Archive for Percy896's Tennis Forum This is a new tennis forum to discuss professional tennis, vote and create polls, and ask advice about equipment, fitness, or anything regarding tennis! Now with a new Fantasy Tennis League!
This has been bouncing around in my head. Will Venus repeat her Wimbledon title???
What do you think?
x.doublea
She can if she plays her best, but I don't think she can. She hasn't been consistant enough this year, and there will be more competitors this year at Wimbledon.
leftys_rock
Like x.doublea said, she can if those UE numbers are down. She can get away with it more on grass because she can hit more winners. But she has been very UE prone lately, so she should make it deep, but it will be very difficult to win with the rest of the field.
stevos14
Umm, remember this time last year? She was extremely UE prone! She lost 3rd round to sesil with billions of errors! I was watching match video of venus at last years wimbledon and she was playing AMAZINGLY, which I think she pulls out at wimbledon! She has made it to 4 finals (maybe 5 cant remember). Only wierd loss going to sprem, but we all have our off days and we all know the whole scoring situation during that match. She will have great chances of repeating.
J-man
Yes but remeber she was a complete underdog last year. Now she isn't!!!! I don't think she has a good chance right now
admin
J-man wrote:
Yes but remeber she was a complete underdog last year. Now she isn't!!!! I don't think she has a good chance right now
Who could beat her? Davenport if she's healthy and playing well, Sharapova if she plays her best, maybe Vaidisova if she plays her best, same goes to Mauresmo...yet we all know that Venus can beat all of these people when she plays well. It will be interesting to see whether the expectations for her lower her playing level. It also is possible that Davenpot could meet up with her in the quarter finals because of their rankings.
About Venus' Wimbledon record:
It is absolutely amazing. With the exception of 2004, she has reached every Wimbledon final in the 21st century, and has won three of them, only losing in the other two to her sister. That is far more impressive even than Serena, who has only won it twice.
PSALT
admin wrote:
J-man wrote:
Yes but remeber she was a complete underdog last year. Now she isn't!!!! I don't think she has a good chance right now
Who could beat her? Davenport if she's healthy and playing well, Sharapova if she plays her best, maybe Vaidisova if she plays her best, same goes to Mauresmo...yet we all know that Venus can beat all of these people when she plays well. It will be interesting to see whether the expectations for her lower her playing level. It also is possible that Davenpot could meet up with her in the quarter finals because of their rankings.
About Venus' Wimbledon record:
It is absolutely amazing. With the exception of 2004, she has reached every Wimbledon final in the 21st century, and has won three of them, only losing in the other two to her sister. That is far more impressive even than Serena, who has only won it twice.
If Venus plays well Davenport is the only person that could stop her. Venus showed last year that if she plays well Sharapova is nothing compared to her, and there is no way Mauresmo could beat Venus at Wimbledon. Actually Davenport and Venus would meet in the RD16, Davenport is ranked seven so would be seeded to win their match, but Lindsay would be ranked to lose in the QF's. I think Davenport would have a better chance in the eraly rounds, Venus is close to impossible to beat in Major finals. I also think Davenport wants this title more than anyone in the draw. She is simply too good of a player to retire with only 3 Slams. She is an amazing grasscourter and unless Venus is playing her absolute best I would have trouble seeing Venus beat her.
x.doublea
Unfortunately, I think this will really be Davenport's last chance. If she doesn't do it this year, she won't be able to get another....
Rattler
Predicting Venus' results at Wimbledon is too shakey. I thought she had no chance last year, and then she won it, I thought Serena would trashed her in the Semi's in 2000, and Venus won.
I don't think you can count her out beforehand.
dav6789
It will be up to Venus to keep the Williams sisters' winning streak alive of 6 finals in a row.
