https://lastwordonsports.com/tennis/2021/12/22/five-crazy-wta-moments-2021/
Five Crazy WTA Moments in 2021
Pete Sampras – The Right Hander who Played like a Left Hander
The quarterfinal match against Ukraine’s Elina Svitolina caught my eye. However, not for reasons I imagined. Fernandez’s running crosscourt forehand in particular left me thinking, the shot reminds me of another player. Then it dawned, Leylah Fernandez’s crosscourt forehand reminded me of Pete Sampras’ crosscourt forehand!
Crossroads for Stefanos Tsitsipas
It has been a strange week for Stefanos Tsitsipas at the US Open.
In three rounds of tennis, Tsitsipas played two five-set blockbusters lasting over four hours each, sandwiched by a four setter. The way those matches played out and ultimate defeat to Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz leaves Tsitsipas at an undoubted crossroads.
Read on....https://lastwordonsports.com/tennis/2021/09/05/crossroads-for-stefanos-tsitsipas/
Flashback to 1999 US Open Final
This was a momentous weekend in the history of women’s tennis.
19 year old Canadian Leylah Fernandez played 18 year old Brit Emma Raducanu for the US Open championship match. Raducanu is the first qualifier to win a major title in the history of the sport, without dropping a set. Meanwhile Fernandez defeated defending champion Naomi Osaka, 2016 champion Angelique Kerber, 2019 semifinalist Elina Svitolina and world number 2 Irina Sabalenka en route to the final. It was a high quality match and inspires me to take a look at the last teenage final in the US Open championships.
That final in 1999 between Serena Williams and Martina Hingis took place in vastly different circumstances. This was an era where it was almost normal for teenagers to win major titles and dominate the sport. In fact, 18 year old Hingis had been number 1 in the world since 1997! with five major titles under her belt. 17 year old Serena Williams was seen as the next big player coming through. Father Richard Williams proclaimed years before Serena would be a better player than older sister Venus. Which I am sure would have grated with Venus who was more established in 1999.
Coming into the US Open, number 1 seed Hingis won the Australian Open and reached the final of the French Open. Number 7 seed Serena Williams played a great final in Indian Wells against Steffi Graf earlier that year, their second meeting in 1999. In the semifinals Hingis took out Venus Williams in three sets, whilst Serena beat defending champion Lindsay Davenport, also in three. As you can see, the top players made the latter stages.
Hingis went into the final as favourite, although Serena was a very dangerous opponent. I distinctly recall the headline in a broadsheet newspaper here in Britain on finals weekend. It read “Hingis set for a double dose of the Williams Sisters”. A crude headline indeed but indicative of the pre political correctness era that was the 1990s.
The match started off with Serena holding serve relatively comfortably. From the first service game, it was clear the Serena serve would be a significant factor. Hingis got broken immediately, her serve tame in comparison to Serena’s. Serena returned Hingis’ serve with relative ease and ran to a quick 4-1 lead having saved two break points of her own.
However, Hingis was world number 1 for a reason, she was not going away and broke back to get to 4-3 and get back on serve. Unfortunately for Hingis, her serve was just too attackable, and Serena broke again to take a 5-3 lead. This allowed Serena to take the set 6-3 set but not without a bit of drama along the way, coming from 15-40 down to get the job done.
As the second set commenced, Hingis was determined to raise her level. Serena was playing a slightly riskier game, going for her shots but making unforced errors as a result. This was the new brand of tennis, where winners outweighed unforced errors was the strategy to adopt.
The jeopardy then rose suddenly, as Serena broke for a 3-2 lead in the second set. Hingis broke back immediately for 3-3 but was not enough as Serena broke again and then held for a 5-3 lead. Hingis held her serve, leaving Serena to serve for the championship and the biggest title of her career. Interestingly, the moment got to Serena and she was unable to serve out. Inexperience played its part despite Serena already having one of the best serves on the WTA tour.
