him...some of that mistrustful attitude reflective of communist oppression in Czechoslovakia, perhaps. That wasn't just seen here. If I remember correctly, he wasn't a favorite in Europe either. I say that because he's supposed to be a pretty nice, funny guy in private. But on the court he didn't draw people in a la Monica, Mats, Boris, et al.

And Wimbledon was a hurdle he couldn't cross. But I thought because he ran up against better players on those days, all champions (Becker in '86 final, Cash in '87 final, '88 and '89 semis against Becker and Edberg). But he proved himself on other surfaces, champion at US, Aussie, French. Seems like a fair ranking to me.