A disappointing end to a disappointing year in tennis. I was expecting and hoping Agassi to triumph in tonight's match. And though I suspected that Serena would be victorious over her sister, I really didn't want to see that or an all-Williams final. Again.
Following Serena's victory I noticed a story on Yahoo! Tennis suggesting that Serena may be the best tennis player. Ever. Her greatest seems to be a rather widely-held view. Am I the only one in strong opposition to this claim? I cannot see how the ability to out-hit one?s opponent can be confused with the ability to out-play them. From where I am standing, a player like Martina Hingis with her unmatched ability to play intelligently, to achieve near-flawless placement and what I would label ?tennis intuition? strikes me as having true talent. She makes the game almost chess-like, strategically moving her opponent around the court. That is what tennis is about, not brute strength.
The big difference between Pete and Andre, only one of them had to play the world #1 the day before. If Pete had played Hewit the day before he would have lost. Pete got lucky. And what is with this trashing Serena? Martina HIngis is a spoiled little brat who's reign was destinguished by a lack of credible competition. She wasn't better than the players that came before her, and she wasn't better than the players who came after her. She was a historical fluke. There are now at least 8 palyers in the world now she will probably never again beat, unless she learns to serve, and hit a little pace. Are the WIlliams sisters supposed to develope parts of the game they don't need to win, just so some guy like the one above will say, " Now she's an all around player". So what again is it that Martina does that Serena doesn't , paint the lines? Serena does that, hit great angles? Serena does that, hit the odd drop shot?. Serena does everything Hingis does, only better, as do any one of the other top 8.
<strong>The big difference between Pete and Andre, only one of them had to play the world #1 the day before. If Pete had played Hewit the day before he would have lost. Pete got lucky. And what is with this trashing Serena? Martina HIngis is a spoiled little brat who's reign was destinguished by a lack of credible competition. She wasn't better than the players that came before her, and she wasn't better than the players who came after her. She was a historical fluke. There are now at least 8 palyers in the world now she will probably never again beat, unless she learns to serve, and hit a little pace. Are the WIlliams sisters supposed to develope parts of the game they don't need to win, just so some guy like the one above will say, " Now she's an all around player". So what again is it that Martina does that Serena doesn't , paint the lines? Serena does that, hit great angles? Serena does that, hit the odd drop shot?. Serena does everything Hingis does, only better, as do any one of the other top 8.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i agree about Andre, he played an incredible match against Hewitt. HIngis is never win agrand slam again. i just someone wish will come up that beat both of the Williams sisters, i'm sick of their reign and attittudes
do you think Serena could beat Sampras, Agassi or Hewitt? i'm not so sure but my Mom thinks so
For the Williams sisters, i find that Serana looks like steroid like. I am always suspicious when a women has so much muscles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
there's not a man that played in the US open that had as much muscle as her.... frankly.. it's scary.
Hingis had to contend with Seles, Graf, Venus Williams, Davenport, Sanchez-Vicario, Rubin, Pierce, etc. She was not a fluke, but she can't compete with people who use sheer power to win games...the top 3 ranked WTA players in the world for example.
When you win back to back Aussie Opens, Wimbledon and the US Open in just a little over a year, you are not a fluke. Once upon a time, Hingis *did* dominate Williams anyway...but again the finesse game is gone forever, following in the footsteps of the ATP Tour.
Around the time men's players like Rafter, Rusedski, and the young guys who can blister 130-140 MPH serves began to change the dynamics of men's singles tennis, people like Michael Chang fell by the wayside. The same thing is happening in the WTA.
Doubles tennis is where the great matches are these days. I've gone to the Bank of the West Classic 6 years in a row. The doubles matches never disappoint.
And more on Hingis...Hingis also entered the US Open doubles tournament, so she played quite a bit more than the Williams sisters and other players who only entered the singles tournament. Her performance is also marred by a persistent foot injury.
Honestly Eugene, do you think Hingis at the top of her game could beat any of the players you listed, when they we're at the tops of their games. I'll give you Pierce and Rubin. The others , she dominated when they were on the way down or the way up. The Williams sisters are incredibly muscular, but they are also injury prone. And I suspect they aren't nearly as quick as the men. I would like them to have some competition, and it could possibly come form Hingis, but Hingis has to work on her strength, and her serve. Andre was the same way for years. It took years of disappointing results before he got serious. Lets hope, for the game, Hingis smartens up sooner. And the young ponytail girls Hantuchova and a host of others, will give the Williams' a run for the money. I think they are both susceptable to a Hewitt type player. Someone 20 pounds lighter with better wheels. There are a lot of great young women players right now who could step up, including Hingis.
norfa, like I said, as recently as 1999, the game was still dominated by finesse. Out of all those players I listed, it seems only Davenport has really stepped up her game to compete with the Williams sisters...but that's because she might be the only one really capable of doing so (with her height.)