Hingis gratefully received the gift and raised her level again, trying to get the backhand down the line as often as possible to stretch Serena. While this was happening, Serena’s tennis was getting more and more ragged, all of a sudden looking more like a 17 year old rookie than grand slam contender. Hingis got herself to 6-5 guaranteeing a tiebreak. Serena joined eventually, after a very long game involving a number of deuces and set points for Hingis. The Player Boxes were also decidedly tense; Hingis’ mother Melanie Molitor took off her hat she had been wearing earlier. Whilst Oracene Price and Richard Williams didn’t know where to look.
In the tiebreak, Serena reasserted herself to rip into Hingis’ tame second serves. It reminds of Eurosport commentator Frew McMillan when he said the player with the better serve usually wins the tiebreak. That proved to be the case, Hingis’ serve was too attackable and Serena obliged. Despite some high quality rallies, Hingis was on the backfoot, and eventually lost an entertaining tiebreak 7 points to 4.
The victory celebrations were wonderful, as if Serena knew the significance of her achievement in the moment. And this final had profound implications. Serena was the first black female player to win the US Open since Althea Gibson won the championships in the late 1950s. In years to come, Serena would also claim the open era grand slam record from Steffi Graf. Moreover, Serena and Venus would inspire a new generation of black and minority players to challenge for major honours. Including 2017 US Open champion Sloane Stephens and Japanese star Naomi Osaka.
Martina Hingis’ fortunes would go in a different direction. Hingis never won another major title and would initially retire in 2003 with a foot problem. Hingis attempted to sue Sergio Tacchini for the footwear she claimed was giving her problems but her pride was hurt more than her feet. Her game was no longer able to challenge Serena, Venus Williams, Davenport, Capriati and upcoming players like Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters. The top players of the 2000s era needed a good serve to compete, not just a smart game. Hingis didn’t work on her serve growing up and suffered when she should have been coming into her prime.
Official statistics of the final are hard to come by. However, the US Open YouTube channel have made the match available for people to enjoy.
Daniil Medvedev, The Unorthodox All Court Player
Daniil Medvedev is a player on the rise, a member of the “next gen”, Daniil won his biggest tournament to date at the season ending World Tour finals in London, defeating Dominic Thiem in an entertaining three set match.
Daniil showed resilience in coming from a set down to win convincingly, taking advantage of Thiem’s mental and physical tiredness in the third set. Daniil also got revenge on Thiem, who defeated him in straight sets in the US Open semi-final earlier this autumn. Daniil also became the first player to defeat the top 3 seeds to win an event on the ATP tour and should be congratulated for that achievement. Daniil has an unorthodox and intriguing game style which is definitely worth looking at in some depth.
Daniil’s Serve
Daniil is the latest in a long line of very tall professional tennis players. Since the start of the 1990s, players 6 ft 4 plus (1 metre 95) include Todd Martin, Michael Stich, Mark Rosset, Alexander Popp, Mark Philippoussis, Richard Krajicek, Marat Safin, Goran Ivanisevic, Magnus Larsson, Ivo Karlovic, Max Myrni, Greg Rusedski, Juan Martin Del Potro, Milos Raonic, Sam Querrey and John Isner. These guys have one thing in common, they serve hard and serve very well! Daniil comes into this category. Other players from this generation who are very tall and serve big include Alexander Zverev, Nick Kyrgios and Taylor Fritz.
Being that tall gives advantages over shorter players when it comes to placing the ball in the corners and Daniil is able to take advantage of this. Daniil is a throwback, he has a fairly simple service motion with not much knee bend, however is able to produce a top speed of upwards of 220kph (135 mph) and regularly produce first serves between 170 kph to 210 kph (110 to 130mph) consistently.
