Angelique Kerber - Adapting to life at the top

2013 has been an interesting year for Angelique Kerber and her fans.  A season of consolidation, and finding out more about herself as a person and competitor; which culminated with a title and appearance at the WTA championships in Istanbul for a second consecutive year.

Recapping the 2013 season, it started off with a semifinal appearance in Sydney with a loss to Dominica Cibulkova then a 4th round defeat at the Australian Open to Ekaterina Makarova.  Angelique missed the Paris Indoors due to injury which meant she could not defend her title.  Angelique then lost early in Doha and Dubai before flying out to Monterrey, where she got to the final but lost out to Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova.

Forward to the hardcourts in North America where Angelique had mixed results, getting to the semifinals of Indian Wells and going out early in Miami.  The Indian Wells semifinal proved to be frustrating as Caroline Wozniacki resorted to employing some of the most defensive tactics ever seen in a tennis match to turn around a first set deficit in her favour.  

The clay and grass court seasons during spring and early summer didn’t go too well either, with semifinal defeats to Sharapova in Stuttgart and a quarterfinal loss in Madrid to Ana Ivanovic.  Angelique was then forced to pull out of the Foro Italico with an abdominal injury.  At the French Open, Angelique succumbed to former champion Svetlana Kuznetsova in three sets in the 4th round.   On the grass there were early exits at both Eastbourne and Wimbledon, tournaments she did extremely well in during 2012.  In fact, Angelique’s defeat to Kaia Kanepi at Wimbledon led to a strange episode on social networks which was certainly unwarranted.

Onwards and upwards to the hardcourt season we hoped, but the same trend continued of relatively early exits in Canada, Cincinnati and New Haven; her best result being a quarterfinal appearance in Washington.  Angelique’s poor form culminated with a 4th round defeat at the US Open to enigmatic Carla Suarez Navarro in a third set tiebreak.  

At this stage, things were not looking good, having dropped a lot of points from the 2012 season, she was in danger of dropping out of the top 10 for an extended period.  However, things turned around suddenly during the autumn hardcourt season in Asia; Angelique got to the final in Tokyo having taken out Radwanska and Wozniacki comfortably in the quarterfinal and semifinal.  The final against Petra Kvitova was incredibly the first all left handed final on the WTA tour since 2009.  It was an interesting match with Kvitova taking the first set easily but then losing the 2nd set to love before rallying to take the 3rd set 6-2. 

Angelique then came back to Europe where she requested a wildcard at the Generali Open in Linz, which she received at the last moment and played some lovely tennis to get to the final in convincing fashion.  In fact, by getting to the semifinal, Angelique ensured qualification for the WTA championships for the 2nd year in a row. In the final, Angelique played a highly entertaining match against Ana Ivanovic which she took in straight sets to win her first and only title of 2013. At the WTA championships in Istanbul, Angelique almost made it to the semifinals, but was again stopped in her tracks by the dangerous Petra Kvitova.

I think 2013 has been a great experience for Angelique Kerber.  She has gone through a unique period of learning about herself, managing disappointment, injuries, motivation, change of coaching setup and still found a way to finish the year on a relative high.  That is something which takes mental strength and character.  Angelique found out that it is one thing to get to the top 10, but an entirely different proposition to stay there when competitors are out to get your scalp.  That not only requires mental toughness but also the willingness to make adjustments to keep improving, which hopefully will bode well for the future.

Angelique was kind enough to take some questions before heading off for a well deserved vacation and preparations for the 2014 season.

1. Congratulations on a really good end to the season, getting to the final of Tokyo, winning Linz and qualifying for the WTA championships in Istanbul. You ran Petra Kvitova close and could have made the semifinals. What do you attribute the upturn in results to?

I have been lucky not to be injured even if my abs have suffered a bit after Tokyo. I, of course, worked hard and learned from every matches, practiced my serve, done a lot of fitness.

My team was behind me and I’ve worked hard on being clear mentally, on handling the pressure better, on being more composed and it kind of worked. I believe it’s important to work a lot on giving a particular attention to your mental condition also. Making sure nothing goes into your mind that could potentially hinder your game.

 2. Following on, it’s been a tough year, you had a breakthrough year in 2012. How different has it been trying to consolidate your position in the top 10?

