Google
 
Web WTAworld.com

View Full Version : The 10 Greatest Matches of the Open Era


Pages : [1] 2

BadBoy
Oct 31st, 2003, 11:36 PM
The 10 Greatest Matches of the Open Era
Match Summary by Frank Riley

Battles of the Gods
From the November/December 2003 issue of TENNIS Magazine

When you’ve been fortunate enough to witness a truly great tennis match, you know it---one that pits two players of consummate skill and fierce wills in a clash whose outcome is anyone’s guess until the last ball is struck. At which point the fans, as drained emotionally as the players are physically, exhale a bittersweet sigh of relief while the players meet at the net, wearily acknowledging their shared accomplishment. Though one of them may be crushed by the final score, he or she can take solace knowing that, over time, the historic matches attain their status by transcending the question of which player held up the trophy.

Since the advent of Open tennis in 1968, there have been hundreds of classic confrontations, from which we’ve attempted to select the very best. Besides the obvious criteria of quality of play, occasion, historical context, and the stature of the participants, we asked ourselves, which matches have stayed with us over the years? Which are already legendary, or are destined to become so? After weeks of discussion (and a round of last-minute squabbling to decide some close calls), here are---ta da!---the 10 greatest matches of the Open era. --The Editors

Margaret Smith Court d. Billie Jean King
EVENT: 1970 Wimbledon final
SCORE: 14-12, 11-9
It was eerie, almost as if Margaret Smith Court and Billie Jean King felt obliged to give the new Open game a gift from the women, one that would match the marathon between Pancho Gonzalez and Charlie Pasarell on the same lawn the year before. In completing the mission, Court and King set the bar for generations of women to come.

Court was the top player in the world. A shy, tall (5-foot-9), and soft-spoken Australian, she had a lean physique and erect carriage. She was consumed by one goal: Becoming the second woman in history to complete a Grand Slam. With the first two legs, the Australian Open and French Open, in hand, Court was halfway there.

Court’s opponent was in many ways her opposite: Billie Jean King was just over 5-feet-4 and bouncy, outgoing, and fond of the spotlight. And King, playing in her fifth straight Wimbledon final, was the only player capable of beating Court. At that time, the British weren’t enamored of the outspoken Yankee. They far preferred Court, who showed proper deference to Wimbledon and its traditions.

Each woman was injured. Court, nursing a sprained ankle, was injected with an anesthetic shortly before the match. King had an aching knee; she would have surgery a few weeks later.
The first set was a see-saw battle, each woman serving and volleying almost exclusively. Three times---at 5-4, 7-6, and 8-7---King served for the set. Each time, Court broke. The next nine games were holds. Serving at 12-13, after having brushed aside a set point in her previous service game, King blinked. Court won the longest first set in a Wimbledon singles final, 14-12.

In the second set, Court took command and King had to fight to stay in the match. At 9-10, King served to save the match for a sixth time, but Court relentlessly pressed the advantage, taking King to match point five times before finally converting for the title. The shy Aussie had shown her inner steel. And later that year, at Forest Hills, she would complete the first Grand Slam since Maureen Connolly’s in 1953. --Tony Lance

Pancho Gonzalez d. Charlie Pasarell
EVENT: 1969 Wimbledon first round
SCORE: 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9
In 1968, as the major tennis events began a new era by opening up to professionals, Peter O’Toole appeared on-screen in The Lion in Winter, the story of an aging king who can’t stop fighting. A year later, Pancho Gonzalez enacted the on-court version at Wimbledon and, with former understudy Charlie Pasarell, gave the new game its first legendary match.

Gonzalez was 41 as he walked onto Centre Court, but it was only his third Wimbledon appearance in 20 years. After turning pro in 1949, he was banned during his prime. Even now, though, the “Lone Wolf” had his powerful serve and even more powerful will to win.

Pasarell, 25, was a U.S. Davis Cup stalwart who had studied with Gonzalez; now he faced the master. Their clash would be the longest in Grand Slam history in games played--112, a record that, with the institution of the tiebreaker, will almost surely never be broken.

The first set was a match in itself. The two held serve 45 times, until Pasarell finally hoisted up a lob winner on his 12th set point. The light was dying, but the umpire ignored Gonzalez’s requests to stop play. Angry and dispirited, Gonzalez lost the second set 6-1. After play was postponed, he skipped the customary bow to the Royal Box and was booed as he stalked off.

When play resumed the next day, the sun was out and Gonzalez had gathered himself. The two began by holding 29 times before Gonzalez hit a forehand pass to break Pasarell and win the set 16-14.

Gonzalez continued his excellent play in the fourth set, but Pasarell began to match him again in the fifth. Gonzalez, exhausted, was leaning on his racquet between points. At 4-5, he went down 0-40, triple match point for Pasarell. But he narrowly missed two lobs and Gonzalez eventually held.
At 6-5, Pasarell again reached 0-40. Gonzalez--steadily making first serves--came back to hold. At 7-8, Pasarell had another match point; again, Gonzalez saved it. The score went to 9-9 and Pasarell finally buckled, losing serve at love.

Gonzalez staggered to a hold in the 112th game. As Pasarell’s lob on match point went long, the older man smiled wearily and the crowd stood. Though he would go on to lose to Arthur Ashe in the quarterfinals, the king had survived 20 years in exile to rule tennis’ greatest stage on this afternoon. --Stephen Tignor

Ken Rosewall d. Rod Laver
EVENT: 1972 WCT Final, Dallas
SCORE: 4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 6-7 (3), 7-6 (5)
The 1973 Battle of the Sexes in Houston between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs is often cited as the match that put tennis on the general public’s radar screen. Actually, it had happened in Texas a year earlier, when two Australian legends labored for five sets on behalf of a fledgling professional circuit called World Championship Tennis (WCT).

The WCT Final in 1972 featured perhaps the greatest player of all time, Rod Laver, against the most underrated, Ken Rosewall. They squared off in Dallas’s sweltering Moody Coliseum before 9,500 fans and a television audience that would grow to an unprecedented 21 million viewers before the final ball was struck.

Although Rosewall was 37, he still had an effortless, energy-efficient style. Laver, 33, who had already won two Grand Slams, was bowlegged, scuttled across the court like a crab, and had a racquet arm that hung beside his otherwise small body like a lobster claw. A year earlier, Rosewall had snatched the first WCT Final from him. In ‘72, Laver was out for revenge.

The match started inauspiciously, with each man playing well in streaks--Laver broke out to a 4-0 lead in the first set, then Rosewall came back and coasted through the second.

But by the end of the third set, the level of play was off the charts, and it would stay that way for the rest of the night. In the final set, Rosewall used his backhand, one of the game’s most celebrated strokes, to build a 4-2 lead, only to see Laver wipe it away with a series of furious topspin forehands and superb volleys. Ultimately, Rosewall reached a match point with Laver serving at 4-5, 30-40, but the Rocket dismissed it with an ace.

A match-deciding tiebreaker was inevitable. When it arrived, Laver seemed to have more energy left. He jumped out to a 3-1 lead but then double-faulted to let Rosewall back in at 3-3. Still, at 5-4, with two serves to come, Laver had the match, and the championship, on his racquet. In typical Laver fashion, he went right at his opponent’s stronger side. But Rosewall was up to the challenge, cracking a pair of backhand returns to win the next two points.

At 5-6, Laver smacked Rosewall’s next serve into the net. The match was over--and men’s professional tennis was on the American sports map. --Peter Bodo

Jimmy Connors d. Adriano Panatta
EVENT: 1978 U.S. Open fourth round
SCORE: 4-6, 6-4, 6-1, 1-6, 7-5
It took the USTA National Tennis Center, the new home of the U.S. Open, just four rounds to produce a signature match. To no one’s surprise, it featured Jimmy Connors.

Heading into his round-of-16 encounter with Italy’s Adriano Panatta, the second-seeded Connors was in a bit of a slump. A year earlier he had lost his Open title to Guillermo Vilas, and that summer he had suffered a straight-set loss to arch-rival Bjorn Borg in the Wimbledon final.

But a victory on the hard courts at Flushing Meadows would enable Connors to complete a unique triple---winning the U.S. Open on three different surfaces (he had won on grass in 1974 and clay in ‘76). First, though, he would have to get by Panatta, and that was no sure thing. The Italian had beaten Connors once before, had won the French Open two years earlier, and his combination of touch and power could be lethal on any given day.

This was one of those days. As the match unfolded, it became apparent that the streaky Panatta had brought his A game. The men split the first four sets, and Panatta served for the match at 5-4 in the fifth. But from 30-30 in that game, Connors broke and then held easily for 6-5. He smelled blood.

Panatta fell behind 0-40 on his serve but saved all three match points. He staved off another match point with an ace. On the second deuce of the game, Connors fired tennis’ version of the “shot heard round the world.” Flying forward and wide toward Panatta’s sharply angled volley, Connors stretched and hit a one-handed backhand that never went over the net---it whistled past the netpost and landed just inside the singles sideline for an astonishing winner.

A shaken Panatta double-faulted to lose the match. From there, Connors would go on to win the tournament without dropping another set. After the match, Panatta summed up his opponent: “In Italy we have a saying that means ‘He does not want to die.’ That is Jimmy.” --David Rosenberg

Bjorn Borg d. John McEnroe
EVENT: 1980 Wimbledon
final SCORE: 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7 (16), 8-6

Eighteen-sixteen. The numbers are burned in the mind of every tennis fan. They are, of course, the score of the most famous tiebreaker in the game’s history, the battle that would help make the first Grand Slam war between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe into a classic.

This was a match that Don King might have promoted the way he had the Ali-Frazier bouts of the 1970s. It was the two best players in the world bringing their contrasting styles to the game’s biggest stage: the baseliner Borg against the serving-and-volleying McEnroe, the aloof Swede versus the Superbrat from New York.

They jabbed from across the court with probing serves, sharply angled volleys, and dipping passing shots, hoping to find and exploit a weakness. When the four-time defending champion Borg took a two-sets-to-one lead, he seemed poised to deliver the knockout punch as he had on this court so many times before. Then, once McEnroe won the endless tiebreaker after saving five match points, it was impossible to imagine how Borg would rally.

But rally he did. Despite the disappointment of the fourth set, Borg remained uncannily cool in the fifth, winning 28 of 29 points on his serve and finally passing McEnroe cleanly on his eighth match point. In classic Borg fashion, the winner failed to show even a flicker of emotion until the conclusion of the match, when he collapsed to his knees in his signature gesture of victory. Afterward, he told NBC’s Bud Collins, “That was probably the best match that I’ve ever played at Wimbledon.”

Even the loser remembers the day fondly. During McEnroe’s induction into the Tennis Hall of Fame in 1999, he declared that among all the matches he had played, this one meant the most. “The vibrations and goodwill that I get from people from that match are incredible,” Mac said. “It’s far and away my most talked-about match.” --James Martin

John McEnroe d. Mats Wilander
EVENT: 1982 Davis Cup quarterfinal, St. Louis
SCORE: 9-7, 6-2, 15-17, 3-6, 8-6
Bjorn Borg dropped out of the game in 1982, but John McEnroe wasn’t off the hook. That summer, he and a new stoical Swede, 17-year-old Mats Wilander, began their own rivalry by playing the longest singles match in history.

At the time, nobody would have predicted it. Going into the fifth and decisive match in this U.S. vs. Sweden Davis Cup tie, McEnroe was the prohibitive favorite. He had represented the U.S. in Davis Cup since 1978 and led the team to victories in ‘79 and ‘81; he had won four majors; and the surface in St. Louis was a fast indoor carpet that suited his attacking style.

Wilander, by contrast, was a rookie who had won his first pro title a few weeks earlier. OK, so that title happened to be the French Open. But while he was consistent and mentally tough, Wilander would have to fend off the world’s best before a U.S. crowd.