I really hope Davenport wins this title. As PSALT said she is too good for 3 slams. Does anyone know if she is playing a warm-up event (Eastbourne)?
leftys_rock
Lindsay has just been plagued by bad luck. Injuries or an on fire player has gotten in the way for another slam for her. Like when she got to the finals of the AO and Wimbledon in 05, she lost to an on fire WS. But what did they do for the rest of the year? Nothing. And this year at the AO, she rolled her ankle in the R16 and lost in 3 sets to JHH. I just think it is too bad that Lindsay had to have this bad luck because, quite frankly, she could have had at least 6 slams by now.
x.doublea
Yes, she's definitely a player who's better than what she's achieved. She should have won more than only one Wimbledon in particular....
dav6789
She has achieved so much from the tour but has not won near as many slams as she deserves. Even before she dominated the singles game, she was totally dominant in doubles, something like 6 straight slam finals and loads of titles. In total she has won 6 slams, but has reached so many QF, SF and finals. Her singles career really kicked off when she won the Olympics in 1996. After that she dominated the game along with Hingis, and then the Williams. She has been unfortunate to have the Williams sisters emerge when she was playing her best. I hope she gets another slam.
x.doublea
Davenport actually seems to be quite similar to Agassi in Grand Slam achievement- both don't have the amount they should have. Of course, the reasons are different; Davenport's is being unlucky, and Agassi's is practically a misuse of talent in the first half of his career....
PSALT
dav6789 wrote:
She has achieved so much from the tour but has not won near as many slams as she deserves. Even before she dominated the singles game, she was totally dominant in doubles, something like 6 straight slam finals and loads of titles. In total she has won 6 slams, but has reached so many QF, SF and finals. Her singles career really kicked off when she won the Olympics in 1996. After that she dominated the game along with Hingis, and then the Williams. She has been unfortunate to have the Williams sisters emerge when she was playing her best. I hope she gets another slam.
without the Williams I have no problem seeing her with 6-9 slams. Who's there to challenge her. I Slams she dominated Hingis. There was no one. Davenport didn't have any problem with the Belgians until 2003, up until then she would have dominated the tour. Even after then she would have had more confidence then she did in reality and would have won Slams even after the Belgians became great.
dav6789
If you look at the way Seles dominated the game for so long and won 8 slams as a teenager, Davenport should have won even more. Davenport is much more of a complete player than Seles is. They are both huge hitters of the ball. Davenport, from 1996 started winning multiple titles each season. In the summer of 1998 she dominated the hardcourt season (lost just 1 match), and won the US Open. In 1999 she achieved even more by winning Wimbledon and the YEC. She was the player that stopped Hingis' hold of tennis after her fantastic 1997. Davenport and Hingis had a great rivalry by 2000, but then after, Venus and Serena arrived, then the Belgians. Davenport had major injury in 2002, and it took until 2004 for her to really reach her top game again. If it wasen't for that blip between 2001 and 2004, I think she would have continued her top level right through and could have won more slams.
x.doublea
I think the major difference is that Seles has movement, and Davenport doesn't. Davenport really suffered throughout her career because her lack of speed. Seles's speed kept her in alot of the tight matches. If Davenport's playing poorly, she can't resort of speed to stay in it. That's why Seles is a greater player than Davenport. That being said, Davenport had a serve, so she surely should have won more Wimbledons....
PSALT
x.doublea wrote:
I think the major difference is that Seles has movement, and Davenport doesn't. Davenport really suffered throughout her career because her lack of speed. Seles's speed kept her in alot of the tight matches. If Davenport's playing poorly, she can't resort of speed to stay in it. That's why Seles is a greater player than Davenport. That being said, Davenport had a serve, so she surely should have won more Wimbledons....
Seles is not a better player than Davenport. Speed is the only think Seles has on her. Davenport is more powerful, has a better serve, is better at net, and her groundstrokes are more accurate than Seles. Davenport's strokes are rarely, if ever,off. sometimes her mental game is.
dav6789
x.doublea wrote:
I think the major difference is that Seles has movement, and Davenport doesn't. Davenport really suffered throughout her career because her lack of speed. Seles's speed kept her in alot of the tight matches. If Davenport's playing poorly, she can't resort of speed to stay in it. That's why Seles is a greater player than Davenport. That being said, Davenport had a serve, so she surely should have won more Wimbledons....
I don't think Seles is better than Davenport. Seles has better movement than Davenport, but still not the best. They both play an attacking game based on their groundies. Davenport has much cleaner strokes than Seles letting her dominate from the baseline alot better. Seles' main strength is the intensity of her game (much like Nadal). Seles likes to win by outhitting her opponents, which is very hard to do against Davenport which is why she leads their H2H.
x.doublea
You're right, but I'm saying Seles had footspeed Davenport doesn't have...that's partially why she won Roland Garros like three times and the US and Australian Opens. That being said, there's a reason why Seles hasn't won Wimbledon and Davenport has....