I believe and experience it is harder to remain on the Top 10 rather than to get there. Both requires a huge amount of work but the expectations you have from you, your fans, family, friends, team is higher and these added pressure is sometimes tough to handle.

 

3. You seem to have a new coaching set up, are you looking to add new things to your game than a year or two ago?

Of course! Who does not want to keep improving? I want to go deeper on Grand Slam and important tournaments. I want to be able to play more and more matches against Top players. Ranking wise, becoming a consistent Top 10 is obviously important for me as well as growing and maybe reach the Top 5.

4. It’s a special year for the WTA tour as it celebrates 40 years of existence, how does it feel to be part of making history on the tour?

It’s amazing what Billie Jean King has made for women’s tennis and being part of it, growing in the middle of so many talented athletes who have made history is huge.

5. Switching to your game, I think you are one of the best movers and defenders on a tennis court. You are also great at hitting down the lines; I think you can take advantage of that by coming to net more often when you stretch your opponent.

Is the transition game a tactic you favour and do you see yourself using that play to shorten the points more often, especially at key moments?

That is something I will discuss with my coach during my pre-season. My head now is more looking at my vacation and the few weeks I will spend without thinking or even playing tennis ;-)

 

6. You have made two major semifinals at the US Open and Wimbledon in 2011 and 2012. How do you see your chances of going one step further and making a final in 2014 and beyond?

I’ll work hard for that anyway and we’ll see if I can handle the pressure, play well and

consistent, beat strong top players... Hopefully then, it can happen... Step by step...

 7. Marion Bartoli, one of my favourite players grabbed the opportunity to claim Wimbledon this summer, drawing from her experience of 2007. Francesca Schiavone did something similar at Roland Garros in 2010 and Sam Stosur at the US Open in 2011. How much of an inspiration was Marion’s win to yourself and other players that it is possible to win a big title even if you are not top seed?

There are always possibilities. Marion was a good player and I’m glad she got a chance to win a Grand Slam, which was her goal, before retiring.

I’m focusing on myself, my game and really believe that if you work hard, it will pay back. I take one think at a time. I try not to put too much pressure on myself. I work hard for that but also need to enjoy being on court and play and learn and grow.

8. Collectively all of the young German players haven’t had as much success as fans were hoping this year. There is a lot of talent among the players who make up the Fed cup squad, how do you feel about prospects to do well in the Federation cup in 2014?

Our goal as a team is to be able to bring a title to Germany. We are really working hard for that with Barbara and the team. We feel fan’s expectation and will give everything we have to potentially fulfil it. Hopefully 2014 will be our year... ;-)

Why mens tennis needs to stay best of five sets

There has been a lot of debate about mens tennis, ultra long grand slam matches have been the source of everyone’s focus.  

There’s an interesting dichotomy going on here; read the various tennis forums and there are threads full of complaints that surfaces are too slow and rallies / matches are too long.  Watch the BBC during Wimbledon and we are constantly told this is the greatest era with the best players ever seen.  The x factor is the paying public at the slams, and despite mega long matches, the paying public appear to love them and are prepared to sit through hours upon hours of tennis.

Ultra long tennis matches are nothing new as the game is littered with examples in every decade.  For instance, in 1992 Stefan Edberg defeated Michael Chang in the US Open semifinal in 5hrs 26 minutes which is the longest match in the tournament’s history.  Amazingly, Edberg came back 24 hours later to beat Pete Sampras in the final which went four sets and lasted over 3 hours.  Later that decade in 1996, Pete Sampras would beat Alex Corretja in the quarterfinal of the US Open in 4 hours 9 minutes, Sampras needed to be taken to hospital and put on a drip afterwards.  

Sampras would be involved in a lot of long matches that decade, his matches against Jim Courier at the 1995 Australian Open and 1996 French Open, plus the 1996 ATP Masters final against Becker were all well over 4 hours each.  In the 1998 French Open, Alex Corretja defeated Hernan Gumy in 5hrs and 31 minutes.

