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!
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.
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.... _________________ "Satan is behind Illegal Immigration."- Don Larson, Utah County Republican Tennis Wallpapers, presented by leftys_rock and myself
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.
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.
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.... _________________ "Satan is behind Illegal Immigration."- Don Larson, Utah County Republican Tennis Wallpapers, presented by leftys_rock and myself
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.
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.
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.... _________________ "Satan is behind Illegal Immigration."- Don Larson, Utah County Republican Tennis Wallpapers, presented by leftys_rock and myself
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.
Did they ever play before she got stabbed? If not, it would be hard to say who would have been better in prime years.... _________________ "Satan is behind Illegal Immigration."- Don Larson, Utah County Republican Tennis Wallpapers, presented by leftys_rock and myself
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.
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.
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.
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 cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
venus would probably have 12 grand slams by now!! There are no what ifs in tennis.