While McEnroe won the first set 9-7, the tone for the match was set by Wilander. His willingness to retrieve any ball and ability to hit precise passing shots let everyone in the building know that this was going to be a long night.

The momentum didn’t begin to shift until the third set. Down two sets to love, Wilander hung in for two and a half hours and 32 games to wrest away the third set. He took control in the fourth and suddenly the most talented player in the world seemed on the verge of succumbing to a teenage grinder.

The final set proved once again that McEnroe could play his best even when he was at his worst. In the first game, he was hit with a point penalty for swatting a ball at an official to protest a call. But Mac settled down and won the game anyway. From there, both players held steady until Wilander, finally feeling the pressure, served at 6-7 and fell behind 15-40, two match points for McEnroe. The Swede saved one, then rushed on the next point and missed a crosscourt forehand. It was an anticlimactic end, but at six and a half hours, the seeming mismatch had given fans more great tennis than they could ever have expected. --James Martin

Chris Evert d. Martina Navratilova
EVENT: 1985 Roland Garros final
SCORE: 6-3, 6-7 (4), 7-5
These tennis icons of the 1980s tangled 80 times, creating one of the greatest rivalries in the history of any sport (Navratilova held the final edge, 43-37). Many of those matches were memorable, but their 1985 final at Roland Garros produced the ultimate in drama, significance, and entertainment.
Navratilova came into Paris for their 65th meeting with a slim 33-31 lead in the series, but she had won 14 of their last 15 matches, including a 6-3, 6-1 demolition of Evert in the previous year’s French final. That was a particularly galling loss for Evert because clay was her favorite surface, and she conceded after that debacle that the rivalry was becoming embarrassingly one-sided.

Still, as a five-time French champion, Evert knew that if Navratilova was vulnerable on any surface it was clay. And Evert was further encouraged when the conditions on the morning of the final were wet and windy. She was a counterpuncher who had grown up playing on clay in Florida, where the weather is often unpredictable. Navratilova, who played a precise serve-and-volley game, preferred more stable conditions and could be thrown off her game under pressure.

Evert reeled off three games to start the match, surrendered three, and took the set by winning the next three. She broke to a 4-2 lead in the second set and ultimately served for the match, but Navratilova rallied and brought the set to a tiebreaker, which she won 7-4, forcing a deciding third set.

Evert immediately rallied, bolting to a 2-0 lead in the third, and at 5-3 she found herself again serving for the match. Again she was broken. Navratilova then held and ran out to a 0-40 lead in Evert’s next service game. Somehow, though, Evert clawed her way back to hold for 6-5. With Navratilova serving, Evert finally got to match point--and cashed in with a remarkable winner, a down-the-line backhand passing shot on the run.

“Chris played well. No question,” Navratilova recalled. “But that was one match [coach] Mike Estep and I overcooked. We went overboard on strategy and I didn’t let my instincts play any role. I just kept reacting and didn’t create.”

Evert later confessed that at the time she was beginning to doubt her ability to keep pace with Navratilova. The win, which gave her a record sixth French Open title (with yet another to come in 1986), was more satisfying than any other major title in her career. --Jon Levey

Monica Seles d. Steffi Graf
EVENT: 1992 Roland Garros final
SCORE: 6-2, 3-6, 10-8
This was supposed to be the match that set the tone for a rivalry that would pick up where Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova had left off. Instead, it now stands as a melancholy reminder of all that was lost to tennis when, fewer than 12 months after this championship match at Roland Garros, Seles was stabbed by a deranged Graf fan, left the game for 28 months, and never played at the same level again.

Still, at least we have this one. It was a battle between belter and runner. Graf, the nimble, leggy, blond pride of tennis-mad Germany, had dominated the game in the late 1980s. Then Seles, built like Olive Oyl but armed with the power of Popeye, emerged from Yugoslavia, via Bradenton, Fla., and Nick Bollettieri’s academy, to mount a serious assault on Graf’s reign, earning her first major title at Graf’s expense at Roland Garros in 1990 and taking the No. 1 ranking from her in ‘91.

As the two women prepared for the 1992 final in Paris, Graf still led 5-2 in head-to-head matches, but it had been a year since they had played. To reach the final, Seles had battled back from a 1-4 third-set deficit to beat Akiko Kijimuta of Japan in the fourth round and then recovered to win from a 2-4 deficit in the third against Gabriela Sabatini.

In the first set, Seles attacked Graf’s strength, her forehand, and broke it down. But Graf lifted her game, using that forehand to drive Seles back from the baseline and win the second set. The third set provided some of the most entertaining tennis ever seen, an endless back and forth between two unyielding champions. There were break points reached and break points dismissed, winners that answered apparent winners, and errors that were not flubs but bold statements that fell just short of making their point.

Ultimately, Graf fended off five match points, but she couldn’t wrest control from Seles. It seemed only fitting that the match ended when Graf unloaded one of her famous forehands, which smacked the tape and seemed to hang in the air forever before it fell back on her side of the net.

“It definitely was a special match,” Graf said afterward, unable to know that Paris would never be quite as magical a place for them to meet again. --Peter Bodo

Pete Sampras d. Boris Becker
EVENT: 1996 ATP World Championship final, Hannover, Germany
SCORE: 3-6, 7-6 (5), 7-6 (4), 6-7 (11), 6-4
The most memorable words of the 1996 ATP final were spoken by the man who lost. Although Boris Becker, who was in the twilight of his career, had won Wimbledon at 17 and was one of the game’s most passionately competitive players, he characterized his heartbreaking loss to world No. 1 Pete Sampras as “the ultimate match for me.”

For his part, Sampras would say years later that the contest featured the best atmosphere he had ever experienced, anywhere. “That’s what the game is all about, the great matches.”
The hype surrounding this clash between living legends had been building for some time. From 1990 to ‘95, Germany and the United States produced 11 of the 12 finalists in the ATP’s year-end round-robin (the exception was Sweden’s Stefan Edberg, the runner-up in 1990). But Becker and Sampras, each a two-time winner, were the elite. This was their rubber match.

The Expo 2000 Tennis Dome was jammed with a boisterous crowd of 13,000 for a match that had Hollywood fanfare. The players entered under a spotlight with the theme from Rocky thundering over the crowd noise.

Feeding off the audience, the home-court favorite pounded four straight aces to open the match--and proceeded to take the first set emphatically, despite Sampras’ solid play. “That first set,” Sampras said, “it was the best tennis anyone ever played against me.”

The players went toe-to-toe over the next three sets--all of them ending in tiebreakers. When Becker won the 24th and last point in the fourth-set breaker, the roar was deafening. The deadlock continued in the fifth, until, at 4-4, Sampras broke Becker’s serve for the first time in the match. Sampras reached match point on his serve, and the players engaged in their longest rally--a dizzying demonstration of potent strokes that ended when Becker netted a backhand, giving Sampras the match.

Immediately afterward, as Sampras and Becker embraced, the heartfelt words these friendly rivals exchanged were lost in the din. That too, seemed appropriate. Words alone could not have done this match, and their emotions, justice. --Christopher Chung

Patrick Rafter d. Andre Agassi
EVENT: 2001 Wimbledon semifinals
SCORE: 2-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-2, 8-6
Pete and Andre---that was the great rivalry of the age, right? One problem: It was Pat and Andre who gave us the best matches.

As they stepped onto Centre Court in 2001, Patrick Rafter and Andre Agassi were coming off a pair of see-saw Grand Slam duels---Rafter had won the previous year in the Wimbledon semis in five sets, and Agassi had returned the favor in another five-setter at the Australian Open. This match, which featured athletic shotmaking, momentum swings, controversial calls, and a crushed and furious loser, would top them both.

Here were two contrasting stylists---Rafter the serve-and-volleyer, Agassi the pinpoint counterpuncher--in peak form. While Sampras often drowned Agassi in a sea of service winners, Rafter relied on his kick serve and quickness at net to win points, a strategy that gave Agassi more chances to unload his famous return. The results were electric: rapid-fire rallies that pitted Agassi’s short-hop, laser-like passes against Rafter’s lunging, full-stretch volleys.

The biggest point of the match would follow this script. In the fifth, Agassi jumped out to a 2-0 lead and was up 15-40 on Rafter’s serve. During the ensuing point, Agassi hit two bullet passes at Rafter, the second a sure winner. But Rafter guessed right and reflexed a volley for a miraculous putaway. “[That] was the big turning point,” Rafter would say after the match. “If I lost that game, the match was over, as simple as that.”

Still, Agassi served for it at 5-4 only to see Rafter play a brilliant game to break. At 6-6, Agassi gathered himself, reached break point, and hit a low return; Rafter responded with a perfect drop volley. But the most significant moment of that game occurred between points. After missing a shot, Agassi cursed under his breath--apparently not far enough under, because a lineswoman heard him and reported it to the umpire, who issued a warning to the American.

Distracted, Agassi was quickly broken for the match. He wasn’t quite done, though: As he walked to the net Agassi fired a ball in the direction of the lineswoman who had tattled. “I think he pretty well snapped,” Rafter said afterward. An inconsolable Agassi delivered his own sotto voce post-mortem. “The quality of the match is for everyone else to judge,” he said softly. “Nothing comes to mind right now except kicking myself.” --Stephen Tignor

AND WHO CAN FORGET...
Most Inspiring:
Goran Ivanisevic d. Patrick Rafter, 2001 Wimbledon final, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 2-6, 9-7 Cinderella would have had trouble believing that Ivanisevic, a
perpetual Wimbledon also-ran, could win this title in his last year as a singles player there. When the smoke from his tournament-record 212 aces had cleared, Goran’s fairy tale had come true.

Biggest Choke:
Steffi Graf d. Jana Novotna, 1993 Wimbledon final, 7-6 (6), 1-6, 6-4
Novotna built a 4-1 third-set lead and then couldn’t make a shot. In fact, she could barely keep the ball in the stadium. Graf came back and Novotna got the Duchess of Kent’s shoulder to cry on. But all was set right five years later when she finally won the Big W.

Biggest Upset:
Kathy Horvath d. Martina Navratilova, 1983 Roland Garros fourth round, 6-4, 0-6, 6-3
Navratilova came to Paris with a trainer, coach, strategist, and nutritionist---and three of the last four major titles. But it wasn’t enough against Horvath, an unseeded 17-year-old American. She outsteadied the world No. 1 and kept her from realizing the only perfect season of the Open era. Martina would go 86-1 for the year (and not drop a set to Horvath in seven future matches).

Most Overrated:
Pete Sampras d. Andre Agassi, 2001 U.S. Open quarterfinals, 6-7 (7), 7-6 (2), 7-6 (2), 7-6 (5)
It was a regular love-in: a very well-played match by the game’s two biggest American stars in front of New York’s most famous scene-makers, including some tennis fans. But with no breaks of serve, this one was all tension and no release--48 games, and the vast majority of them routine holds.

Ugliest:
John McEnroe d. Ilie Nastase, 1979 U.S. Open second round, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2
The original bad boy of pro tennis, Nastase orchestrated the “Monday night massacre” despite the subdued behavior of his understudy, McEnroe. It began with a typical argument over officiating, but before it was over Nasty had been defaulted and then reinstated because officials feared that the well-lubed New York crowd would riot.

Most Electrifying:
Jimmy Connors d. Aaron Krickstein, 1991 U.S. Open fourth round, 3-6, 7-6 (8), 1-6, 6-3, 7-6 (4)
Yes, CBS has shown it too many times, but you can’t turn away, can you? Year after year, Connors tells us “this is what they came to see.” Year after year, we wish we could see another match as ridiculous and entertaining.

Most Underrated:
Andre Agassi d. Pete Sampras, 2000 Australian Open semifinals, 6-4, 3-6, 6-7 (0), 7-6 (5), 6-1 This was Sampras-Agassi for the ages, though it happened halfway around the world. There were momentum swings, exciting points, excellent shotmaking from both players, and, in the tight fourth-set tiebreaker, a dramatic peak.