The 1980s also threw up its share of long matches.  In 1988 Mats Wilander defeated Ivan Lendl in the final of the US Open in 4 hours and 55 minutes.  Meanwhile in the Davis cup in 1987, Boris Becker defeated John McEnroe in a tie that lasted 6 hours and 21 minutes. However, a look at the list of the longest matches ever played shows that out of 29 matches that have been officially timed over five hours, 23 have taken place since the turn of the new millennium, while 15 of those have taken place since 2008 including the crazy match in 2010 Wimbledon between Isner and Mahut which lasted a whopping 11 hours 5 minutes over a 3 day period.  So it’s quite clear that matches over 5 hours long are increasing with alarming regularity.

So, why are there so many long matches today?  Two common denominators are slower courts and style of play convergence with both factors coinciding at exactly the same time in the course of modern tennis history.  This has meant that the majority of matches have taken place where two players camp out on the baseline playing a counterpunching style, or not possessing big enough weapons to finish points relatively quickly on a regular basis.  What exacerbates the length of matches even further is guys taking longer between points to recover from exhausting rallies.

This has not only lead to lengthy five set matches but also four set matches regularly last four hours as well.  In fact, this year’s Wimbledon final over 3 hours and 30 minutes even though it was a straight sets win for Andy Murray over Novak Djokovic.

The dissenting voices are growing with more and more ex-players and pundits calling for grand slam tournaments to be made best of three sets mimicking the ATP tour; who jettisoned best of five set finals after Federer and Nadal played a five hour blockbuster in Rome in 2006 with both promptly pulling out of the next tournament in Hamburg citing fatigue. 

Recently Martina Navratilova gave her views on the situation "It's really becoming so taxing that I believe one day we will have two out of three sets in the grand slams, otherwise they're going to be taking people out on stretchers,"  But it’s not just about the prospect of players being taken out on stretchers, you also have to think these matches are not really TV friendly and in the end may appeal only to fans who are also prepared to sit through and watch every ball of five day test cricket matches. 

However, despite the naysayers, mens tennis needs to stay as best of five sets for a variety of reasons.  First of all, the integrity of mens tennis depends on grand slam tournaments being played as best of five sets.  Let’s remember that Tennis is and has always been a sport of both skill and endurance; the tiebreaker only came into existence in the early 1970s and in Davis cup the late 1980s.  

Playing best of five sets ensures the traditions of mens tennis stays intact where skill, fitness, mental stamina and the ability to find solutions on the court (as Patrick Mouratoglou would put it) are all part of the package of being a top player.  Top players also possess a good on board computer (brain), best of three sets will take those elements away and turn the situation into more of a lottery.  The perfect example being 2020 cricket where strategy and tactics are virtually a non factor but makes great television for everyone except the bowlers, who are constantly hit out of the grounds into the adjacent river on an ad nauseam basis.   Tennis deserves better than potential one hour blowouts at grand slam level.

But also consider this, every generation throws up a set of circumstances which are unique to their era.  And we can see from the top current four players in the world that the counterpunching style currently rules.  In my time of watching tennis, this may be a first.  Previous eras have always thrown up a mixture of attackers and baseliners at the top: McEnroe, Borg, Lendl and Connors in the early 1980s. Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Lendl in the late 1980s; or Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Sampras and Courier in the early 1990s. Today, the balance is tipped in favour of endurance more than skill.  

The counterpunching style may rule for now but that doesn’t necessarily mean the next generation of top players will play the same way.  There are players coming through who favour shorter more aggressive points and use the serve as a means to get the job done.  Should such players get to the top five positions, it will inevitably lead to shorter grand slam matches in the latter stages in future.  And hopefully that will leave the game in a healthier state.

Let’s sign off by looking at some of the greatest five set matches in recent times that have been timed under four hours…….

2001 Wimbledon semifinal Pat Rafter v Andre Agassi: The classic match between puncher and counterpuncher, this type of matchup has been a serious casualty of style of play convergence.  These two guys played some of the best five set matches in the past 25 years. Incredibly this match was “only” 3hrs 30 minutes despite going to 8:6 in the fifth set!

2001 Wimbledon final Goran Ivanisevic v Pat Rafter:  Proof that a five set battle between two serve and volleyers could produce incredible tennis and high drama.  To be fair, the stakes were high and the raucous crowd made it something special.  The tennis was dynamic, 9-7 to Goran in fifth set but nowhere near four hours.

2000 Wimbledon semifinal Pat Rafter v Andre Agassi: A lot of people say this match was higher quality but the 2001 match had more drama, especially as both guys knew there was no Sampras waiting in the final.  Either way, it was fantastic tennis throughout the whole battle.