PSALT
x.doublea wrote:
You're right, but I'm saying Seles had footspeed Davenport doesn't have...that's partially why she won Roland Garros like three times and the US and Australian Opens. That being said, there's a reason why Seles hasn't won Wimbledon and Davenport has....
If they both entered every Slam playing their best it would probably be,
Seles,
1 AO
4 RG
Davenport
2 AO
1 RG
4 W
3 USO
At her best Davenport can outhit almost anyone on any surface. She isn't given enough credit for her groundies. It's not a normal thing to be that accurate. She hits as flat as a pancake, yet is more consistent, when on, than someone who hits with alot of topspin.
stevos14
A while back, you said Davenport would have more grand slam wins if the WS, belgians whoever hadnt come around. And then you say she was the best and stuff. You cant say "if only so and so werent born", because look at venus. If serena was paralysed at an early age venus would probably have 12 grand slams by now!! There are no what ifs in tennis.
You either win or you dont, and that proves what kind of player you are.
x.doublea
Perhaps. But, you've got to remember that when Davenport was playing her best, the racquets were really suited to her...Seles was far past her prime before these new racquets came out. Seles had a period of dominance only bettered by Federer's and Graf's run as well...she didn't win so many slams with nothing....
I don't think Davenport could have won Roland Garros. All you need is a Sanchez Vicaro to tire her out, and that would have hard for Davenport to overcome....
dav6789
They have played each other 13 times, Davenport leads 10-3.
They have very similar strengths, groundstrokes. They both like to hit hard, use angles and move their opponents around. The difference is that Seles became obssessed with staying at the baseline because it was so successful for her. Davenport likes to come forward sometimes to keep her game fresh. Seles is faster than Davenport, but Davenport's footwork is still very good to let her hit these enormous groundies. I think Davenport can just overpower her opponents so many times and just not let them in reach of the ball. This is why she has had success over big hitters such as Seles, but also Hingis who needs to be in control of the point for her game to work. To beat Davenport you need to get her off balance which is very hard to do. You can try and mix it up to throw her off but that is risky and won't work consistently.
x.doublea
Did they ever play before she got stabbed? If not, it would be hard to say who would have been better in prime years....
PSALT
stevos14 wrote:
A while back, you said Davenport would have more grand slam wins if the WS, belgians whoever hadnt come around. And then you say she was the best and stuff. You cant say "if only so and so werent born", because look at venus. If serena was paralysed at an early age venus would probably have 12 grand slams by now!! There are no what ifs in tennis.
You either win or you dont, and that proves what kind of player you are.
no one is here to say "If only, if only", this is just discussion about how Davenport would have done if the Willaims never came around. Just like if Federer would have won Wimby if they didn't slow down the courts, would Borg have retired if Mcenroe didn't come around, how many Slams would Agassi have if Sampras did come around, or how would Seles have done if she wasn't stabbed.
PSALT
x.doublea wrote:
Did they ever play before she got stabbed? If not, it would be hard to say who would have been better in prime years....
yes, they both were playing before that happened.
dav6789
x.doublea wrote:
Perhaps. But, you've got to remember that when Davenport was playing her best, the racquets were really suited to her...Seles was far past her prime before these new racquets came out. Seles had a period of dominance only bettered by Federer's and Graf's run as well...she didn't win so many slams with nothing....
I don't think Davenport could have won Roland Garros. All you need is a Sanchez Vicaro to tire her out, and that would have hard for Davenport to overcome....
Seles did dominate the game, probably more than Federer is now. There isn't as big a difference in racquets from 1991 to 1996. Remember both Davenport and Seles both played from those years. I don't think racquets have much to do with it. For Roland Garros, I think Lindsay's use of angles and consistency could have got her a win at Roland Garros.
PSALT
x.doublea wrote:
Perhaps. But, you've got to remember that when Davenport was playing her best, the racquets were really suited to her...Seles was far past her prime before these new racquets came out. Seles had a period of dominance only bettered by Federer's and Graf's run as well...she didn't win so many slams with nothing....