And Hingis is still right up there, in the top 10, alonf with Davenport, whom Hingis used to dominate all the time.
Like I said, the Williams sisters have changed the dynamics of women's tennis. It's getting more and more boring as it becomes more and more like the men's game.
Jeffboy: I?m too young to have seen any of Navratilova?s matches during her 80s peak. However, I have seen a few at various points that have been aired during rain delays at various Majors in the past several years. And I certainly agree with your comment! I have a huge respect and admiration for her and her amazing talent.
In regards to Hingis (again) she was most definitely not a fluke. She dominated the game in 1997, 1998, 1999 and a good part of 2000. And keep in mind she nearly won the Australian Open in January. She held a handful of match points. Sadly, the heat got to her and she was not able to capitalize on them. They really should have closed the roof. That last set was just sad to watch. She seemed at times on the verge of passing out from the obscene heat. And I suspect she would have done well at Roland Garros had she not been out injured.
Norfa: I don?t understand your reverence to the Williams!?! Is it a race issue? Of course its nice to see African-American athletes succeed in a sport that was traditionally white, however, they can be blamed the inevitable downfall of the sport!!! At this rate in five years we?ll see an XTA a la XFL! A few years back Hingis infamously said in regards to the Williams brothers, ?It?s us against them.? She was speaking to Lindsay Davenport. And she was right.
I will concede that Hingis does need to correct a few things in her game such as her ?glacially-paced serve? and her general fitness but she and others like her exemplify the sport.
Eugene: Completely on target about women?s tennis getting boring. I didn?t even bother to get tickets for the Open this year. An hour match of 1-, 2- and 3-hit games is not my idea of a match.
I don't revere any body, I relate the facts as i see them. And accusing the WIlliams sisters of ruining tennis, how is that? All they do is play the game. You make it sound like tennis would be better off without them. Is the R word lurking in the background here? Anyway talk about spoiling the game, when Hingis was on top she was the most self-centered little spoiled brat, it was all about her. I didn't watch women tennis for the time she was number one because i couldn't stand her egocentric little interviews after the match. If ya want to go for a tennis role model, go for Lindsay Davenport or Monica Seles, or someone who has some class. You guys hold Hingis up as some kind of role model for tennis? What are you smoking? Or are you just influenced because Kournakova is her doubles partner, really, what gives? Serena has won 3 grand slams in a row. That one simple fact, not an opinion, a fact, puts her way ahead of what Hingis will ever accomplish. You can mumble all you like about spoiling the game etc. those opinions that are just sour grapes. Stick to the facts folks, Hingis hasn't won as many slams as a whole host of others, and she never will. Lets stick to her record. She was #1 for a while, and she won a few slams. Lots of players have been #1 and lots of players have won more slams. Among the great players of the game, I'm not sure she even deserves a footnote. More like a Pat Cash, than a Pete Sampras. She had her moment. Lets not try and drag it out past it's time.
Hingis has also won 3 Majors in a row. In 1997 she won the Australian Open in January. Lost in the finals of the French. And won Wimbledon and the US Open. Then in January of 1998 she won the Australian again.
Its true she hasn't won as many as others, but she is only 21. She has 8 or 9 years which means 36-40 majors or more ahead of her. I'm sure she will win at least a few of them.
<strong>And accusing the WIlliams sisters of ruining tennis, how is that? All they do is play the game. You make it sound like tennis would be better off without them. Is the R word lurking in the background here?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Man, that Malivai Washington and Arthur Ashe, they sure ruined men's tennis!
God, playing the race card so soon? Not all of us attacked Serena. We're merely pointing out that the level of power she brings to the game has made tennis boring. The level of domination she brings to the game makes it as boring as baseball when the Yankees dominated, as boring as F1 with Ferrari 3 strides ahead of everybody else.
You're the one attacking Hingis, on the other hand, with foot in mouth statements about how Hingis hasn't won three grand slam events in a row. She has. She very nearly won the whole thing as Ari pointed out, and in that same timespan she won the Aussie Open back-to-back.