2000 Australian Open semifinal Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras: One of their best battles, this match had two incredible tiebreakers, it looked like Sampras would take it in the 4th, but Agassi staged a great comeback to take the deciding set 6:1

2011 US Open semifinal Novak Djokovic v Roger Federer: This is the best rivalry of the current era.  Simply because Federer often plays shorter points and forces Djokovic into playing lesser longer rallies on average.  Even though Djokovic came from two sets down this match was 10 minutes short of four hours, and the tennis was great. 

1999 US Open final Andre Agassi v Todd Martin: Agassi battled back from two sets to one down to claim the title.  And although Martin won the two tiebreaks in the middle of the match, it was done and dusted in 3hrs and 23 minutes.

A look at surprising retirements in Tennis

With the hugely surprising announcement of Marion Bartoli’s retirement overnight, its worth taking a look at other retirements that have surprised the world of tennis and sport in recent times. 

But not only shock retirements it is also worth considering players who were big stars and major winners but kind of disappeared from the limelight almost overnight.

In looking at players who retired suddenly, certain themes keep re-occurring.  They started their career at the top at a very early age, they suffered a lot of stress due to constant traveling, they found it hard to deal with tough losses, and they often failed to sparkle in their comebacks.

Gabriela Sabatini

Sabatini retired in 1996 at the age of 26 which is a crazily young age.  But by the time of her retirement, she had already been a professional for 11 years having turned professional in the mid 1980s.  Sabatini won the US Open in 1990 defeating Steffi Graf in straight sets.  She then had the opportunity to win Wimbledon in 1991, having served for the match against Graf but was unable to see it through and lost 8-6 in the third set.  Sabatini had a successful career, including a couple of Italian Opens, WTA masters victory and 27 tiles overall.

The big problem as far as I can see is that Sabatini was playing French Open semifinals at the age of 15 when most girls are still at school.  And by the age of 26, the stress of continual playing, travelling combined with some incredible losses at the French Open when she was in incredibly strong positions meant that Sabatini had nothing left to give at an age when players should be coming into their prime.

Mats Wilander

Mats Wilander retired in 1996, but was literally off the tennis radar by 1990 at the age of 25.  By this stage, Mats had won seven major titles including three majors in one year in 1988 and grabbing the number 1 ranking.  Wilander was also the youngest winner of the French Open in 1982 at 17 years and 9 months (Chang took that distinction in 1989 when he won aged 17 years and 3 months).  Mats won majors on grass and rebound ace at the Australian Open, clay at the French Open and hardcourts at the US Open.

Wilander played a style that relied on defence, patience, counterpunching and athleticism.  He wouldn’t blow an opponent away with a barrage of aces and winners but could play all day and wear his opponents down, hence his great French Open record with three titles and four finals there.  Interestingly, Wilander is hardly ever mentioned in the British media when it comes to the great players from that era like Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl.  One reason for that could be he never made a big impression at Wimbledon, which would be unfair but that’s reality.

Justine Henin

Justine Henin retired unexpectedly in 2008 after having her best year to date in 2007 winning two major titles, defending her end year WTA title and consolidating her position as clear number 1 in the world.  One of Henin's most impressive feats of 2007 was to beat Serena Williams in the quarterfinal of the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open back to back. However, after a very surprising defeat to Sharapova at the Australian Open in 2008, where she got “bagelled” in the second set, and then struggles in the hardcourt and clay season. 

Henin announced her retirement before the French Open at the age of 25 years and 11 months, even though she was three time defending champion and red hot favourite. 

Henin came back for a brief period in 2010 but despite getting to the final of the Australian Open (losing to Serena Williams), never looked the same player and was forced to retire again after sustaining a freak elbow injury against Kim Clijsters at Wimbledon.

Martina Hingis

Martina Hingis retired in 2002 at the age of 22 after losing three Australian Open finals in a row, two to Jennifer Capriati.  Hingis won her last major title in January 1999 when she beat Amelie Mauresmo in the final of the Australian Open.

Hingis was good enough to beat the lesser players but was continually frustrated at the latter stages of major tournaments by Venus and Serena Williams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati and Mary Pierce.  Martina retired citing a chronic condition in her both of her ankles, but the memo is that the decision was also hastened somewhat by continual defeats at the hands of the “big hitters”.