Daniil initially places his racquet at a perpendicular angle, giving the impression he will serve with a backhand grip; however, I get the impression he uses a continental grip. Daniil also brings the racquet down first in his service motion as he tosses the ball up, which is a classic way of serving and not typical of the more modern players who open up their bodies more, use more knee bend and have the racquet up as they toss the ball. Daniil uses a motion which is a relaxed and technically should not break down under pressure. That includes Daniil’s second serve delivery which he can use as a weapon to get cheap points or with a lot of spin to set up his next shot. Daniil tends to win about 74% of his first serves throughout the year, and 52% of his second serves. In my opinion, 74% is fine although Daniil can look to raise that to above 75% to become a champion at grand slam level. 52% of points won on Daniil's second serve is not bad, but again, he should be looking at 55 to 60%. How Daniil achieves this will be a task he needs to discuss with his coach; working out strategy and shot selection after certain serve patterns.
The serve I like most by Daniil is the slice serve on the ad court to the forehand. In my opinion, this is an underused serve in the modern game, and the returner is simply not challenged as much as he should be. Daniil is able to serve the ball away from the returner’s forehand on the ad court at pace (192kph plus). Currently, too many players angle the ball into the returner’s forehand, making them look good. The technique of using slice to move the ball away from the forehand is a throwback serve, a serve that elevated Pete Sampras and Serena Williams to a different level, it is nice to see Medvedev use this method as opposed to standing further from the centre line and being forced to use sidespin as a result. Technically, definitely a throwback.
Daniil’s Return of Serve
Daniill has one of the best return of serves on the ATP tour at this moment in time. On average Daniil converts 40% of break points which is incredibly high and very impressive. If Daniil can raise his first serve points won up to 80% that would propel him to number 1 in the world. Daniil uses quite a few different strategies throughout the course of his matches, making him a little unpredictable. Daniil treats tennis like a game of chess, making moves on his opponents when they least expect it, including taking the ball early and approaching the net, or standing as far back as possible near the backboard. That is a very modern method and Daniil can be vulnerable to the player who can serve into the corners and take the net away. Ironically, Daniil used that tactic in the world tour final against Thiem with serve volley plays as Thiem was often standing near the backboard to return serve.
Daniil’s two hand backhand is reliable, and like Todd Martin back in the 1990s, can use his height at 6 ft 6 to really lean on the ball and punish it, it is difficult to hit consistent kick serves on a guy as tall as Daniil, the body serve would be more effective. Daniil uses an extreme grip on the forehand so should have more trouble there, it is often a trade off that players who use the extreme western forehand grip will have more issues there on the return.
Even though Daniil has great stats on the return of serve, we have yet to really see him on grass and clay on a consistent basis. Like so many modern players, Daniil’s game is built for hardcourts where the bounce is even and it is always possible to look good. As of now Daniil’s stats on clay do not look too clever and the natural surfaces require more out of you. Daniil has a thinking man’s game so I don’t see why he can’t win titles on clay as long as he works on it. Grass will be interesting because of his forehand grip but let’s see how his career develops.
Daniil’s Forehand
This is the shot which I find interesting in Daniil’s game. Daniil is not the first top level player to use an extreme forehand grip. My mind goes back to Alberto Berasategui who reached the 1994 French Open final. Amelie Mauresmo came through in the late 1990s and despite her extreme western forehand, became one of the great grass court players of her generation.
Therefore, having an extreme western grip doesn’t condemn you to obscurity, but it does make life more difficult! However, clearly this is the path Daniil has chosen at a young age and he has to stick with it for his career. During the world tour finals in London, commentator and ex British number 1 Tim Henman consistently said that Daniil hits the forehand “flat” and much lower over the net than most of his contemporaries. This is true, although personally I don’t like to use the word “flat” but it is fair to say Daniil hits on average with less loop on the forehand side. Which is slightly surprising because players associated with an extreme western forehand grip tend to hit with more spin and higher net clearance, again showing what an unorthodox player Daniil is. In Daniil’s case, the phrase “flattening it out” to hit winners doesn’t apply to him because he takes that approach at all times and is trying to hit as many winners as possible, I would not call Daniil’s forehand a typical rallying shot, he generates tremendous pace and likes to use the inside out forehand to force his opponent back and close the net, a tactic I love to see which has been completely underused in men’s tennis over the last twenty years, primarily because a lot of male players have become risk averse and play too safe, prepared to hit 30 shot rallies instead of forcing the initiative. Daniil does not take that approach which in many ways makes him a throwback type of player.
