SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Donal Fag » Mon, 17 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Remember Sampras vs Larsson the other day?  Take away Sampras' big
serve and he would have been in the same position as Hingis was
against Davenport today.  Davenport was hitting through and past her
smaller opponent and Hingis, although she played well, serving quite
a few aces, just didn't have enough to hurt the new, sleeker, faster
Davenport.  

If Hingis could have pulled out service games more easily, as Sampras
did, she may have exploited Davenport's nerves on the critical points
late in the sets.  But Davenport broke Hingis early in each set, only
letting her back in the first.

Davenport d Hingis 4-6 6-4 and I'm fairly sure the last set was 6-3.

Match point was a spectacular array of Hingis drop shots and lobs,
all of which Davenport reached and dealt with solidly.  Perhaps
Lindsay is finally coming into her own.

--
Donal Fagan

Remove the unpleasant social display to reply via e-mail
http://donalfagan.home.mindspring.com

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by VICTORIA BUR » Mon, 17 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>[..snip..]
>Match point was a spectacular array of Hingis drop shots and lobs,
>all of which Davenport reached and dealt with solidly.  Perhaps
>Lindsay is finally coming into her own.

Perhaps?  Here's my take on things.  Lindsay has definitely arrived.  She
didn't come on like gangbusters and shoot through the roof seemingly over
night, like the ones we tend to term 'phenoms' or 'prodigies'.  She has
simply gotten better and better as time goes on; slowly, steadily improving
her game and results, at her own pace.  And she's here.

There have been comments in other threads lately to the effect that 'nobody
is playing like a #1 right now'.  I vigorously disagree with that assessment.
Hingis certainly isn't playing like a #1 ranked player -- and Lindsay is.

I have no qualms about saying I consider her the clear favorite for the US
Open, rankings notwithstanding.  And if she doesn't have the #1 ranking by
the end of this year, it'll be a big surprise to me.

vwburns.
--
|||| Victoria Burns, MBA |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||




 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Robert B. Wal » Mon, 17 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
> There have been comments in other threads lately to the effect that 'nobody
> is playing like a #1 right now'.  I vigorously disagree with that assessment.
> Hingis certainly isn't playing like a #1 ranked player -- and Lindsay is.

I think I was the one who made that comment. I believe I made it
(or at least thought it) about two and a half weeks ago, at a time
when Davenport had not yet won any of these tournaments and Novotna
was still looking like the hottest thing since a fresh-out-of-the-oven
pretzel.

Certainly Hingis is not playing like a #1 player right now. And,
for these three weeks at least, Davenport has. If Davenport continues,
she *will* be #1 after the U.S. Open. Still, the jury has not yet
returned a verdict; Davenport still has not reached a Slam final,
let alone won a Slam, and she has played a lot of tennis lately.
She may (may) get tired. And remember, all these results are on
hardcourts. She will have to defend her indoor results as well if
she wants to be #1 at year-end.

Don't take this as too much of an argument. I think Davenport
is the best bet, by quite a bit, to win the U.S. Open. And
I think she may become #1 soon even without that (if someone
other than Hingis wins the Open). I even think Davenport is
playing like the #1 right now. In other words, I concede all
your points almost all the way. :-) On the other hand, if
history tells us anything, it's that we shouldn't count
anything as certain until it happens. For instance, Hingis
looked today like she was coming out of her funk a little
bit. If she had played that way against Pierce last week,
she would have won. And she did hit ten aces. If Hingis
can improve as much in the next two weeks as she did in
the last week, I wouldn't count her out for the U.S. Open.

Of course, that's a *big* if. :-)

--
Robert B. Waltz
(e-mail address hidden to avoid spam)

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Donal Fag » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>>Match point was a spectacular array of Hingis drop shots and lobs,
>>all of which Davenport reached and dealt with solidly.  Perhaps
>>Lindsay is finally coming into her own.
>Perhaps?

Yeah.  Based on her mini-collapse in the first set, perhaps.  I still wonder
when I see her giving points away.

--
Donal Fagan

http://donalfagan.home.mindspring.com
Remove the middle name to reply by E-mail

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Tennis M » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

All I have to say about the match Lindsay played against Hingis today is...
WOW!
Hingis played great, but Lindsay seemed to always have the extra shot.
 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Adam Coop » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00



: >[..snip..]
: >Match point was a spectacular array of Hingis drop shots and lobs,
: >all of which Davenport reached and dealt with solidly.  Perhaps
: >Lindsay is finally coming into her own.

: Perhaps?  Here's my take on things.  Lindsay has definitely arrived.  She
: didn't come on like gangbusters and shoot through the roof seemingly over
: night, like the ones we tend to term 'phenoms' or 'prodigies'.  She has
: simply gotten better and better as time goes on; slowly, steadily improving
: her game and results, at her own pace.  And she's here.
[incipit deletia]

   I don't have much of an opinion on this, but on a related note, was
anyone else as sick as I was of hearing Tracey Austin mention time and
again how much weight Davenport had lost?  She kept saying Davenport was
getting to balls "she wouldn't have been able to get to a year ago."  She
may very well be right: I know Davenport has improved her fitness level,
but to keep bringing it up over and over seemed somehow insulting.  The
first couple times it was complimentary, but after repeated returns to the
subject, it seemed like Tracey was saying, "Gosh, Davenport's playing a
lot better now that she's lost a few hundred pounds and cut back on those
McDonald's binges!"  