Hingis returned in 2006 and was doing ok, winning the Italian Open and Tokyo, but was forced into retirement for a second time in 2007 in equally dramatic fashion after failing a drugs test for cocaine metabolites; the sample was miniscule but enough to cause a worldwide sensation.  Hingis’ last grand slam tournament was a defeat to Victoria Azrenka at the US Open.

Bjorn Borg

Bjorn Borg won six French Open titles and five Wimbledons at the age of 26 which is a phenomenal record.  Borg also played in four US Open finals but lost all four of them, two of those to John McEnroe in 1980 and 1981.

The 1981 US Open final defeat seemed to be the last straw, having relinquished his Wimbledon title to the same player two months earlier.  After the final, Borg left the stadium through the back door, before the ceremonies and press conference took place, as paparazzi sought to track him down.  

Borg retired in early 1982 at the age of 26 although he did play a couple of matches in 1982 and 1983 in Monte Carlo.  As with so many names mentioned here, his retirement was a huge surprise at the time.  And with so many other players mentioned, Borg staged a comeback ten years later in 1992, still sporting a wooden racquet.  However, times had moved on and it would have been impossible to win a match with such old technology when so many players were capable of serving 130 mph with graphite racquets!

A look at the best players never to win the US Open

With the US Open fast approaching, it would be interesting to take a look at some of the best players who never managed to lift the trophy at one of the toughest tournaments in the world.

In the opinion of many, fans and experts alike, the US Open is probably the toughest of the Grand Slam tournaments to win.  The surface is unforgiving and the weather can be hot and humid in New York in early September.  The crowd atmosphere is often raucous and many night matches finish in the early hours of the morning.

The most difficult thing for the players has been the schedule. For many years, the semifinals of the men's event took place on the second Saturday with the final the following day.  Depending on how the semis turned out, one of the finalists often had less than 24 hours to prepare for the final. Meanwhile, the womens final was sandwiched between two mens semifinals up to the mid 1990s.

These factors have made it a very difficult tournament to win.


Bjorn Borg

Probably the most famous player never to win the US Open, Bjorn actually got to the final four times, losing to Jimmy Connors in 1976 and 1978, and then John McEnroe in 1980 and 1981.  Bjorn took McEnroe to five sets in 1980, the closest he got to winning the tournament.  It was a pretty good effort to get to four finals, and perhaps unlucky to get two home players there.  Borg lost the 1976 final to Jimmy Connors on green clay, and then the other finals on hard court.

This is speculation, but I've heard that Bjorn was not a big fan of the hard courts or playing under the lights at the US Open; many of the finals finishing at night fall.

Yvonne Goolagong

Yvonne Goolagong was a very elegant player who had a great career and is considered one of the great female Tennis players of the Open era.  Yvonne won Wimbledon twice in 1971 and in 1980 as a mother (a feat since emulated by Kim Clijsters at the US Open) and the Australian four times from 1974 to 1977.   Yvonne also won the French Open / Wimbledon double in 1971defeating Helen Gourlay Cawley and Margaret Court respectively.

Yvonne, however, made it to four finals in a row at the US Open from 1973 to 1976 but was not able to win any of them.  In 1973 Yvonne lost to Margaret Court in 3 sets.  In 1974 and 1975 Goolagong lost to Billie Jean King and Chris Evert respectively in 3 sets  in 1976 Yvonne lost to Chris Evert again and this time on green clay quite comprehensively 6-3 6-0.
This puts Goolagong up there with Bjorn Borg as probably the best female player never to win the event.


Jim Courier

Jim Courier won four Grand Slam titles in his career and played in all four Grand Slam finals from 1991 to 1993.  Jim’s best surface was probably hard courts, but he won two titles at the French Open and two titles at the Australian Open on rebound ace.  The slower, high-bouncing rebound ace suited Jim’s game and he defeated Edberg in two finals there in 1992 and 1993, each time in four sets.

Courier lost to Edberg in the 1991 US Open final in straight sets, Edberg played the best match of his career that day.  Jim also lost to Pete Sampras in the semifinals of the US Open in 1992 and 1995, each time in four sets.   Jim didn’t particularly have any weakness on hard courts, but his biggest downfall was probably his relative lack of movement on the surface even though it was considered a medium-fast surface, certainly not as fast as it became when Arthur Ashe Stadium Court opened in 1997.