Daniil does not have the nicest looking forehand we have ever seen and you worry that technique could cause an injury somewhere down the line but it works for him. It will be more difficult to return serves with that grip on grass as the ball skids more, though grass bounces higher than in the past it is still a natural surface, does not bounce evenly like hardcourts and requires more adjustments. Clay requires more topspin so consistent low net clearance will definitely be an issue, especially when it comes to defending your position behind the baseline. This might explain why we have yet to hear Daniil explode on clay or grass, all of his nine titles have come on hardcourts so far.
We can see Daniil’s forehand here.
Daniil’s backhand
If Daniil’s forehand takes getting used to from a visual standpoint, Daniil’s backhand is a very nice-looking shot and also very effective.
Daniil has what I would call a classic two hand backhand. Due to his height, he tends to hit with the closed stance as opposed to the semi open stance many players adopt, especially when forced out wide. In Daniil’s case, he steps into the shot a lot more, hence the closed stance, planting the right foot forward and turning his shoulder into the shot. American commentators like Leif Shiras call that approach “leaning on the ball”, meaning Daniil can really use that to hurt his opponent. The key is to step into the shot for that to be effective. Also, at 6 ft 6, the high ball shouldn’t trouble Daniil as much as it might do other players with either a one hander or two hander, many two handers also struggle with the ball up high.
As with Daniil’s forehand, his backhands are hit quite low over the net. Again, this is a little surprising and quite a risky play but it is Daniil’s game so he has to make the best of it. Keeping the ball low can rush the opponent, however it can be risky and lead to more errors. From what I can see so far in Daniil’s career, despite the low net clearance, Daniil’s backhand in the rally is a safe shot, which is quite impressive.
Due to the fact Daniil’s game is so hardcourt centric, we have yet to really see him consistently on the natural surfaces to make a long-term assessment on his backhand. On indoor hardcourt at the World Tour final against Thiem, Medvedev used the slice backhand a lot, playing Thiem at his own game. Thiem was using the slice backhand to stay in the point, as opposed to using it to get a good position at the net, therefore Thiem’s strategy was not really effective. If you are going to hit lots of slices, you need to do something with it. Daniil was happy to trade slices to avoid having to hit up. This demonstrates again that Daniil is prepared to play any strategy that helps him to win a tennis match and not do the same thing over and over again, like so many modern tennis players who lack variety.
Daniil’s volleys
In many ways, this might be the most impressive aspect of Daniil’s game at last week’s World Tour Finals. It was impressive, however not for the reasons one would think. I will elaborate.
As far as I can see, like so many players, Daniil does not have the best technique on the volley, it is perhaps above average but by no means top notch in terms of technical aspects. However, that is immaterial if it gets the job done and what is most impressive is how often Daniil is willing to go to net throughout the course of his matches.
A player that I can think of from past decades would be Jimmy Connors. Connors was a specialist baseliner who along with Bjorn Borg and Chris Evert helped to change the game in the 1970s. Even though Connors was a baseliner, he went to net more in the course of his matches than many specialist serve volleyers. Daniil is very similar. In the World Tour final against Thiem, in three sets Daniil went to net 37 times and won 28 points, which is an excellent conversion rate. In contrast Thiem went to net 21 times and won 14 points. That indicates Daniil was the one trying to dictate play. The usual convention is the one hander will have more options in terms of the slice backhand and backhand volley but Thiem stands too far back to make that possible on a consistent basis. Daniil on return of serve would take the ball early and come to net to finish points, good old-fashioned hustle play which is nice to see.