The women's game is now a yawnfest just like the men's game, too reliant on the serve and boring baseline battles. Brute strength has made pro tennis a much less satisfying spectator sport, with people like Rusedski hitting ~150 MPH first serves, and Sampras hitting ~130 MPH SECOND SERVES.
Well, the statement here is that both Williams sisters are significantly responsible for "ruining" the girls tennis game with their brute strength and subsequent domination. The statement really doesn't lend itself to racism, but one must consider that both girls are African-Americans. So, are African-American physical qualities ruining the game or just the Williams sisters alone? When one considers it further, one must also realize that women's tennis at the professional level is a sport predominated by white, upper class females. When two African-American tennis players from Compton finally break through the race barrier, they are perceived to be "ruining" the game. It's not a very hard case to make...
It may be an easy case to make, but it hardly resembles the truth. No one, other than the apparent ardent Williams supporters has suggested that any racism is present here. The only thing that was ?attacked? in regards to them is their game (or lack there of) and how it is radically altering the dynamics of tennis and for the worse.
In the case like you need to forget the fact that there are not many African-American tennis players and there have been even fewer star players. Though I will remind you that Althea Gibson was won several Majors in the 1950s. The same remarks would be applied to any other player of any race if there were doing the same. Should they be granted special treatment and should we ignore the facts simply because they are African-American and their wins on court translate into racial victories? Absolutely not.
Patrick MacEnroe recently suggested changing the dimensions and measurements of the tennis court itself to help the game. Moving the service line closer to the net to help slow down the serves, narrowing the court slightly, returning to wooden rackets with smaller heads and so on. It would be nice if we didn?t have to change the rules just to keep competitive and entertaining.
I said specfically that the statement does not lend itself to racism. That suggested that I did not think it was racist. However, I did offer words of caution to those assailling the Williams sisters in saying that the case would not be hard to make. Obviously, since I thought the original statement was not racist, I implied that certain other wordings would indeed make it racist. We must be careful.
Comments
Following Serena's victory I noticed a story on Yahoo! Tennis suggesting that Serena may be the best tennis player. Ever. Her greatest seems to be a rather widely-held view. Am I the only one in strong opposition to this claim? I cannot see how the ability to out-hit one?s opponent can be confused with the ability to out-play them. From where I am standing, a player like Martina Hingis with her unmatched ability to play intelligently, to achieve near-flawless placement and what I would label ?tennis intuition? strikes me as having true talent. She makes the game almost chess-like, strategically moving her opponent around the court. That is what tennis is about, not brute strength.
That said, what do you think?
Kenneth
Martina Navratilova in her prime?
Now that was tennis as chess!
Jeff
<strong>The big difference between Pete and Andre, only one of them had to play the world #1 the day before. If Pete had played Hewit the day before he would have lost. Pete got lucky. And what is with this trashing Serena? Martina HIngis is a spoiled little brat who's reign was destinguished by a lack of credible competition. She wasn't better than the players that came before her, and she wasn't better than the players who came after her. She was a historical fluke. There are now at least 8 palyers in the world now she will probably never again beat, unless she learns to serve, and hit a little pace. Are the WIlliams sisters supposed to develope parts of the game they don't need to win, just so some guy like the one above will say, " Now she's an all around player". So what again is it that Martina does that Serena doesn't , paint the lines? Serena does that, hit great angles? Serena does that, hit the odd drop shot?. Serena does everything Hingis does, only better, as do any one of the other top 8.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i agree about Andre, he played an incredible match against Hewitt. HIngis is never win agrand slam again. i just someone wish will come up that beat both of the Williams sisters, i'm sick of their reign and attittudes
do you think Serena could beat Sampras, Agassi or Hewitt? i'm not so sure but my Mom thinks so
[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: burningwheel ]
[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: burningwheel ]</p>
I bet 8 years from now, he'll be like Jimmy Connors was in '91, making that one last flash.
Pete, on the other hand, has had one lousy year, and everyone was like "It's over, he's washed up, he should retire."
I think it's a lot sweeter for him.
Just a matter of opinion, I guess.
Jeff
Edit-could Serena beat one of the top men?
I don't see it happening. The guys still serve consistently faster, don't they?
I think Serena (or Venus) could compete, but any of those three would still win.
The gap is closing, though.
[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</p>
Serena can serve 118mph. Venus can serve 122mph or so they did at this years open
i like Pete but i prefer Andre
[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: burningwheel ]</p>
Pete is the greatest champion of tennis of all times : 5 US open , 7 winbledon, 2 australian open.