That relative lack of movement meant that Jim was more vulnerable against the very top players.  Jim’s extreme grips also made him more vulnerable as the best players targeted his forehand on return of serve to open up the court often to take advantage of his relative lack of movement.  So in the end, the high-bouncing rebound ace courts suited Jim more than the medium-fast courts of the US Open where kick serves are very effective but the ball shoots through more during rallies.


Jennifer Capriati

Winning the US Open was a holy grail for Jennifer, as it was her hometown tournament in many ways.  Unfortunately Jennifer never got past the semifinals, but those semis were very memorable!

Capriati lost an incredible semifinal to Monica Seles in 1991 in a third set tiebreak which at that time represented the future of women's tennis, with both players hitting the ball like there was no tomorrow.  Jennifer served for the match twice but still lost.  After an absence of 10 years, Jennifer came back strong in 2001 and appeared in the semifinals again, this time losing a highly-charged match to Venus Williams.

In 2003, Jennifer lost yet another dramatic semifinal to Justine Henin, who seemed absolutely out on her feet in the third set with Jennifer again serving for the match twice and then losing a third set tiebreak.

To cap it all off, Jennifer lost again in 2004, this time to Elena Dementieva in a third set tiebreak.  Jennifer served for the match but couldn’t finish it off.  This match was especially frustrating for Jennifer as Elena was going through one of her can’t serve properly modes, but somehow came out on the other side with a win!

Even though Jennifer never got to a US Open final, her semifinals will be talked about for decades.


Amelie Mauresmo

Amelie had all of the physical attributes to win the US Open.  She was a powerful, athletic player who liked to get forward and had fantastic touch at net and a great one-hand backhand which she could hit down the line to stretch her opponents and take to the net.  Amelie was also an excellent serve-and-volleyer who was successful at Wimbledon; a tactic that worked well on hard courts during that era.

Despite these attributes, Amelie got to two semifinals, losing to Venus Williams in 2002, and in 2006, losing a bizarre match to Sharapova 0:6, 6:4, 0:6! Amelie didn’t seem to be able to make the transition to US Open Champion.  One can argue that there were too many obstacles in the way of winning the US Open, mainly Venus and Serena Williams, Henin, Clisjters, and Sharapova. 

Amelie also had technical issues with her forehand.  Due to the extreme grip, Amelie found it difficult to make penetrating drives with her forehand on hard courts, the ball often dropping short and sitting up, making her vulnerable to big-hitting players.  In North America, Amelie won the Rogers Cup in Canada a couple of times, where the courts appear slower and higher-bouncing.  Amelie, like Jim Courier, did better on rebound ace, getting to the final of the Australian Open in 1999 and winning in 2006.

Ironically, despite the extreme grip on her forehand, Amelie was an excellent and instinctive volleyer, and was able to change grips with ease to volley - very unusual for a player with an extreme grip.



Elena Dementieva

Not only is Elena Dementieva one of the best players never to win the US Open, she’s also one of the best players never to win a major title.

Elena got to the final in 2004, losing to Svetlana Kuznetsova after her amazing semifinal win over Jennifer Capriati, which was mentioned earlier.  Elena got to the semifinal the next year, playing much better, but losing out to Mary Pierce after winning the first set.  Elena would get to semifinal again in 2008, but lost surprisingly tamely to Jelena Jankovic.  It should also be noted that Elena got to the semifinal as an 18-year-old in 2000, losing to Lindsay Davenport.

It's well chronicled how Elena’s serve had technical breakdowns at the slightest hint of scoreboard pressure, a pity because she had a great game and was extremely athletic.  Elena’s fast flat strokes and taking the ball early were ideal for hard courts.  However, Elena also had issues about when and how often she was prepared to get to net to finish off points, putting herself under unnecessary pressure often in rallies.

But by far, Elena’s biggest problem was her serve, preventing her from reaching her potential at the US Open.  She often beat the top players in Tier One finals and lead-up tournaments before the majors, only to come up short in the latter stages of major tournaments.

Other notable players not to win the US Open include Micheal Chang, Mary Pierce and Helena Sukova who played in two finals in 1986 and 1993.