Daniil can improve his volleys further by making sure his arm is always out in front and takes the ball early with slice, he is getting there. Daniil also hit some impressive low volleys for such a tall player which shows he is flexible and has good movement.
Daniil’s Movement
Daniil has excellent movement for a player 1 metre 98 (6 ft 6) tall. Daniil is lean and doesn’t carry any excess weight which helps his movement. It is true to say in the past, very tall tennis players didn’t move around the court as well but that trend may be shifting slightly with Daniil who is good at coming forward. Daniil has to be careful about getting backed up too far behind the baseline which will not help his overall mission to win hundreds of tennis matches throughout his career. The only other players who were 6 ft 5 plus and moved extremely well along the baseline were Marat Safin and Richard Kraijeck. Krajicek was a serve volley specialist but moved very well in the baseline rallies. Del Potro is a great player but doesn’t move quite as well as Daniil. Daniil has the advantage on other tall players Alexander Zverev and Taylor Fritz.
Daniil has the opportunity in the next two to three years to make a name for himself and win a major title and fulfil the promise of the “next gen” crop There will be a scramble to see which player age 25 and under will be the first to do it. Daniil has as good a chance as any and has an interesting game, doing things on the court other players don’t or can’t. Daniil’s task is to turn elevate himself from an all court player specialising on hardcourts, to an all surface player, that’s where he can become a household name.
A Detailed Look at Tennis' "Next Gen"
This year’s US Open final between Alexander (Sasha) Zverev and Dominic Thiem would usually be the final major tournament of 2020. Despite the strange situation of one more major tournament to be played at the French Open due to coronavirus, it does not stop us from assessing how the “next gen” performed at the US Open in the absence of Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and the unfortunate disqualification of Novak Djokovic during the tournament.
This gave the US Open an impetus and sense of urgency we have not seen at a major tournament for years, probably since 2001 Wimbledon when Federer knocked Pete Sampras out of Wimbledon and all of the remaining players suddenly realised it was their big opportunity.
So, how did the “next gen” do at the US Open and what are the implications for the future of men’s tennis going forward? What we saw was a mixed bag of performances by the stars of tomorrow which left more questions than answers, and that includes the final itself.
22-year-old Stefanos Tsitsipas was the first casualty losing to Borna Coric in the third round. Tsitsipas had the match under complete control with a two sets to one lead and a handy 5-1 lead in the fourth set; but from there it went horribly wrong as he contrived to blow six match points losing the fourth set 7:5, not even taking it to a tiebreak. If that wasn’t bad enough, Tsitsipas took an early break in the fifth set only to be broken back and eventually losing the fifth set tiebreak. The sort of defeat that can have a long-term psychological impact, Tsitsipas will have to be mentally strong and will need a lot of external help to recover from that one. Ironically, this defeat occurred before Djokovic’s bizarre disqualification for hitting a line judge with a tennis ball, therefore we cannot even put it down to over eagerness turning to anxiety.
The next “next gen” player to succumb was 22-year-old American Taylor Fritz, who lost to fellow “next gen” Denis Shapovalov of Canada in a third round five set battle. Fritz held a two sets to one lead but was unable to see it through, with Shapovalov coming through strongly to take the fifth set 6-2.
Shapovalov (also 22 years old) used his win to propel him to the quarterfinals. Unfortunately, after three tough matches in a row, Shapovalov ran out of gas in his defeat to Pablo Carreño Busta, the player who benefited from Djokovic’s misfortune. Shapovalov did have a good four set win over David Goffin in round four but lost the quarterfinal in five sets. However, this was progress made for Denis as this was the furthest he has been in a grand slam tournament thus far.
Another 22-year-old American, Francis Tiafoe also had a reasonable tournament, getting to the fourth round but went down limply 4-6 1-6 0-6 to Russian Daniil Medvedev.