   Perhaps I exaggerate, but that's the impression I got.  I mean,
Davenport may not have been as trim as some of the other women on the
tour, but she was still posting decent results.  I'm not sure her mobility
problems aren't more height-related than weight-related (though I guess
Venus Williams is both quick and tall).

   Frankly, Davenport just has chubby cheeks.  No matter how skinny she
gets (and she looked pretty skinny to me), her cheeks will still be
chubby.  Did you see her mum in the crowds?  She has chubby cheeks too,
and she was an Olympic-caliber volleyball player (I think).  Some
people are like that.  Sometimes I wonder how much criticism of her
fitness level stems from this.

--A.

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Ephem384 » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>>Match point was a spectacular array of Hingis drop shots and lobs,
>>>all of which Davenport reached and dealt with solidly.  Perhaps
>>>Lindsay is finally coming into her own.

I think she is but lets remember. Lindsay was playing a nice relaxed game in
front of her home crowd..where effortless shots seemed easy to come by.  She
still has to put it all together under the media spotlight at the slams.  Even
Hingis indicated that.  I think in a way she might have done herself a
disservice by winning all these tournaments leading to the U.S OPen.  The
expecation for her TO win is going to be tremendous.
 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Donal Fag » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>   I don't have much of an opinion on this, but on a related note, was
>anyone else as sick as I was of hearing Tracey Austin mention time and
>again how much weight Davenport had lost?  She kept saying Davenport was
>getting to balls "she wouldn't have been able to get to a year ago."  She
>may very well be right: I know Davenport has improved her fitness level,
>but to keep bringing it up over and over seemed somehow insulting.  The
>first couple times it was complimentary, but after repeated returns to the
>subject, it seemed like Tracey was saying, "Gosh, Davenport's playing a
>lot better now that she's lost a few hundred pounds and cut back on those
>McDonald's binges!"  

All I know is, I've got a real craving for honey-baked ham today!

--
Donal Fagan

http://donalfagan.home.mindspring.com
Remove the middle name to reply by E-mail

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by b.. » Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:00

I think that Lindsey is peaking way too soon for the US Open.  I think
she will have a tough draw and lose early.

Brian

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Wendy Grossma » Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

>    Frankly, Davenport just has chubby cheeks.  No matter how skinny she
> gets (and she looked pretty skinny to me), her cheeks will still be
> chubby.  Did you see her mum in the crowds?  She has chubby cheeks too,
> and she was an Olympic-caliber volleyball player (I think).  Some
> people are like that.  Sometimes I wonder how much criticism of her
> fitness level stems from this.

Davenport really was pretty hefty when she first came on tour, and she was
noticeably slowed down by it.  I agree, she has round cheeks (most women
do at her age; most women's faces thin out noticeably in their mid to late
20s into their early 30s), but I don't think that's what people are
reacting to.  She is definitely faster than she was.

wg

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by VICTORIA BUR » Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>>>Match point was a spectacular array of Hingis drop shots and lobs,
>>>all of which Davenport reached and dealt with solidly.  Perhaps
>>>Lindsay is finally coming into her own.

>>Perhaps?

>Yeah.  Based on her mini-collapse in the first set, perhaps.  I still wonder
>when I see her giving points away.

One game.  The 8th game of the 1st set.  Unbelievable.  She'd been cruising
along, almost error-free, up a break; all she had to do was hold onto her
serve .. comes back from the changeover and starts spraying balls all over
the blasted place.  Then, as though all that ugly stuff wasn't enough, she
missed a GIMME putaway at the net on break point.

AAAUUGHHH!!  LINDSAY!  She should NOT have lost that set.

You gotta admit, though.  Not too long ago, that would have been pretty much
the end of the match for Lindsay.  These days, she has a bad game or two --
like anyone else -- then pulls it back together and closes it out.

She doesn't get down on herself.  She doesn't hunch her shoulders and start
moping around (which used to be her trademark).  Davenport's whole demeanor
on court is entirely different from what it was as recently as a year ago.
And that's the biggest difference I'm seeing.  She LOOKS like a winner out
there.  I don't think she ever did before -- even when she was winning.

vwburns.
--
|||| Victoria Burns, MBA |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||



 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by VICTORIA BUR » Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>   I don't have much of an opinion on this, but on a related note, was
>anyone else as sick as I was of hearing Tracey Austin mention time and
>again how much weight Davenport had lost?

Raised hand over here.  I think the thing that really makes Austin an awful
boothvoice (and, mind you, she used to be very good, back when programmers
actually allowed her to analyze the match) is that she just doesn't have a
whole lot to say -- though she does say it non-stop.  She plops down behind
the mike armed with exactly 2 1/2 factlets about each player, and drums them
to death before the match is over.