Most Masterful:
Arthur Ashe d. Jimmy Connors, 1975 Wimbledon final, 6-1, 6-1, 5-7, 6-4
Fans watched slack-jawed as the 31-year-old Ashe, playing with astonishing purpose and poise, picked apart the seemingly unbeatable enfant
terrible of the men’s game with a repertoire of chips, dinks, and slice serves.

Andy T
Nov 1st, 2003, 09:20 AM
Demolition Jobs

Two Grand Slam finals stand out in my memory for the sheer brilliance of one of the two adversaries:
McEnroe's Wimbledon victory over Connors in 84 and Navratilova's defeat of Evert at RG the same year. Both matches brought tears to my eyes because of the sublime play of the victors.

In the comebacks department, Lendl's victory over McEnroe and Agassi's over Medvedev, both at RG, take it for the boys, whereas for the women it would have to be Capriati's win over Hingis in Oz 2002.

Frank Riley
Nov 6th, 2003, 07:50 PM
I agree those were great matches but about Hingis, I think she was at the end of her time and that was a sad year as it was a sign of what was coming for Martina as she started to have problems. I am wondering if she was starting to have problems at that time with the foot? :)

Mark40
Nov 7th, 2003, 05:16 PM
When I got my Tennis mag last week I was quite surprised to see only 3 out 10 of the so-called 'greatest' matches were women's.

That's 30 percent.

Yeah, right. I think they could have done a little better. Where's Goolagong-Evert Wimbeldon 1976 or Goolagong-King US 1974 or Hana-Martina US 1985 or....I could go on and on.

TennisFan75
Nov 7th, 2003, 05:20 PM
1984 U.S. Open Chris/Martina.. 4-6 6-4 6-4 that was another great match...

Mark, 3 excellent choices, matches I have watched over and over again!

Jay :D

Frank Riley
Nov 12th, 2003, 09:08 PM
I agree all very good matches.

alfajeffster
Nov 12th, 2003, 10:40 PM
When I got my Tennis mag last week I was quite surprised to see only 3 out 10 of the so-called 'greatest' matches were women's.

That's 30 percent.

Yeah, right. I think they could have done a little better. Where's Goolagong-Evert Wimbeldon 1976 or Goolagong-King US 1974 or Hana-Martina US 1985 or....I could go on and on.

The publishers, as is so common in popularity-driven sports magazines, often forget the history of a sport in favor of hyping only the recent past and current players. I objected to it right off the bat because of the inaccurate "Open Era" moniker- makes me bristle!!!!

louloubelle
Nov 14th, 2003, 05:44 AM
1984 U.S. Open Chris/Martina.. 4-6 6-4 6-4 that was another great match...

Mark, 3 excellent choices, matches I have watched over and over again!

Jay :D

Yes a great match because it had so much drama. Huge support for Evert just didn't get her over the line, with Martina breaking into tears after her win. Chris's look of disappointment is something never to be forgotten.

The matches that would've had sooo much drama do it for me, than say some of such great playing qulaity.

Capriati vs. Hingis 02 Aus Open - battle of attrition.
Seles vs. Graf 93 FO - Tennis quality wasn't that great, but the huge French crowd pulling Graf in, but the Seles will was too great.

Would've love to see King vs. Court at Wimbledon 70. King says it was a horrible match, but with such two legends, rivals throwing everything at each other, how could it be horrible???

Declan
Nov 14th, 2003, 06:26 AM
Yes a great match because it had so much drama. Huge support for Evert just didn't get her over the line, with Martina breaking into tears after her win. Chris's look of disappointment is something never to be forgotten.

The matches that would've had sooo much drama do it for me, than say some of such great playing qulaity.

Capriati vs. Hingis 02 Aus Open - battle of attrition.
Seles vs. Graf 93 FO - Tennis quality wasn't that great, but the huge French crowd pulling Graf in, but the Seles will was too great.

Would've love to see King vs. Court at Wimbledon 70. King says it was a horrible match, but with such two legends, rivals throwing everything at each other, how could it be horrible???

Oh louloubelle, it WAS horrible! For years -even recently I've seen it - it was trotted out in every year's Championships during one rain delay or another, and for a while the Wimbledon Museum showed great sections of it too. It was interminable, very very slow, grimaces of pain and looks of anguish by both women after almost every point, and both Margaret and Billie Jean were clearly in great discomfort - definitely one of those cases where 'experts' confused quantity with quality.

Andy T
Nov 14th, 2003, 09:32 AM
They were like two wounded lionesses fighting to the bitter end. There were some great points but there wasn't a sense of two greats at the top of their form.

Declan
Nov 14th, 2003, 11:32 AM
Two absolutely classic matches I remember were the Eastbourne finals of 1978 and 1979 - in the first Martina beat Chris 6-4 4-6 9-7, then the following year Chris won 7-5 5-7 13-11, saving three match points. Better than any of their Wimbledon duels.

Andy T
Nov 14th, 2003, 11:36 AM
I agree Declan, they were both really great matches. We should nominate a women's match of the year for each year of the whole Open era.

Mark40
Nov 15th, 2003, 08:05 PM
Oooh, good idea andyt!

I'll start.....(in 1974 cause I haven't seen any matches previous):

1974: King/Goolagong US
1975: Evert/Goolagong US
1976: Evert/Goolagong VS Champs
1977: Wade/Evert W semi
1978: Navratilova/Evert W
1979: Austin/Evert Italian Open semi
1980: Goolagong/Evert W (um, not the best match but I am biased!)
1981: Austin/Navratilova US
1982: Mandlikova/Austin French quarters (going out on a limb here!
1983: Navratilova/Mandlikova Orlando (!)
1984: Mandlikova/Navratilova Oakland (I saw this gem in person)
1985: Mandlikova/Navratilova US (these two could tussle when Hana was on)
1986: Navratilova/Graf US semi
1987: Graf/Navratilova French
1988: Navratilova/Evert W semi
1989: ASV/Graf French
1990: Seles/Sabatini VS Champs
1991: Navratilova/Graf US semi
1992: Seles/Sabatini French semi
1993: Seles/Graf AO
1994: ASV/Graf US
1995: Graf/ASV W
1996: Graf/ASV French
1997: Hingis/Seles FCC
1998: Novotna/Hingis W semi
1999: Graf/Hingis French
2000: Venus/Hingis US semi
2001: Capriati/Serena W quarter
2002: Capriati/Seles Miami semi
2003: Capriati/Henin US semi

Oh memories! This is fun!

hingis-seles
Nov 16th, 2003, 09:18 AM
Mark, I'd actually pick Hingis-Serena at the AO for match of the year in 2001 and for 1999, I felt Hingis-Venus US Open was higher quality than 1999 RG.

Just my 2 cents. :)

Andy T
Nov 16th, 2003, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=Mark36]Oooh, good idea andyt!

I'll start.....(in 1974 cause I haven't seen any matches previous):

1974: King/Goolagong US
1975: Evert/Goolagong US
1976: Evert/Goolagong VS Champs
1977: Wade/Evert W semi
1978: Navratilova/Evert W
1979: Austin/Evert Italian Open semi
1980: Goolagong/Evert W (um, not the best match but I am biased!)
1981: Austin/Navratilova US
1982: Mandlikova/Austin French quarters (going out on a limb here!
1983: Navratilova/Mandlikova Orlando (!)
1984: Mandlikova/Navratilova Oakland (I saw this gem in person)
1985: Mandlikova/Navratilova US (these two could tussle when Hana was on)
1986: Navratilova/Graf US semi
1987: Graf/Navratilova French
1988: Navratilova/Evert W semi
1989: ASV/Graf French
1990: Seles/Sabatini VS Champs
1991: Navratilova/Graf US semi
1992: Seles/Sabatini French semi
1993: Seles/Graf AO
1994: ASV/Graf US
1995: Graf/ASV W
1996: Graf/ASV French
1997: Hingis/Seles FCC
1998: Novotna/Hingis W semi
1999: Graf/Hingis French
2000: Venus/Hingis US semi
2001: Capriati/Serena W quarter
2002: Capriati/Seles Miami semi
2003: Capriati/Henin US semi

Oh memories! This is fun![/QUOTE

I think I'd add/change
70 Court/King Wimbledon final (more for the suspense than the tennis)
73 Court/Evert French final
//
78 Navratilova/Evert Eastbourne
79 Evert/Navratilova Eastbourne
80 Goolagong/Austin Wimbledon SF
//
84 Navratilova/Evert US Open F
85 Evert/Navratilova French F

Going on hearsay only:
69 Jones/Court Wimbledon SF

71 Goolagong/King Wimbledon SF
72 Goolagong/Evert Wimbledon SF

tennisvideos
Nov 18th, 2003, 02:56 AM
Declan - you are right buddy. That 69 Wimbledon SF Jones v Court is perhaps the greatest match I have seen on video ... and I have 1000s of matches since 1952.

Jones was in stupendous form, and had to be, to beat Court. The rallies were astonishing and Jones' ability to retrieve what seemed like a barrage of certain winners was uncanny.

Nobody seems to talk about this match, perhaps not enough journos saw it. Or perhaps they all focussed on the final when Anne Jones finally did it again for England at huge odds. But it is perhaps one of the greatest ever IMHO.

macn
Nov 18th, 2003, 04:57 AM
I have heard about that Jones and Court match and would love to see it one day.

Did anyone see the match between King and Shriver at the 1980 Wimbledon 4th rd, I think it was 10-8 in the final set!

louloubelle
Nov 18th, 2003, 06:17 AM
Oh louloubelle, it WAS horrible! For years -even recently I've seen it - it was trotted out in every year's Championships during one rain delay or another, and for a while the Wimbledon Museum showed great sections of it too. It was interminable, very very slow, grimaces of pain and looks of anguish by both women after almost every point, and both Margaret and Billie Jean were clearly in great discomfort - definitely one of those cases where 'experts' confused quantity with quality.

In that sense it does sound horrible. :)

1991 Capriati vs. Seles Us Open semi would edge the Martina/Graf battle in my mind. The introduction of power tennis.

1983?? Sukova's win over Martina Oz Open semis was full of drama, some breathtaking play by Sukova and a courageous fightback by martina to no avail.

Robert1
Nov 25th, 2003, 11:14 AM
1979: Rome Austin vs. Evert
1980: US Open Mandlikova vs. Jaeger
1981: US Open Austin vs. Navratilova
1982: French Open Jaeger vs. Evert
1983: Wimbledon Jaeger vs. King
1984: Oakland Mandlikova vs. Navratilova
1985: French Open Evert vs. Navratilova
1986: US Open Navratilova vs. Graf
1987: Wimbledon Navratilova vs. Graf
1988: Championships Shriver vs. Graf
1989: Championships Navratilova vs. Seles
1990: Championships Seles vs. Sabatini
1991: US Open Seles vs. Capriati
1992: French Open Seles vs. Sabatini
1993: Australian Open Seles vs. Graf
1994: US Open Sanchez vs. Graf
1995: Toronto Seles vs. Sabatini
1996: Australian Open Seles vs. Rubin
1997: US Open Seles vs. Pierce
1998: Canadian Open Seles vs. Hingis
1999: Australian Open Seles vs. Graf
2000: Rome Seles vs. Mauresmo
2001: Los Angeles Seles vs. S.Williams
2002: Australian Open Seles vs. V.Williams

Andy T
Nov 25th, 2003, 01:30 PM
You don't happen to like Seles by any chance, Robert1?!! ;-) The Jaeger-King (83) match is a surprising choice to me as Jaeger killed her 1 and 1.

Robert1
Nov 25th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Well, Andy, nobody is really objective here, so why not be honest and name MY favorite matches. Also, someone wrote the US Open semi 91 Navra vs. Graf was the best match in 91. Well, I'm sure if you had asked those 20,000 spectators after the day of the semifinals which had been the better match, 19,900 would have said "Seles vs. Capriati".