That left in the draw, the oldest of the next gen crop in German Alexander (Sascha) Zverev at age 23 and Daniil Medvedev age 24. Zverev did have a roller coaster route to the semi-final, his second at grand slam level and his match against Carreño Busta followed the pattern of his previous matches, this time going two sets down in just over an hour and looking completely out of it. Sascha then proceeded to make a comeback and take it in five sets in what can only be described as a capitulation by Carreño Busta. Looking at the stats, each participant won only 41% of the points on their second serve, which shows how both guys struggled to get a grip on their opponent.
The second semi-final saw last year’s finalist Daniil Medvedev lose to Austrian Dominic Thiem in three sets, two of those being in tiebreaks. In fact, Medvedev served for the second and third sets but still lost in straight sets…. One of the commentators on US Open Radio described Medvedev’s game beautifully when he said “Medvedev is the club player no one wants to play!” It is kind of astonishing for an elite player who is clearly talented to be likened to a club player, but it is unique to watch a man 1metre 98 tall (6 ft 6 inches) stand virtually on the backboard to rally and hit a lot of junk balls throughout the course of his matches.
Meanwhile Dominic Thiem at the age of 27 just about misses the “next gen” tag but too young to be lumbered with the rather patronising “lost gen” tag of players between 29 and 31 who have underachieved in their careers. Thiem has been seen as the natural successor to Nadal, having lost two French Open finals to him but has now played two hardcourt finals in a row. Thiem also lost to Djokovic at this year’s Australian Open, so was desperate not to lose a fourth final, especially going into the championship match as favourite.
This may explain why Thiem started the match horribly, looking completely out of sorts and not getting the ball in play consistently. Zverev picked up on this and started well, attacking the net as often as possible and hit some very big serves over 220kph (135mph). However, even though Zverev rushed to a two sets lead, he was still displaying signs of wilting under the pressure, perhaps Thiem sensed this and staged his own comeback, claiming the next two sets and taking it to a fifth. If Zverev was showing some nerves, Thiem’s tactics were bizarre, standing to receive both first and second serves virtually at the backboard, something I never thought I would see in a grand slam final, especially considering many of Zverev’s second serves were barely 120kph (75mph).
Zverev went up a break in the fifth set and got broken back, then broke again to serve for the championship at 5-3, where he played a terrible game and two games later Thiem found himself serving for the championship! Needless to say, Thiem got broken to love and we went into the first ever fifth set tiebreak in a US Open final. The tiebreak encapsulated the final with both players suffering mentally and it showed in the tennis which was dire. On Thiem’s first match point, Zverev put in a serve of 68mph, I repeat, 68mph and won the point! Thiem got a second match point and took it, to the relief of not only himself but the millions watching on television and listening on radio, because it was torture!
We saw an emotional presentation ceremony by both guys, particularly Zverev who took the defeat hard and knew he threw away a great opportunity. Meanwhile, Thiem became the first man since Pancho Gonzales in 1949 to come from two sets down to win the US Open. Thiem incredibly is the first player born in the 1990s to win a major tournament.
What does the US Open tell us about the direction of men’s tennis? I think there are some implications which need to be discussed and addressed.
First of all, let’s look at the stats of the final. Zverev won 70% of his first serves, and Thiem 68%, which is unusually low for elite level players. Zverev also hit 15 double faults and appeared to have no game plan or strategy throughout the final because many second serves were going in at 120 kph (75mph) then out of the blue would serve second serves at 208kph (129mph) which is irrational and not expected. It could work as a strategy if you put more slice and spin on the ball to control that pace, as opposed to banging them in and hope for the best. However, Thiem cannot be exonerated either, a more consistent and switched on player would not have allowed Thiem to return serve near the backboard and get away with it on a medium paced hardcourt.