For the Williams sisters, i find that Serana looks like steroid like. I am always suspicious when a women has so much muscles.
<strong>
For the Williams sisters, i find that Serana looks like steroid like. I am always suspicious when a women has so much muscles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
there's not a man that played in the US open that had as much muscle as her.... frankly.. it's scary.
When you win back to back Aussie Opens, Wimbledon and the US Open in just a little over a year, you are not a fluke. Once upon a time, Hingis *did* dominate Williams anyway...but again the finesse game is gone forever, following in the footsteps of the ATP Tour.
Around the time men's players like Rafter, Rusedski, and the young guys who can blister 130-140 MPH serves began to change the dynamics of men's singles tennis, people like Michael Chang fell by the wayside. The same thing is happening in the WTA.
Doubles tennis is where the great matches are these days. I've gone to the Bank of the West Classic 6 years in a row. The doubles matches never disappoint.
And more on Hingis...Hingis also entered the US Open doubles tournament, so she played quite a bit more than the Williams sisters and other players who only entered the singles tournament. Her performance is also marred by a persistent foot injury.
And Hingis is still right up there, in the top 10, alonf with Davenport, whom Hingis used to dominate all the time.
Like I said, the Williams sisters have changed the dynamics of women's tennis. It's getting more and more boring as it becomes more and more like the men's game.
In regards to Hingis (again) she was most definitely not a fluke. She dominated the game in 1997, 1998, 1999 and a good part of 2000. And keep in mind she nearly won the Australian Open in January. She held a handful of match points. Sadly, the heat got to her and she was not able to capitalize on them. They really should have closed the roof. That last set was just sad to watch. She seemed at times on the verge of passing out from the obscene heat. And I suspect she would have done well at Roland Garros had she not been out injured.
Norfa: I don?t understand your reverence to the Williams!?! Is it a race issue? Of course its nice to see African-American athletes succeed in a sport that was traditionally white, however, they can be blamed the inevitable downfall of the sport!!! At this rate in five years we?ll see an XTA a la XFL! A few years back Hingis infamously said in regards to the Williams brothers, ?It?s us against them.? She was speaking to Lindsay Davenport. And she was right.
I will concede that Hingis does need to correct a few things in her game such as her ?glacially-paced serve? and her general fitness but she and others like her exemplify the sport.
Eugene: Completely on target about women?s tennis getting boring. I didn?t even bother to get tickets for the Open this year. An hour match of 1-, 2- and 3-hit games is not my idea of a match.
Its true she hasn't won as many as others, but she is only 21. She has 8 or 9 years which means 36-40 majors or more ahead of her. I'm sure she will win at least a few of them.
<strong>And accusing the WIlliams sisters of ruining tennis, how is that? All they do is play the game. You make it sound like tennis would be better off without them. Is the R word lurking in the background here?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Man, that Malivai Washington and Arthur Ashe, they sure ruined men's tennis!
God, playing the race card so soon? Not all of us attacked Serena. We're merely pointing out that the level of power she brings to the game has made tennis boring. The level of domination she brings to the game makes it as boring as baseball when the Yankees dominated, as boring as F1 with Ferrari 3 strides ahead of everybody else.
You're the one attacking Hingis, on the other hand, with foot in mouth statements about how Hingis hasn't won three grand slam events in a row. She has. She very nearly won the whole thing as Ari pointed out, and in that same timespan she won the Aussie Open back-to-back.
The women's game is now a yawnfest just like the men's game, too reliant on the serve and boring baseline battles. Brute strength has made pro tennis a much less satisfying spectator sport, with people like Rusedski hitting ~150 MPH first serves, and Sampras hitting ~130 MPH SECOND SERVES.
[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
In the case like you need to forget the fact that there are not many African-American tennis players and there have been even fewer star players. Though I will remind you that Althea Gibson was won several Majors in the 1950s. The same remarks would be applied to any other player of any race if there were doing the same. Should they be granted special treatment and should we ignore the facts simply because they are African-American and their wins on court translate into racial victories? Absolutely not.
Patrick MacEnroe recently suggested changing the dimensions and measurements of the tennis court itself to help the game. Moving the service line closer to the net to help slow down the serves, narrowing the court slightly, returning to wooden rackets with smaller heads and so on. It would be nice if we didn?t have to change the rules just to keep competitive and entertaining.