Surely Jaeger vs. King was a onesided match, but does that mean it cannot be great? Andrea played her best Tennis in that match, so....

Anyway, that's about my list of best matches.

Andy T
Nov 25th, 2003, 02:27 PM
Hey Robert, neither coment was meant as a criticism. Most of my fave matches are those won by Navratilova, including a couple where she demolished an opponent (e.g. RG 84), though I'd pick the US of 84 as the best match that year (didn't see HM vs MN in Oakland, unfortunately).

One of the nice things about these lists is that they give a flavour of the person who writes them, their preferred styles and personalities. When I read yours, Seles obviously stood out, as did Jaeger.

Robert1
Nov 25th, 2003, 02:34 PM
I think what stands out in Monica's matches is that in her classic she was the one who turned things round and won them. She did not win them by her opponent losing them, you know what I mean?

For example: Recently 2 matches were voted "greatest match ever". FO final 92 and 99 - the difference in those 2 matches is, that the winner 92 really won the match. The winner 99 won it, because the finalist lost it...

irma
Nov 25th, 2003, 02:55 PM
:haha:

at least you know you are not objective. that's something;)

Robert1
Nov 25th, 2003, 03:09 PM
Totally lame and witless comment Irma. As usual.

Mark40
Nov 25th, 2003, 03:24 PM
Someone wrote the US Open semi 91 Navra vs. Graf was the best match in 91. Well, I'm sure if you had asked those 20,000 spectators after the day of the semifinals which had been the better match, 19,900 would have said "Seles vs. Capriati".


I seriously doubt that 99 percent of the audience would say that. Have you seen the Navratilova/Graf thriller? 7-6 6-7 6-4? I think Graf might have saved a match point in the second set. These two had not faced off in exactly 2 years. It was a beautiful match. The Seles/Capriati slugfest was a beautiful drama as well, but it was so played up by the media that I think it is a bit over rated.

Robert1
Nov 25th, 2003, 03:30 PM
I saw both matches Mark, both were great but the second one is a match people talk about even these days. And this match deserves being talked about these days, when I look at it today - gee, nobody today plays matches like that. They hit hard AND they didn't hit many ues. The girls now hit 70 winners but also 50 errors in a match. Another wonderful match is the Championships final 90. Wow, they played 5 sets and produced much more winners than errors. Respect to Monica and Gaby!

Martina's win was great in 91, don't get me wrong, but it somehow didn't have that extra-drama the other match had.

dubro
Nov 25th, 2003, 06:37 PM
Did’nt saw all those matches.
Any only on tapes or highlights (ie wmbly final borg-mac :bowdown: , or evert-navrtat RG ‘85 :) )

Surely I saw sels-graf in Rg ’92. it was a really awesome match, that confirmed once again –if necessary- graf was much better than seles.
Also saw Sampras-Becker in master final. Other awesome match, one of the best tennis I ever saw.
I’m so glad to see my fav ones (Graf and Becker) are in this list
I’m glad too to see Italy’s Adriano Panatta, a real gentleman player :D

I should add only the Wimbly final where Becker def. Edberg.

alfajeffster
Nov 25th, 2003, 06:54 PM
I saw both matches Mark, both were great but the second one is a match people talk about even these days. And this match deserves being talked about these days, when I look at it today - gee, nobody today plays matches like that. They hit hard AND they didn't hit many ues. The girls now hit 70 winners but also 50 errors in a match. Another wonderful match is the Championships final 90. Wow, they played 5 sets and produced much more winners than errors. Respect to Monica and Gaby!

Martina's win was great in 91, don't get me wrong, but it somehow didn't have that extra-drama the other match had.

I'd have to agree, the Graf/Navratilova didn't have all the tennis parents standing on their feet and screaming for the little girls blasting Bollettieri grip-change groundstrokes all over the baseline, however, from a purely tennis standpoint- the Graf / Navratilova semi was much better tennis. To me, the Capriati/Seles semi that is so famous is a perfect display of a stopping point in the devolution of the game to what it has become today- knee jerk reactionary winners and tons of unforced errors, and very little cognitive thought. Give me a Graf/Navratilova match when they are both playing well any day!

Mark40
Nov 25th, 2003, 09:35 PM
Yeah, I felt that was an incredibly entertaining high quality match. Beautiful study in contrast between the 2 greatest players ever. Seriously, the best of the year. I enjoyed Cap/Seles, and loved the drama, but the Graf/Navrat match was just better. I recorded it and watched it over several times until...I taped Knot's Landing over it! :eek:

I think I lost my mind in the early 90's. I wish I had the match on tape again.

Andy T
Nov 25th, 2003, 09:44 PM
LOL Mark36. Had it been Dynasty, I would have understood!

You're absolutely right though. One thing I miss so much is watching the rallies between SG/MN, MN/CE, and the other greats, seeing the patterns, the construction of the points. It's less and less common nowadays.

alfajeffster
Nov 25th, 2003, 10:19 PM
Yeah, I felt that was an incredibly entertaining high quality match. Beautiful study in contrast between the 2 greatest players ever. Seriously, the best of the year. I enjoyed Cap/Seles, and loved the drama, but the Graf/Navrat match was just better. I recorded it and watched it over several times until...I taped Knot's Landing over it! :eek:

I think I lost my mind in the early 90's. I wish I had the match on tape again.

:lol: You know, I wanted Graf to win so badly that I actually shelved that tape for a few years afterward. The match I really wanted to see was a Graf / Seles final on the U.S. Open hardcourts, but Martina's forehand down the line and serve were just too good for Steffi on the day. I've seen Steffi play better, however, to Martina's credit, she and Mike Estep executed a change of tactics toward the middle of the third set (you can see Martina looking for the signals) that Steffi didn't pick up on quickly enough, and it worked for team Navratilova long enough to close out the match. This is one of those matches that if I could go back and change the result- I would!

tennisvideos
Nov 25th, 2003, 11:03 PM
Hi Declan and Andy - I know what you mean about the 1970 Wimbledon Final between Court and King, but I actually love watching it again. Although some of the play was a little scrappy at times, those girls gave it their all and more and some of the rallies, considering both gals were injured, were wonderful. It was a an incredibly tense affair, just what you would expect from a clash between those two, and both girls had to dig from deep within themselves to overcome adversity. I guess it was more like watching hand to hand combat (with no weapons) in the muddy trenches. I loved it and never find it boring. It's pure guts... and I agree, neither girl was at their best, but nonetheless it was theatre at it's best. :)

Zummi
Nov 25th, 2003, 11:33 PM
The last time Martina worked with Mike Estep was the end of 1986.

Martina was up 4-1 with two breaks in the final set of the 1991 U.S. Open semi. She dropped her next service game, but bravely held her next two to close the match. CBS' coverage of the match (which I last watched just this past week) showed no signalling going on from anyone in the stands. The commentators - Tony Trabert, Pat Summerall & Mary Carillo - did not mention anything either.

alfajeffster
Nov 25th, 2003, 11:37 PM
The last time Martina worked with Mike Estep was the end of 1986.

Martina was up 4-1 with two breaks in the final set of the 1991 U.S. Open semi. She dropped her next service game, but bravely held her next two to close the match. CBS' coverage of the match (which I last watched just this past week) showed no signalling going on from anyone in the stands. The commentators - Tony Trabert, Pat Summerall & Mary Carillo - did not mention anything either.

So who was sitting in front of Rene Richards in camp Martina that day?

hey_britney
Nov 26th, 2003, 02:17 AM
Hingis-Venus 2000 USO, Hingis-Serena 2001 AO, Serena-Seles Canadian Open 2001, JHH-Capriati 2003 USO.

Those are the best matches I can remember .... then again, I did not start watching tennis early enough to see all those great 80s and 90s matches.

Gandalf
Nov 26th, 2003, 08:55 AM
OK, I'm giving one per year since I started following tennis:

1991-Graf/Sabatini WB
1992-Seles/Graf French
1993-Seles/Graf AO
1994-ASV/Graf US
1995-Graf/Sabatini US
1996-Graf/ASV French
1997-Hingis/Seles French
1998-Hingis/Venus Rome
1999-Graf/Hingis French
2000-Venus/Hingis UO
2001-Serena/Davenport UO
2002-Capriati/Seles Miami
2003-Henin/Capriati UO

Mmm...lots of Graf ones!

Robert1
Nov 26th, 2003, 12:57 PM
Dubro:
<<<<<Surely I saw sels-graf in Rg ’92. it was a really awesome match, that confirmed once again –if necessary- graf was much better than seles. <<<<<

What the heck are you talking about? Seles won the match, remember? And this match proved that Seles was definetely better because she didn't play her best clay-court tennis but Graf did.

Robert1
Nov 26th, 2003, 01:01 PM
To Alfa:

<<<. To me, the Capriati/Seles semi that is so famous is a perfect display of a stopping point in the devolution of the game to what it has become today- knee jerk reactionary winners and tons of unforced errors<<<<

Then you did not watch the match. Neither Seles nor Capriati made lots of unforced errors in that match. That's what made Monica so special: She could hit dozens of beatiful winners throughout a 3-setter and still produce just a handful of unforced errors. Don't blame her that anabolica-stuffed mucle-"girls" these days hit serves with 200 mph and 70 errors a match in horrible matches to watch.

alfajeffster
Nov 26th, 2003, 02:09 PM
To Alfa:

<<<. To me, the Capriati/Seles semi that is so famous is a perfect display of a stopping point in the devolution of the game to what it has become today- knee jerk reactionary winners and tons of unforced errors<<<<

Then you did not watch the match. Neither Seles nor Capriati made lots of unforced errors in that match. That's what made Monica so special: She could hit dozens of beatiful winners throughout a 3-setter and still produce just a handful of unforced errors. Don't blame her that anabolica-stuffed mucle-"girls" these days hit serves with 200 mph and 70 errors a match in horrible matches to watch.

actually, the sentence reads "a stopping point in the devolution of the game to what it has become today". The reference to knee jerk reactionary winners and tons of unforced errors is what the game has devolved to, not a comment on the Monica/Jen unforced error ratio. I'm not blaming the players for anything. Any top player uses what he or she has at their disposal to play and win- regardless of era. I'm quite sure that if Evonne Goolagong had come up through the ranks of American tennis in the early 80s and done the Florida training academy thing, it would have completely ruined her game. You see, for me it really isn't about the players or my favorites, it's all about the tennis. This is why I have always supported the all-white tennis attire rule: "When all are in white, the eye is on the play!"

tennisvideos
Dec 22nd, 2003, 12:36 PM
I just watched the first set of the 1970 Wimbledon last night, and I have to disagree with you so far Declan. It is a classic match! The defense has been the highlight to date, with both gals lobbing superbly to steal the net off the aggressor, and the driving down the lines etc has been great. Neither girl has shown any sign of injury up until the point before set point when King jarred her knee. But she was OK again after walking around for a minute before the next point started.

The commentators Jack Kramer, Anne Jones and Dan Maskell are all waxing lyrical about the match and all are absolutely loving every minute of it. As was I. It is riveting stuff. OK, I haven't gotten to the 2nd set yet, the first set alone took over 90 minutes! But I will watch the rest of the match and report on it. So far, it definately deserves to be in with the greatest matches ever. You must remember it is wooden rackets, so they don't have the same power or control as the gals today, but nonetheless it is thrilling stuff IMO.

macn
Dec 22nd, 2003, 05:47 PM
I just watched the first set of the 1970 Wimbledon last night, and I have to disagree with you so far Declan. It is a classic match! The defense has been the highlight to date, with both gals lobbing superbly to steal the net off the aggressor, and the driving down the lines etc has been great. Neither girl has shown any sign of injury up until the point before set point when King jarred her knee. But she was OK again after walking around for a minute before the next point started.