In any and every Davenport match, for instance, you'll hear the following and
nothing but the following:
1)   She's lost a lot of weight recently (don't know how long the 'recently'
     status will last; I think it's been 'recently' for about a year now);
2)   She's very tall (between 6'1" and 6'3", depending on the day or whatever
     was the last one she heard);
2.5) Her father was an Olympic volleyballer (having heard this one for the
     bazillionth time, the relevance of it still evades me).

If it's a Coetzer match, you'll hear the following:
1)   She's the fittest or one of the fittest players on the tour (credit to
     Hopper .. obligatory mention of the switch to Seles);
2)   She's very short (between 5'2" and 5'4" depending... and she'll state
     the height at least 4 times during the match);
2.5) She lives at Hilton Head.

If it's a Hingis match:
1)   She and her mother/coach are the BEST of friends and have a WONDERFUL
     relationship;
2)   Gosh, the way she SMILES all the time and has just an oh-so-WONDERFUL
     attitude;
2.5) (repeat #1 for good measure).

Quote:
>chubby.  Did you see her mum in the crowds?  She has chubby cheeks too,
>and she was an Olympic-caliber volleyball player (I think).

No, no.  Adam...Tracy told me (and told me and told me) that her _father_
was the Olympic volleyballer.  All you have to do is let up on the 'mute'
button for just 2 minutes and I'm sure you'll hear confirmation of this.

vwburns.
--
|||| Victoria Burns, MBA |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||



 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by da » Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>    I don't have much of an opinion on this, but on a related note, was
> anyone else as sick as I was of hearing Tracey Austin mention time and
> again how much weight Davenport had lost?  She kept saying Davenport was
> getting to balls "she wouldn't have been able to get to a year ago."  She
> may very well be right: I know Davenport has improved her fitness level,
> but to keep bringing it up over and over seemed somehow insulting.  The
> first couple times it was complimentary, but after repeated returns to the
> subject, it seemed like Tracey was saying, "Gosh, Davenport's playing a
> lot better now that she's lost a few hundred pounds and cut back on those
> McDonald's binges!"  

I despise the tendency of most commentators to re-hash and repeat the same
old tag-lines about players. Like Novotna being a choker, or Seles
grappling with the illness of her father/lack of fitness/whatever ... and
to do so several times within any given match. It's like they not only
think that the majority of people tuning into to watch a match have no
idea who the players are, but that that they also must assume that there
is a significant turnover in audience within a match, so they must keep
repeating these all-important details for the new folks coming in. Or else
they're slow-witted repetive people and this is the best they can do. The
likes of Tracy Austin and Chris Evert are what make me appreciate the
likes of John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova as commentators, in terms of
repstitiveness. Even if Mac and Nav repeat themselves, they use different
words to do so ...

dar
--
Will play tennis for food.

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Donal Fag » Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
>One game.  The 8th game of the 1st set....

Two games.  She failed to hold the tenth game, too.

But your point is well taken.  She didn't mope and cave in the rest of the
match.  We'll see how she does at the US Open.

--
Donal Fagan

http://donalfagan.home.mindspring.com
Remove the middle name to reply by E-mail

 
 
 

SPOILER: Hingis vs Davenport

Post by Charles L » Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:00:00

|| I despise the tendency of most commentators to re-hash and repeat the same
|| old tag-lines about players. Like Novotna being a choker, or Seles
|| grappling with the illness of her father/lack of fitness/whatever ... and
|| to do so several times within any given match. It's like they not only
|| think that the majority of people tuning into to watch a match have no
|| idea who the players are, but that that they also must assume that there
|| is a significant turnover in audience within a match, so they must keep
|| repeating these all-important details for the new folks coming in. Or else
|| they're slow-witted repetive people and this is the best they can do. The
|| likes of Tracy Austin and Chris Evert are what make me appreciate the
|| likes of John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova as commentators, in terms of
|| repstitiveness. Even if Mac and Nav repeat themselves, they use different
|| words to do so ...

    I like the repetitive idea.   I believe that commentators who
repeat the same things over and over are just bankrupt of ideas to
say.    For example, as much as I like Chang, I think it's repetitive
for them to always mention how determined a player he is, and how
fast he is.    They should check up on his fifth set statistics.
It's true Chang doesn't generally beat himself, but if errors
start creeping in during crucial parts of the match, how does
one explain it?   It was also claimed that Chang was a great
claycourt player when his hardcourt record was much better.
It took announcers a few years before they started to talk about
this (Stolle mentioned it the earliest, to my recollection).

    The comments above about Novotna and Seles are just lazy
comments from announcers who basically don't do a good job of
keeping up in the interim.   Of course, many of these are ex-players
with lives outside of tennis, rather than hard-core fans who
would try to keep up with injuries, interview players, etc.
I will agree that Mac does seem to do his homework, at least
more than most player announcers.   Haven't heard as much from
Martina though.

--
Charles Lin