I don't think Davenport could have won Roland Garros. All you need is a Sanchez Vicaro to tire her out, and that would have hard for Davenport to overcome....
Davenport played at the same time as Seles, and won her Gold medal before these new racquets, that medal propelled her to what she is today. Not more powerful racquets. if what you say is true why is Davenport so consistent? With more powerful raccqets logic would say that her accuracy would go down. Also, there are a few reasons why Seles did so well
1)She wasn't expected to, no pressure on her
2)Graf was in a slump during most of them
As it is Seles won more Slams than she would have if Graf was playing her best. Graf is the better player on any surface.
dav6789
PSALT wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
Did they ever play before she got stabbed? If not, it would be hard to say who would have been better in prime years....
yes, they both were playing before that happened.
They didn't actually play before Seles got stabbed, but Seles did come back in 1996 to still play top level tennis. Seles at her prime only had a few names to contend with, mainly Graf. It was Seles who introduced the complete baseline big-hitting game to the tour. By the time Davenport had reached her top levels, there were more baseliners around, so it didn't have such a big impression. That is why I think it was even more impressive for Davenport to dominate later on.
stevos14
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
A while back, you said Davenport would have more grand slam wins if the WS, belgians whoever hadnt come around. And then you say she was the best and stuff. You cant say "if only so and so werent born", because look at venus. If serena was paralysed at an early age venus would probably have 12 grand slams by now!! There are no what ifs in tennis.
You either win or you dont, and that proves what kind of player you are.
no one is here to say "If only, if only", this is just discussion about how Davenport would have done if the Willaims never came around. Just like if Federer would have won Wimby if they didn't slow down the courts, would Borg have retired if Mcenroe didn't come around, how many Slams would Agassi have if Sampras did come around, or how would Seles have done if she wasn't stabbed.
Okay, that makes for discussion I guess. I just think one of the previous posts had the "if only" vibe. And I too wish Davenport came a BIT earlier before the WS.
PSALT
dav6789 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
Did they ever play before she got stabbed? If not, it would be hard to say who would have been better in prime years....
yes, they both were playing before that happened.
They didn't actually play before Seles got stabbed, but Seles did come back in 1996 to still play top level tennis. Seles at her prime only had a few names to contend with, mainly Graf. It was Seles who introduced the complete baseline big-hitting game to the tour. By the time Davenport had reached her top levels, there were more baseliners around, so it didn't have such a big impression. That is why I think it was even more impressive for Davenport to dominate later on.
you are right, my apologizes. you are right though, Seles came back and won more Slams. It was not as if she went from superstar to has been right when she got stabbed.
dav6789
When Seles first burst onto the tour, her style of play was new. It caught Graf and other players by suprise. Seles won alot of tournaments when she was young. Seles and Graf had many battles in this time period. I think Seles was actually the better player on clay and hard because she really could attack the weak Graf backhand. I also think Seles was sometimes to much for Graf to handle mentally (reminds me of Nadal v Federer). Then when Davenport came on, this new style wasen't so huge anymore. However Davenport had more than groundies, and was still able to play the Seles game even better.
dav6789
stevos14 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
A while back, you said Davenport would have more grand slam wins if the WS, belgians whoever hadnt come around. And then you say she was the best and stuff. You cant say "if only so and so werent born", because look at venus. If serena was paralysed at an early age venus would probably have 12 grand slams by now!! There are no what ifs in tennis.
You either win or you dont, and that proves what kind of player you are.
no one is here to say "If only, if only", this is just discussion about how Davenport would have done if the Willaims never came around. Just like if Federer would have won Wimby if they didn't slow down the courts, would Borg have retired if Mcenroe didn't come around, how many Slams would Agassi have if Sampras did come around, or how would Seles have done if she wasn't stabbed.
Okay, that makes for discussion I guess. I just think one of the previous posts had the "if only" vibe. And I too wish Davenport came a BIT earlier before the WS.
Yes, the WS hit very hard and are very athletic which enabled them to get Davenport off balance. That was a shock to Davenport, just like Seles had shocked Graf 10 years earlier. Now though I think Davenport has a great rivalry with them (especially Venus). Their matches are always fun to watch.
venus would probably have 12 grand slams by now!! There are no what ifs in tennis.