The commentators Jack Kramer, Anne Jones and Dan Maskell are all waxing lyrical about the match and all are absolutely loving every minute of it. As was I. It is riveting stuff. OK, I haven't gotten to the 2nd set yet, the first set alone took over 90 minutes! But I will watch the rest of the match and report on it. So far, it definately deserves to be in with the greatest matches ever. You must remember it is wooden rackets, so they don't have the same power or control as the gals today, but nonetheless it is thrilling stuff IMO.

I'll never forget that match. I was a little boy visiting some relatives when there was a rain delay and they showed that match and I thought that I was watching two titans going at it. Both were so determined to win and went all out despite their injuries.

alfajeffster
Dec 22nd, 2003, 07:24 PM
I'll never forget that match. I was a little boy visiting some relatives when there was a rain delay and they showed that match and I thought that I was watching two titans going at it. Both were so determined to win and went all out despite their injuries.

Me too- only I was a much older little boy (25 years old) during the 1987 Wimbledon when they showed the entire second set of that match during a rain delay. Terrific competitors! And then when Billie Jean could no longer follow her serve to the net (knees in pain), she started to his this series of nearly perfect drop shots and lobs, to get Margaret moving on that ankle- GREAT STUFF!

tennisvideos
Dec 31st, 2003, 02:53 AM
Oh louloubelle, it WAS horrible! For years -even recently I've seen it - it was trotted out in every year's Championships during one rain delay or another, and for a while the Wimbledon Museum showed great sections of it too. It was interminable, very very slow, grimaces of pain and looks of anguish by both women after almost every point, and both Margaret and Billie Jean were clearly in great discomfort - definitely one of those cases where 'experts' confused quantity with quality.

Declan - surely you were watching another match. :eek: :confused:

I just finished watching the second set last nite. Read my summary of Set 1 a few posts back. Anyway, set 2 was tremendous theatre! Sure, both gals were carrying some injuries, but it didn't show too much except for a few occasions eg. King staying back more and trying drop shots and lobs (mind you - absolutely in brilliant and devastating fashion), and Court when she seemed to strain her injured ankle a few times whilst trying to run down some of those drop shots - even slipping on it at one stage.

At 6-7 in the 2nd set, with King fighting to stay alive, in 3 successive points, she hit 3 of the most glorious drop shots you would ever hope to see! Astonishing. Court actually got to them all, and got 2 back into play, only to be lobbed by King and run all over the court. Margaret was desperate to try and close out the match here - and even had a match point. The drops shots, lobs and rallies in this game alone were astonishing - Margaret had to cover so much territory she looked absolutely exhausted by the end of the game. This was superb stuff. Great shotmaking, athleticism and mesmerising theatre.

There were lots of great shots and plays throughout the set. Also, there were the odd errors, but understandable given how tired both girls were starting to get - it was almost 3 hours of play. But overall, the play was wonderful. Also, the 5 match points that King saved were all stunning points.

Had to laugh when they went to shake hands. It looks like Court is saying something like "Great match Billie" and Billie-Jean barely shakes her hand without acknowledging Court and stomps off as quickly as she could. A little reminiscent of Serena v Justine at the French this year! I actually felt sorry for Margaret watching that. But I am sure she got over it quickly! :lol:

Dan Maskell, Anne Jones, Jack Kramer & Peter West all raved about the match, throughout the broadcast and again at the end. Anne Jones remaked "I think that Court played the best tennis I have ever seen".

Peter West said "Absolutely rivetted. A wonderful match and a titanic struggle". They were just two comments. But they all raved about it.

From my perspective, a truly great match, worthy of being included in the all time classics. I absolutely loved it.

bandabou
Dec 31st, 2003, 03:40 AM
I'd have to agree, the Graf/Navratilova didn't have all the tennis parents standing on their feet and screaming for the little girls blasting Bollettieri grip-change groundstrokes all over the baseline, however, from a purely tennis standpoint- the Graf / Navratilova semi was much better tennis. To me, the Capriati/Seles semi that is so famous is a perfect display of a stopping point in the devolution of the game to what it has become today- knee jerk reactionary winners and tons of unforced errors, and very little cognitive thought. Give me a Graf/Navratilova match when they are both playing well any day!

If you say: give me a Navratilova playing at her best any day, that I can agree with you, but Graf?!

What does Graf do differently from other players today?! I´ve watched some of the classics and Graf didn´t do anything that makes her much different than today´s "knee-jerk, hit winners"-players, apart of using a slice backhand( that´s when she didn´t have enough time to run around it altogether!).

Graf couldn´t volley, so she was pretty much a baseliner who hit hard forehands and if she didn´t have time to run around a slice backhand.

Wow, that´s inventive!

alfajeffster
Dec 31st, 2003, 05:30 PM
If you say: give me a Navratilova playing at her best any day, that I can agree with you, but Graf?!

What does Graf do differently from other players today?! I´ve watched some of the classics and Graf didn´t do anything that makes her much different than today´s "knee-jerk, hit winners"-players, apart of using a slice backhand( that´s when she didn´t have enough time to run around it altogether!).

Graf couldn´t volley, so she was pretty much a baseliner who hit hard forehands and if she didn´t have time to run around a slice backhand.

Wow, that´s inventive!

Actually, Steffi Graf was a good volleyer- much better than either of the Williams sisters or anyone in the top 10 today. While Graf did usher in the power baseline game, she still played the game with relatively conventional grips on both the forehand and backhand side. You could just as easily have put a standard size racquet in her hand at any point in her career and she would have played just as well. You can't say that about any of today's top players- they would have to relearn the game entirely- from grips to being able to construct points, not hit the first winner. YES, Graf did go for outright winners, but her game was based on playing percentage tennis- not ping-pong paddle slaps.

I'm actually looking forward to this year, because there are 4 players who have a legitimate shot at winning every major, and the ones who actually improve and learn to use the entire game of tennis and the whole court are going to come through shining! Tennis isn't dead, it's just been sleeping for a couple of years!

bandabou
Dec 31st, 2003, 08:34 PM
Actually, Steffi Graf was a good volleyer- much better than either of the Williams sisters or anyone in the top 10 today. While Graf did usher in the power baseline game, she still played the game with relatively conventional grips on both the forehand and backhand side. You could just as easily have put a standard size racquet in her hand at any point in her career and she would have played just as well. You can't say that about any of today's top players- they would have to relearn the game entirely- from grips to being able to construct points, not hit the first winner. YES, Graf did go for outright winners, but her game was based on playing percentage tennis- not ping-pong paddle slaps.

I'm actually looking forward to this year, because there are 4 players who have a legitimate shot at winning every major, and the ones who actually improve and learn to use the entire game of tennis and the whole court are going to come through shining! Tennis isn't dead, it's just been sleeping for a couple of years!

aaaah, I knew it. The Williamses are the root of all the devaluation and stagnation in tennis. Wow, why doesn´t that surprise me?!

When Graf´s hitting winners from the baseline it isn´t ping pong, but when today´s players do it, it´s become ping pong?!

What conventional grip?! Did you see how Graf was hitting all those forehands?!

That today´s players play the game differently, given what the technology gives them, doesn´t mean they are stupid or anything.

Rollo
Jan 1st, 2004, 05:39 AM
Alfa-do you really think Graf was a better volleyer than today's top ten?
I'm not saying she was bad, but it was hardly her strength IMO.

Grafiati
Jan 1st, 2004, 09:44 PM
Rollo-I watched a bit of Steffi & John McEnroe's 1999 match against Coetzee/Melicharova yesterday and even her volleying was as crisp and effective as my memory placed it. Granted Steffi has had points throughout her singles matches where her net play doesn't look spectacular, but on the whole she was always underrated in that regard. As far as today's top players? Let's just say the "big 4" (Kim, Justine, Venus, Serena) don't have Steffi's skill up there yet, though all are very young still. Sorry-had to get in that word about Steffi's net play!

allezmary
Jan 1st, 2004, 10:07 PM
Runner-ups in Parentheses

2003: US Open Semis, Henin/Capriati (Wimbledon Quarterfinal Serena Williams/Capriati)
2002: Australian Open Final, Capriati/Hingis (French Open Quarterfinal, Serena Williams/Capriati)
2001: Wimbledon Quarterfinal, Serena Williams/Capriati, (Australian Open Quarterfinal Capriati/Seles)
2000: US Open Semis, Venus Williams/Hingis, (French Open Quarterfinal, Pierce/Seles)
1999: US Open Quarters, Davenport/Pierce (French Open Final, Graf/Hingis)
1998: Toshiba Semis, Pierce/Hingis (Philadelphia Final, Graf/Davenport)
1997: WTA Championship Quarters, Pierce/Hingis (US Open 4th round, Seles/Pierce)
1996: Australian Open Semis, Seles/Rubin, (French Open Final, Graf/ASV)
1995: US Open Final, Graf/Seles (Wimbledon Semifinal, Graf/Novotna)
1994: US Open Final, ASV/Graf (Canadian Final, ASV/Graf)
1993: Australian Open Final, Seles/Graf (Australian Open Quarterfinal, Sabatini/Pierce)
1992: French Open Final, Seles/Graf (1992 Olympic Gold Medal match, Capriati/Graf)
1991: Toshiba Semis, Capriati/Seles (this was even better quality than their open rematch... which is my 2nd choice)
1990: WTA Championship Final, Seles/Sabatini (Wimbledon Quarterfinal, Garrison/Seles)
1989: French Open Semis, Graf/Seles (US Open Semifinal, Graf/Sabatini)


I think a lot of my selections are based a tad more upon the quality of play from both players rather than the level of drama and closeness of the scoreline.

bandabou
Jan 12th, 2004, 11:36 AM
One thing I find funny: Steffi was supposed to be so good/great even at the net, but to my knowledge she BARELY has any doubles titles and just one doubles GS.....question arise: Why didn´t she win more?! Lack of partners, lack of interest or was the doubles-competition not worth her time?!

irma
Jan 12th, 2004, 11:39 AM
she didn't like it.

"the reason I love tennis is because I have a whole courtside for myself"

that says it all

alfajeffster
Jan 12th, 2004, 05:20 PM
aaaah, I knew it. The Williamses are the root of all the devaluation and stagnation in tennis. Wow, why doesn´t that surprise me?!

When Graf´s hitting winners from the baseline it isn´t ping pong, but when today´s players do it, it´s become ping pong?!

What conventional grip?! Did you see how Graf was hitting all those forehands?!

That today´s players play the game differently, given what the technology gives them, doesn´t mean they are stupid or anything.
I'm going to try and remain calm and objective here, because I really think you care about tennis, and aren't just another blind cave fish in the cesspool of fanatical fans unable to see past the object of their worship. This conversation (at least for me) has nothing to do with the Williams sisters devaluing or stagnating anything. I don't recall even thinking the Williams sisters are stupid, let alone ever writing such an idiotic sentiment. Not everything in this world revolves around Venus and Serena. It's about the game itself, not them, so try and keep up here, okay?

Regarding grips, you could just as easily replace either Williams sister with Mary Pierce, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati (to a lesser extent) or Kim Clijsters for that matter. Look at their grips when they hit forehands (not what they are wearing or their hair). They are all Western or semi-western, and the stroke is produced from an open stance and more often than not hit at shoulder height. This simply was not possible to do with a standard size frame. While Graf had an unconventional stroke, she had an Eastern grip, and hit most of those forehands at waist level or below, as did Navratilova, Evert, in fact, everyone prior to the mid-90s devolution in the game of tennis.

bandabou
Jan 12th, 2004, 07:55 PM
I'm going to try and remain calm and objective here, because I really think you care about tennis, and aren't just another blind cave fish in the cesspool of fanatical fans unable to see past the object of their worship. This conversation (at least for me) has nothing to do with the Williams sisters devaluing or stagnating anything. I don't recall even thinking the Williams sisters are stupid, let alone ever writing such an idiotic sentiment. Not everything in this world revolves around Venus and Serena. It's about the game itself, not them, so try and keep up here, okay?

Regarding grips, you could just as easily replace either Williams sister with Mary Pierce, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati (to a lesser extent) or Kim Clijsters for that matter. Look at their grips when they hit forehands (not what they are wearing or their hair). They are all Western or semi-western, and the stroke is produced from an open stance and more often than not hit at shoulder height. This simply was not possible to do with a standard size frame. While Graf had an unconventional stroke, she had an Eastern grip, and hit most of those forehands at waist level or below, as did Navratilova, Evert, in fact, everyone prior to the mid-90s devolution in the game of tennis.

No, of course....it´s always about the game and I see that. Then the new question arise: Who´s to blame for the devolution: The players or the coaches?!

I mean if they teach me a certain style from since when I was little, that´s the way I will end up playing when I´m older. So you can´t say: The players aren´t talented or anything, just that they have been taught a different game. That sounds better to me.

bandabou
Jan 12th, 2004, 07:56 PM
she didn't like it.

"the reason I love tennis is because I have a whole courtside for myself"

that says it all

:lol: That says it all, indeed!

alfajeffster
Jan 12th, 2004, 09:19 PM
Who´s to blame for the devolution: The players or the coaches?!
The short answer is: neither. The game has devolved over the past 30 years through a combination of several factors.

First, the introduction of the over-sized racquet. This is the single most damaging change to affect the game of tennis in the history of the sport. Howard Head received approval from the ITF to allow players to use his prototype over-sized frame in the mid-70s, and proceeded to successfully market the concept. What an oversized frame did was make the difficult game of tennis much easier for beginners and hackers, and it took a mere 10 years for the oversized racquet to replace the standard frame nearly completely. In terms of tennis, the oversized racquet not only doubled and sometimes tripled the sweet spot, but more importantly, it shifted the sweetspot closer to the hand, and the game subsequently devolved in a ping-pong direction where winners are much easier to hit, and players relied less on their mental strength and more on the physical ability to hit outright winners on the first or second stroke in a rally. Can you imagine how many home runs Mark McGuire COULD HAVE hit with an aluminum or carbon composite bat (let alone without the performance-enhancing drugs, but that's another thread)?

Second, the simultaneous evolution of the tennis industry. Open tennis arrived in 1968, and with it sweeping changes in tennis. The advent of prize money instead of a few top players getting paid under the table introduced a corporate air of competitiveness that tennis had never seen before. Only a few short years, and the Riggs/King Battle of the Sexes thrust tennis into the mainstream about the same time Howard Head was doing his corporate rape of the game itself. The combination was deadly: the fall of Forest Hills, the rise of big-time corporate american sponsorship at the U.S. Open, the introduction of billion-dollar tennis training academies like Bollettieri, all assaulting the one thing that must remain: the game of tennis.

Let me ask you this- if this first-strike blastball version of the game continues to move in the direction it's moving, how long will it be before the game consists of only serves?

bandabou
Jan 12th, 2004, 10:03 PM
The short answer is: neither. The game has devolved over the past 30 years through a combination of several factors.

First, the introduction of the over-sized racquet. This is the single most damaging change to affect the game of tennis in the history of the sport. Howard Head received approval from the ITF to allow players to use his prototype over-sized frame in the mid-70s, and proceeded to successfully market the concept. What an oversized frame did was make the difficult game of tennis much easier for beginners and hackers, and it took a mere 10 years for the oversized racquet to replace the standard frame nearly completely. In terms of tennis, the oversized racquet not only doubled and sometimes tripled the sweet spot, but more importantly, it shifted the sweetspot closer to the hand, and the game subsequently devolved in a ping-pong direction where winners are much easier to hit, and players relied less on their mental strength and more on the physical ability to hit outright winners on the first or second stroke in a rally. Can you imagine how many home runs Mark McGuire COULD HAVE hit with an aluminum or carbon composite bat (let alone without the performance-enhancing drugs, but that's another thread)?

Second, the simultaneous evolution of the tennis industry. Open tennis arrived in 1968, and with it sweeping changes in tennis. The advent of prize money instead of a few top players getting paid under the table introduced a corporate air of competitiveness that tennis had never seen before. Only a few short years, and the Riggs/King Battle of the Sexes thrust tennis into the mainstream about the same time Howard Head was doing his corporate rape of the game itself. The combination was deadly: the fall of Forest Hills, the rise of big-time corporate american sponsorship at the U.S. Open, the introduction of billion-dollar tennis training academies like Bollettieri, all assaulting the one thing that must remain: the game of tennis.

Let me ask you this- if this first-strike blastball version of the game continues to move in the direction it's moving, how long will it be before the game consists of only serves?


Someone really hates ping pong, I see......maybe because there are no Americans dominating there?! :lol: j/k....

In the men´s field isn´t it already like that?! I mean your own best prospect Andy Roddick is a :serve and a prayer-player. Somehow I´m inclined to think that Andy would suffer more by rule-changes than the other female players you imply would suffer.

In the women´s field, don´t think it´s gonna ever be like that. Women can hit aces, but the serve is a less important weapon for most players( there aren´t that many great servers among the women: Serena, Lindsay, Venus, Justine...pretty much that´s it.)..so don´t know if your theory would end up being true.

irma
Jan 12th, 2004, 10:24 PM
I used to play tabletennis (ping pong). I rather sucked though :lol:
but the saterday competition was fun. we had real rivarly's with other villages;)

but like my dear steffi I disliked doubles too, because in table tennis you are not allowed to hit the ball back twice. I mean you have to hit and then your partner and then you again and so on. It was really irritating.

bandabou
Jan 12th, 2004, 10:30 PM
I used to play tabletennis (ping pong). I rather sucked though :lol:
but the saterday competition was fun. we had real rivarly's with other villages;)

but like my dear steffi I disliked doubles too, because in table tennis you are not allowed to hit the ball back twice. I mean you have to hit and then your partner and then you again and so on. It was really irritating.

You couldn´t hit it twice?! What is the use then....man, I´d have gotten irritated too!

I sense a Ajax-Feyenoord-theme coming up here....don´t know.

irma
Jan 12th, 2004, 10:33 PM
well those hoonhorst people were arrogant;)

Andy T
Jan 12th, 2004, 10:34 PM
The big difference is on the strategical level. The physical limitations of using the old racquets meant that points had to be constructed, and that is why, when you watch Evert/Navratilova/Goolagong/King et al also (Graf and Seles to a certain extent too) you have these beautiful cat and mouse points where the players are manoeuvring each other around waiting for or creating an opening to attack or counter-attack. Watch the patterns; all the greats above had their favourites. Nowadays, the technology means that power dictates the rallies. It's crazy to think that a master strategist like Hingis was basically sidelined because no matter how accurate, consistent and skilful she was, she did not have the physical staying power to compete with the big-hitters. Tennis is about different values and different skills nowadays. We can gasp in awe at the speed and power of the top players but there is less room for subtlety and strategy than there was. I'm not saying the modern stars don't possess these qualities, just that they are no longer necessary to the extent they used to be.

alfajeffster
Jan 12th, 2004, 10:52 PM
Someone really hates ping pong, I see......maybe because there are no Americans dominating there?! :lol: j/k....

In the men´s field isn´t it already like that?! I mean your own best prospect Andy Roddick is a :serve and a prayer-player. Somehow I´m inclined to think that Andy would suffer more by rule-changes than the other female players you imply would suffer.

In the women´s field, don´t think it´s gonna ever be like that. Women can hit aces, but the serve is a less important weapon for most players( there aren´t that many great servers among the women: Serena, Lindsay, Venus, Justine...pretty much that´s it.)..so don´t know if your theory would end up being true.
I borrowed the ping-pong thing from Ilie Nastase, one of the most talented men ever to swing a tennis racquet. He was watching an Agassi/Courier match at the French Open one year in the early 90s, and Bud Collins caught up with him in the stands, and asked him what he thought of the tennis. The classic response was "this is not tennis, it is ping-pong". I couldn't have agreed with him more. Andy Roddick isn't my own best prospect. I don't even consider what he plays tennis!!! He is the perfect example of what is wrong with the direction the game is moving. Justine Henin-Hardenne's backhand is the most beautiful thing the women's game has to offer right now. It's a classic stroke, well produced, and very much like Stefan Edberg's topspin and flat drive backhands used to be. The serve in the women's game is much more important now than at any time in the history of the sport. Only 15-20 years ago, the first serve wasn't a weapon for any women, and in the history of the sport, only a handful, like Gibson, Court, Wade, and Navratilova ever really developed hard aggressive first serves.

It's the racquet size, grip changes, and changing of the game itself that I object to.

bandabou
Jan 13th, 2004, 12:27 AM
The big difference is on the strategical level. The physical limitations of using the old racquets meant that points had to be constructed, and that is why, when you watch Evert/Navratilova/Goolagong/King et al also (Graf and Seles to a certain extent too) you have these beautiful cat and mouse points where the players are manoeuvring each other around waiting for or creating an opening to attack or counter-attack. Watch the patterns; all the greats above had their favourites. Nowadays, the technology means that power dictates the rallies. It's crazy to think that a master strategist like Hingis was basically sidelined because no matter how accurate, consistent and skilful she was, she did not have the physical staying power to compete with the big-hitters. Tennis is about different values and different skills nowadays. We can gasp in awe at the speed and power of the top players but there is less room for subtlety and strategy than there was. I'm not saying the modern stars don't possess these qualities, just that they are no longer necessary to the extent they used to be.


I think it´s got more to do with equipments than anything else. If they could hit winners more often, I think they would have settled for that in a beep!


You can´t blame players for being strong....I mean, so you want some of the girls to quit playing tennis just because they happen to be stronger than other girls?! You CAN NOT win just because of power either, by the way!

bandabou
Jan 13th, 2004, 12:28 AM
well those hoonhorst people were arrogant;)

:lol:

Andy T
Jan 13th, 2004, 08:19 AM
I think it´s got more to do with equipments than anything else. If they could hit winners more often, I think they would have settled for that in a beep!



You can´t blame players for being strong....I mean, so you want some of the girls to quit playing tennis just because they happen to be stronger than other girls?! You CAN NOT win just because of power either, by the way!


Your first point (first sentence) is the same as mine. The second sentence is pure conjecture.

I don't quite understand your second point. Who is blaming whom for being strong? Margaret Court was strong! Martina was strong! The technology used at the time meant that this strength was not amplified as much as it is today.

A piece of advice - read carefully what people say and don't put words into their mouths ("so you want...?") so that you can make your own point.

I don't want anyone to stop playing tennis; I said it was a shame that Hingis' skills (as an example) were nowadays (because of the technology) overshadowed by the power-players.

By the way - yes (duh) I know you CANNOT win by just power alone. I did not say that. My point was that the technological changes have changed the balance between the elements of the game, power, strength, touch, strategy, other factors so that the game is no longer the same. For me this is a loss, but that's a personal opinion.




I wish the technology had not produced a situation where power is quite so dominant

bandabou
Jan 13th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Your first point (first sentence) is the same as mine. The second sentence is pure conjecture.

I don't quite understand your second point. Who is blaming whom for being strong? Margaret Court was strong! Martina was strong! The technology used at the time meant that this strength was not amplified as much as it is today.

A piece of advice - read carefully what people say and don't put words into their mouths ("so you want...?") so that you can make your own point.

I don't want anyone to stop playing tennis; I said it was a shame that Hingis' skills (as an example) were nowadays (because of the technology) overshadowed by the power-players.

By the way - yes (duh) I know you CANNOT win by just power alone. I did not say that. My point was that the technological changes have changed the balance between the elements of the game, power, strength, touch, strategy, other factors so that the game is no longer the same. For me this is a loss, but that's a personal opinion.




I wish the technology had not produced a situation where power is quite so dominant


The way you state it, it sounds like: "See, she can´t play and doesn´t have ANY talent whatsoever, but because she´s so strong and the equipment amplifies the power in her strokes, she´s winning." Then the question arise: How do you know this?!

What makes you think that if player Strong and player Weak both came up using different rackets, that the outcome would have been any different?! Is it right to say of someone: "Girl you can´t even play. Just are winning because you´re strong and because of the new technology."

Andy T
Jan 13th, 2004, 02:38 PM
Ok time for some logical rigour here:
"The way you state it...."
The way I state what? Define "it"

it sounds like: "See, she ....
* Who is "she"? I don't recall mentioning any names.

can´t play
and doesn´t have ANY talent whatsoever,

* please provide the quotes from what I wrote which express these thoughts or to justify these two conclusions of your about whoever it is this player is in your fantasy.

but because she´s so strong

*again who is "she"?

and the equipment amplifies the power in her

* whose?

strokes, she´s winning."

*Where did I write that this player (again, whoever "she" is) wins solely on strength and power and has no talent and can't play? Quote me!

Then the question arise: How do you know this?!

* Know what? I don't even know what you're talking about here.

What makes you think that if player Strong and player Weak both came up using different rackets, that the outcome would have been any different?!

* I assume you accept that modern equipment amplifies power. Yes? Clearly, with older equipment the power is not as great. So, power is still a factor (of course) but not quite as dominant. Therefore, its influence on the result iis less decisive in comparison with other factors. A power player could still win, of course. The result could be different (not "would" be) because the conditions would not be the same. No judgement, no opinion: just logic.


Is it right to say of someone: "Girl you can´t even play. Just are winning because you´re strong and because of the new technology."[/QUOTE]

*No it isn't. Whoever says this would be very stupid indeed.

Bandabou, I'm not denigrating the achievements of any player. I'm saying that the game has changed as a result of the changes in equipment/ technology (new possibilites, new priorities) and that the same qualities are not needed in the same proportions. Athletes who want to win in any generation will maximise the qualities necessary to achieve success. They still have other supplementary qualities but they base their games and strategies on the key factors/conditions. I added the personal observation that I found the current shift towards power a shame. that just means I think. I would like to close by saying I have the utmost admiration for the athleticism of many of today's top players and the shots they produce.

bandabou
Jan 13th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Ok time for some logical rigour here:
"The way you state it...."
The way I state what? Define "it"

it sounds like: "See, she ....
* Who is "she"? I don't recall mentioning any names.

can´t play
and doesn´t have ANY talent whatsoever,

* please provide the quotes from what I wrote which express these thoughts or to justify these two conclusions of your about whoever it is this player is in your fantasy.

but because she´s so strong

*again who is "she"?

and the equipment amplifies the power in her

* whose?

strokes, she´s winning."

*Where did I write that this player (again, whoever "she" is) wins solely on strength and power and has no talent and can't play? Quote me!

Then the question arise: How do you know this?!

* Know what? I don't even know what you're talking about here.

What makes you think that if player Strong and player Weak both came up using different rackets, that the outcome would have been any different?!

* I assume you accept that modern equipment amplifies power. Yes? Clearly, with older equipment the power is not as great. So, power is still a factor (of course) but not quite as dominant. Therefore, its influence on the result iis less decisive in comparison with other factors. A power player could still win, of course. The result could be different (not "would" be) because the conditions would not be the same. No judgement, no opinion: just logic.


Is it right to say of someone: "Girl you can´t even play. Just are winning because you´re strong and because of the new technology."

*No it isn't. Whoever says this would be very stupid indeed.

Bandabou, I'm not denigrating the achievements of any player. I'm saying that the game has changed as a result of the changes in equipment/ technology (new possibilites, new priorities) and that the same qualities are not needed in the same proportions. Athletes who want to win in any generation will maximise the qualities necessary to achieve success. They still have other supplementary qualities but they base their games and strategies on the key factors/conditions. I added the personal observation that I found the current shift towards power a shame. that just means I think. I would like to close by saying I have the utmost admiration for the athleticism of many of today's top players and the shots they produce.[/QUOTE]

Come on, come on. You said in an earlier post: It´s a shame to see Martina H, despite her court-sense/ tactics, etc, losing to all these players whom just happen to be stronger and more powerful than her. Or did I read your quote wrong?! I don´t think so.

So in a sense you´re saying: Such and such player beat Martina H just because she is more powerful or am I mistaken?!

That´s why I replied by saying: how do you know?! both with another type of racket, would the result be any different?! COULD!! be, but it isn´t a GIVEN! and you were quick to point that out.

Only thing I say: hate the game, don´t hate the players. They play the game with it is given to you. Saying things like: such and such player would´ve been a non-factor with wooden racket or vice versa is non-sense. You don´t know.Different times, different game, everything´s different.

Andy T
Jan 13th, 2004, 05:24 PM
Bandabou, I'm not denigrating the achievements of any player. I'm saying that the game has changed as a result of the changes in equipment/ technology (new possibilites, new priorities) and that the same qualities are not needed in the same proportions. Athletes who want to win in any generation will maximise the qualities necessary to achieve success. They still have other supplementary qualities but they base their games and strategies on the key factors/conditions. I added the personal observation that I found the current shift towards power a shame. that just means I think. I would like to close by saying I have the utmost admiration for the athleticism of many of today's top players and the shots they produce.

Come on, come on. You said in an earlier post: It´s a shame to see Martina H, despite her court-sense/ tactics, etc, losing to all these players whom just happen to be stronger and more powerful than her. Or did I read your quote wrong?! I don´t think so.

Sweetheart, I said:

"It's crazy to think that a master strategist like Hingis was basically sidelined because no matter how accurate, consistent and skilful she was, she did not have the physical staying power to compete with the big-hitters. Tennis is about different values and different skills nowadays."


"Martina Hingis could not COMPETE on the terms the modern game/equipment
dictates and the athletes that produces because the values of her game are DIFFERENT (not better, not worse, just different). The modern game "sidelines" players of Hingis' style = her style is not very compatible with the modern game.


So in a sense you´re saying: Such and such player beat Martina H just because she is more powerful or am I mistaken?!
You are mistaken.

That´s why I replied by saying: how do you know?! both with another type of racket, would the result be any different?! COULD!! be, but it isn´t a GIVEN! and you were quick to point that out.

Only thing I say: hate the game, don´t hate the players.
* Who's hating the players, here, or the game?

They play the game with it is given to you. Saying things like: such and such player would´ve been a non-factor with wooden racket or vice versa is non-sense.
* Who said this?

You don´t know.Different times, different game, everything´s different.[/QUOTE]

You really need to learn to think about what people write a little more thoroughly and be sure you understand it before you respond. If not, you may end up arguing with some imaginary person in your own head whose ideas and opinions you have invented yourself. If that's what you want to do, fine, but I don't want to be there.

bandabou
Jan 13th, 2004, 07:09 PM
Come on, come on. You said in an earlier post: It´s a shame to see Martina H, despite her court-sense/ tactics, etc, losing to all these players whom just happen to be stronger and more powerful than her. Or did I read your quote wrong?! I don´t think so.

Sweetheart, I said:

"It's crazy to think that a master strategist like Hingis was basically sidelined because no matter how accurate, consistent and skilful she was, she did not have the physical staying power to compete with the big-hitters. Tennis is about different values and different skills nowadays."


"Martina Hingis could not COMPETE on the terms the modern game/equipment
dictates and the athletes that produces because the values of her game are DIFFERENT (not better, not worse, just different). The modern game "sidelines" players of Hingis' style = her style is not very compatible with the modern game.


So in a sense you´re saying: Such and such player beat Martina H just because she is more powerful or am I mistaken?!
You are mistaken.

That´s why I replied by saying: how do you know?! both with another type of racket, would the result be any different?! COULD!! be, but it isn´t a GIVEN! and you were quick to point that out.

Only thing I say: hate the game, don´t hate the players.
* Who's hating the players, here, or the game?

They play the game with it is given to you. Saying things like: such and such player would´ve been a non-factor with wooden racket or vice versa is non-sense.
* Who said this?

You don´t know.Different times, different game, everything´s different.

You really need to learn to think about what people write a little more thoroughly and be sure you understand it before you respond. If not, you may end up arguing with some imaginary person in your own head whose ideas and opinions you have invented yourself. If that's what you want to do, fine, but I don't want to be there.[/QUOTE]

Maybe.....but sometimes people can say things without saying them.When you said what you wrote about Martina, it came over to me like you meant the other players aren´t skilful.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant.

Andy T
Jan 13th, 2004, 10:49 PM
You really need to learn to think about what people write a little more thoroughly and be sure you understand it before you respond. If not, you may end up arguing with some imaginary person in your own head whose ideas and opinions you have invented yourself. If that's what you want to do, fine, but I don't want to be there.

Maybe.....but sometimes people can say things without saying them.When you said what you wrote about Martina, it came over to me like you meant the other players aren´t skilful.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry if that's what you inferred. That is not what I meant and I hope that we now understand each other. :D

bandabou
Jan 13th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Maybe.....but sometimes people can say things without saying them.When you said what you wrote about Martina, it came over to me like you meant the other players aren´t skilful.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant.

I'm sorry if that's what you inferred. That is not what I meant and I hope that we now understand each other. :D[/QUOTE]

Cool! :yeah:

Robert1
Jan 14th, 2004, 08:11 AM
Bandabou: Alfa gets things mixed up, the Navratilova vs. Graf match was great, but the Seles vs. Capriati match was more dramatic, the spectators were more into it, as both, Seles and Capriati were bigger stars in the US than Navratilova, let alone Graf in 1991. Tenniswise Seles and Capriati showed THE game of powertennis: hard shots, but little amount of unforced errors. At this point I'd like to know the amount of unforced errors those 4 semifinalists did that day, I bet Seles has the least. She perfectionist the hard-hitting game which was introduced by no other than Graf, but her backhand was to slow and she never managed to change that.
So what gets mixed up here is that Seles' game was unique in aggressivness yet control and all today's girl who were watching her back then wanted to be like Monica, including winners, including grunting. But none of them has the control and most of them play very stupid and that ruins the game.

Robert1
Jan 14th, 2004, 08:17 AM
>>>>>>While Graf had an unconventional stroke, she had an Eastern grip, and hit most of those forehands at waist level or below, as did Navratilova, Evert, in fact, everyone prior to the mid-90s devolution in the game of tennis.

Of course, because they grew up with wooden rackets, Williams, Davenport didn't, so what?

Robert1
Jan 14th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Anyway, take the drugs out of the game and the players would HAVE to play more strategicly instead of ping-pong.

alfajeffster
Jan 14th, 2004, 05:37 PM
Tenniswise Seles and Capriati showed THE game of powertennis: hard shots, but little amount of unforced errors.
Agreed. The Seles/Capriati match was much more popular, and every bit as hotly contested, I have no doubt. The tennis itself is what I tend to compare, and the game of tennis includes all the shots, not just baseline bashing. With the Graf/Navratilova match, tennis fans were treated to all the shots displayed from all over the court. While the average teeny-bopper girls in poneytails reading TigerBeat on the side will naturally gravitate toward a Seles/Capriati match and people it with mindless screams of measured popularity, the tennis itself was a little less than spectacular in its breadth and scope. I loved the match, but couldn't help wishing Capriati would have come to the net a little bit more, as well as mixed up her serve a little better. Adding these dimensions would have made the tennis better, and made it a more interesting match. Capriati did this a few months earlier in San Diego against Seles, and it worked- the tennis was much better.

Robert1
Jan 14th, 2004, 09:13 PM
which variety had Graf in her game? And I don't mean what she was maybe capable of or maybe not, but what she actually did... Crosscourt backhand slice 99 out of 100 times unless you can run around it is not so spectacular...
Capriati tried to get to the net a few times and was usually passed by Monica. She couldn't go as often to the net as in San Diego as Seles definetely played more aggressive at the Open as in SD. Did you see that difference in Seles' game?

alfajeffster
Jan 14th, 2004, 09:24 PM
which variety had Graf in her game? And I don't mean what she was maybe capable of or maybe not, but what she actually did... Crosscourt backhand slice 99 out of 100 times unless you can run around it is not so spectacular...
Capriati tried to get to the net a few times and was usually passed by Monica. She couldn't go as often to the net as in San Diego as Seles definetely played more aggressive at the Open as in SD. Did you see that difference in Seles' game?
I won't go into Graf's variety with you, because you obviously don't like her very much, however, I will say she played quite a few more net points in her semi than Seles did in hers. I did see the difference in Seles game, she raised the level of her accuracy and power from San Diego, and also, I know you're not going to want to hear this, but the U.S. Open DecoTurfII was a faster surface than the hardcourt at San Diego, which they normally slowed down with a sandy grit in the final surface paint. So you see, Seles also benefitted from a faster surface in many of her matches- not just Graf. The DecoTurfII hardcourt made Seles shots that much more hard to retrieve at the Open than in SD, and Monica simply stepped on the gas with extra pace on the important points and came away with the win. Jennifer didn't make the adjustments necessary, and she definitely didn't serve as well. I have both matches on tape, and have analyzed both of them dozens of times. Those two matches were the start of "Big Babe Tennis" in the 90s- and when you watch the Capriati/Seles match from Key Biscayne not too long ago- there is very little difference in the tennis. This speaks volumes in and of itself.

Mark40
Jan 15th, 2004, 03:24 AM
Bandabou: Alfa gets things mixed up, the Navratilova vs. Graf match was great, but the Seles vs. Capriati match was more dramatic...


No it wasn't.

Robert1
Jan 15th, 2004, 07:12 AM
>>>>> S. Open DecoTurfII was a faster surface than the hardcourt at San Diego, which they normally slowed down with a sandy grit in the final surface paint. So you see, Seles also benefitted from a faster surface in many of her matches

Does this mean Capriati beat Seles on a not-normal hardcourt? Youhouhhhhhhhuuuuu !
The Key Biscayne match was totally different to the ones in late summer, both of them played the ball more safe, especially Monica was using much more topspin during that spring.

Mark: Yes it was, look at the result, darling.

Mark40
Jan 15th, 2004, 02:57 PM
Okay, I am looking....

Navratilova d. Graf 7-6, 6-7, 6-4
Seles d. Capriati 6-3, 3-6, 7-6

Oh My GOD!

You were right!
HOW COULD I NOT HAVE SEEN THIS EARLIER?

alfajeffster
Jan 15th, 2004, 02:59 PM
>>>>> S. Open DecoTurfII was a faster surface than the hardcourt at San Diego, which they normally slowed down with a sandy grit in the final surface paint. So you see, Seles also benefitted from a faster surface in many of her matches

Does this mean Capriati beat Seles on a not-normal hardcourt? Youhouhhhhhhhuuuuu !
The Key Biscayne match was totally different to the ones in late summer, both of them played the ball more safe, especially Monica was using much more topspin during that spring.

Mark: Yes it was, look at the result, darling.What does "normal" have to do with anything? What is "normal"? Court surfaces have been slowed down and sped up for as long as people have been mixing cement. Indian Wells is the champion of this- watch the Agassi/Edberg final at Indian Wells and then the Key Biscayne final only two weeks later and tell me the court surface didn't make a difference. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this concept? Do you even play tennis?

"Steffi hits a forehand now and then harder than Seles hits her shots, but with Seles she hits the ball so hard on both sides that you never get a chance to rest."- Martina Navratilova

Open up and let your tennis flow- and get off that stinking baseline- there's so much more to the game- people will appreciate it!

Robert1
Jan 15th, 2004, 03:30 PM
Exactly, Mark, so it is good I told you. You could also ask many Tennis fans around the world.

Alfa: YOU started that normal hardcourt thing, I'm just riding on this now... Of course there are different surfaces, but at the end of the day statistics are divided into grass, indoors, hard, and clay, that's it.
I do play Tennis btw. Of course bothhanded, both sides, trying to play a controlled aggressiv baseline Tennis. Of course 100 times worse than the Queen of the baseline.

alfajeffster
Jan 15th, 2004, 04:13 PM
I do play Tennis btw. Of course bothhanded, both sides, trying to play a controlled aggressiv baseline Tennis. Of course 100 times worse than the Queen of the baseline.
Have you ever played on grass?

Mark40
Jan 15th, 2004, 04:21 PM
Exactly, Mark, so it is good I told you. You could also ask many Tennis fans around the world.

Thanks ever so much for informing me. I had absolutely no idea how wrong I was about these two matches. I wonder what I was thinking on that hot September afternoon in 1991, that I recall so well, preferring the Graf/Martina match to the obviously superior Seles/Jen slugfest. Was it a schizoid break from reality? Hmmm.

Anyways, Rob thanks for helping me see the light!

alfajeffster
Jan 15th, 2004, 04:50 PM
Thanks ever so much for informing me. I had absolutely no idea how wrong I was about these two matches. I wonder what I was thinking on that hot September afternoon in 1991, that I recall so well, preferring the Graf/Martina match to the obviously superior Seles/Jen slugfest. Was it a schizoid break from reality? Hmmm.

Anyways, Rob thanks for helping me see the light!
Mark, I just got a copy of the 1994 Pan Pacific Final, and it's a great match if you ever get to see it (or have seen it). Graf and Navratilova going at each other on that fast Tokyo carpet, and Graf won in straight sets. Her serve was on and finding the corners of the box with pace- it's just a terrific match!

TennisFan75
Jan 15th, 2004, 04:54 PM
I watched both matches again the past 2 nights, I vastly prefer the Martina/Steffi Match.. I wasnt in the stadium so I can tell the drama level that was going on, but seeing Martina and Steffi play for the first time in a few years and playing very good tennis was better for me. :wavey:

bandabou
Jan 15th, 2004, 05:09 PM
Alfa, you keep saying leave the baseline, let the tennis flow....yet still you´re in love with steffi.

Steffi was, is and will always be a baseliner. Seen plenty of her matches lately and she was AVERAGE at best at the net.

If you say: Martina N....then I can agree with you.

alfajeffster
Jan 15th, 2004, 05:17 PM
Alfa, you keep saying leave the baseline, let the tennis flow....yet still you´re in love with steffi.

Steffi was, is and will always be a baseliner. Seen plenty of her matches lately and she was AVERAGE at best at the net.

If you say: Martina N....then I can agree with you.
No, the Williams sisters are average at the net, at best, with Venus having the most unrealized potential in this aspect of tennis. If you've seen plenty of Graf matches lately, and haven't seen that she was a good volleyer, then you haven't seen enough of her matches- probably only matches from the last year and a half of her career, I suspect. I'm not alone in wishing Steffi would have come in more- she was good at the net, but didn't believe in herself there, and really didn't like to volley, which is a shame. I think anybody who plays tennis should continue to explore all the aspects of the game- even baseliners like Venus and Serena.

bandabou
Jan 15th, 2004, 05:55 PM
No, the Williams sisters are average at the net, at best, with Venus having the most unrealized potential in this aspect of tennis. If you've seen plenty of Graf matches lately, and haven't seen that she was a good volleyer, then you haven't seen enough of her matches- probably only matches from the last year and a half of her career, I suspect. I'm not alone in wishing Steffi would have come in more- she was good at the net, but didn't believe in herself there, and really didn't like to volley, which is a shame. I think anybody who plays tennis should continue to explore all the aspects of the game- even baseliners like Venus and Serena.

Nope. Seen Wimbledon ´93, Oz open ´91...all against Novotna and in those matches you could see that Graf´s volleys weren´t good and those were at the middle stages of her career.

I´m glad you can acknowledge that Venus has a vast untapped potential at the net. Serena...doesn´t have the instincts and that´s a fact.

You´re right: Everybody should keep expanding their games.

Andy T
Jan 15th, 2004, 06:00 PM
Calm down you three - you're like Charlie's Angels all fighting over one man!

alfajeffster
Jan 15th, 2004, 06:40 PM
Calm down you three - you're like Charlie's Angels all fighting over one man!
:wavey: Andy!

Mark40
Jan 15th, 2004, 07:37 PM
I would loved to have seen the final Martina/Graf encounter. Their match-ups were so exciting to me because they were so rare and always ocurred on big ocassions. I wish Martina would have made it to more finals in 1988-89 so we could have gotten a few more matches in between these two. My favorite matches were the '91 US, '87 French and the '89 US (except for that last set!).

alfajeffster
Jan 15th, 2004, 07:58 PM
I would loved to have seen the final Martina/Graf encounter. Their match-ups were so exciting to me because they were so rare and always ocurred on big ocassions. I wish Martina would have made it to more finals in 1988-89 so we could have gotten a few more matches in between these two. My favorite matches were the '91 US, '87 French and the '89 US (except for that last set!).
Lately I'm into the 1988 Wimbledon final. Navratilova looked so completely shell-shocked at the whirling Graf dervish flying all over the court. I almost felt a little sorry for her, but I got over it pretty quickly!:lol:

Robert1
Jan 15th, 2004, 08:05 PM
You're welcome Mark. It's good you have your personal opinion, it doesn't matter that it's not similar to the majority's opinion.

I love to play on grass, I prefer indoor courts though.

Mark40
Jan 15th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Yeah I felt like Martina was so frightened of Graf during 88-89. In both the Wimbledon finals and the '89 US Open when Steffi turned it up a notch in the third, poor Martina looked like a deer caught in the headlights. She just seemed mentally resigned to defeat. I am sure Billie Jean King was just grinding her teeth in the stands watching. She rarely lost 6-1 in the third on a big occassion.

Robert, thanks for setting me straight. Afterall, the majority usually is right.

Andy T
Jan 15th, 2004, 08:48 PM
Andy does his best with the oil on troubled waters act:
I never saw either US semi in 91 but, as with any comparison, what you get out depends on what adjective you stick in there ("more exciting/stylistically varied/unpredictable than"), what angle you're looking from and what filter you're looking through. Everybody wins my way!

Mark36 I share your regrets about the fact that there were only 3 Steffi-Martina match-ups between Sept 87 and end 1990. One's immediate reaction is that Graf would have dominated but in fact Martina showed at the Open in 91 and as late as 93 in Tokyo that she had the game to trouble/beat Graf, so maybe not. From 88-91, they played in the same slam 11 times and met 4 times only.

As you say Alfa, Martina looked utterly stupefied half way through that 88 Wimbledon final when Graf turned it up. She hadn't lost 12/13 games like that since the 60 60 defeat to Evert at Amelia Island and here it was happening in "her" backyard. I don't know how you feel about the quality of Graf's tennis in that 13-game period relative to the rest of her career but my take on it is that I never saw her hit as freely against a top champion in a big final as she did that day (except possibly against Seles in the 92 final but she was never under pressure in that match. Here she was 57 02 down!). That's not to say she didn't play better on other occasions just that she seemed so uninhibited and utterly oblivious to pressure. I honestly think that that was the match when Martina knew her period of dominance was really over. She'd had signals in the previous season and lost the top ranking but somehow I think she still believed until that day she could get it back. The following year in the final there were signs that Martina had begun rebuilding on a different psychological base and was moving toward the new perspective on the game that ultimately helped her win in 90.

alfajeffster
Jan 15th, 2004, 09:08 PM
(except possibly against Seles in the 92 final but she was never under pressure in that match. Here she was 57 02 down!).
I agree, and you know my feelings about that Seles match in 1992, or the rest of their head-to-head matches for that matter. After the 88 Final, when Bud Collins interviewed Steffi coming off the court, Steffi was actually a little purturbed at herself because she did play well in that first set and was up a break and let it slip away, and then lost her concentration for the first two games in the second set, and then POW! Die Grafin exploded on Martina!

bandabou
Jan 15th, 2004, 10:11 PM
One thing I find in