The “lost gen” as they have been dubbed put up a very poor showing at the US Open. Milos Raonic was touted to have a very good tournament but disappeared early to another Canadian Vasek Pospisil. Grigor Dimitrov lost in the second round to Márton Fucsovics and David Goffin fell to Shapovalov.
Looking at the way so many younger elite players appear unable to control the tempo of five set matches leaves me to wonder whether the taking away of five set finals at ATP level is having an impact on the current and future generation? In the past, most champions bar a very few exceptions won five set finals at Masters level before winning their first major, they were a good training ground in some of the biggest stadiums, such as Indian Wells, Miami and the Italian Open. I wrote an article about this in 2015 pointing out the issues this could cause in future. https://www.laurietennisarticles.net/2015/05/best-of-five-set-masters-finals-lets.html
A new development I have noticed is the coaching of some next gen players by their fathers, something more associated with the WTA tour over the decades. The debate has often been when should a player cut ties with their parent(s) as their coach as it can cause emotional issues and dramas, we saw that many times. In the men’s game it has been rarer, the best players usually take on elite level coaches or recently retired players early in their careers. I speculate but I wonder how Tsitsipas and Zverev in particular have adapted at the highest level. Both players’ experience a lot of ups and downs from match to match, with no discernible pattern of play / strategy. And at grand slam level, you need to be winning the early round matches quickly and efficiently to save energy for the business end, i.e. semi-finals and finals.
To transition to champions, both players will have to become much more consistent in their game plan and mentality. Zverev has brought in David Ferrer and tried unsuccessfully to recruit Ivan Lendl long term but his father perhaps has too much influence. A comparable scenario is Caroline Wozniacki where her father Piotr would call all of the shots even when they brought in coaches. Tsitsipas works with the Mouratoglou academy but has not really worked with a top ex player from week to week.
Stan Wawrinka’s talent came out when he hired ex top five player Magnus Norman, giving him the belief he could to challenge and beat the best players. And despite the poor-quality final, Nicolas Massu has clearly been a great addition to Thiem’s camp over the past eighteen months, consistently challenging at grand slam level on different surfaces.
As tennis fans, we want to see the “next gen” step it up and improve further over the next eighteen months. One of these guys will break out to win a major soon but the time is now to make a statement and show they can win a major when Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are in the draw. Coronavirus permitting, the next eighteen months should be interesting.
2000 to 2009: Women’s Tennis’ Greatest Decade
The 2000s was
the most competitive decade for women’s tennis. An era where a number of
talented players came through together, culminating in a plethora of serious
rivalries; similar to the 1980s men’s tour when Lendl, McEnroe, Connors,
Edberg, Becker and Wilander all fought it out for top spot and major titles.
Let’s take a look at the great players and the legacy they have left, in the order of the players with the most weeks at number 1 throughout the decade.
NB: For the purpose of this article, I
will refer to legacy Tier 1, Primary Mandatory and Primary 5 as Tier 1 titles.
Justine Henin
Justine Henin is the first player to feature, the premiere player in the mid-2000s, Justine spent a total of 117 weeks as number 1 in the world. Once described as “the female Federer” by John McEnroe, Justine won seven major titles including four French Opens, two US Opens and one the Australian Open in 2004. Justine never won Wimbledon but made two finals, losing to Venus Williams in 2001 and Amelie Mauresmo in 2006.
Justine won ten Tier 1 titles in her career and two WTA championships in 2006 and 2007 in Madrid. I attended the 2007 final between Justine and Maria Sharapova and it remains the best WTA match I witnessed live. Justine won forty career titles between 2000 and 2009, forty-three overall and eighteen runners-up. Justine also won Olympic gold in Athens in 2004 defeating Amelie Mauresmo in the final. Taking her whole career into account, Justine amassed 525 wins and only 115 losses, a win percentage of 82%, which is incredible.
Justine was one of the shorter players at 1 metre 67 (5 ft 6 inches) and yet became a dominant player wowing everyone with her single handed backhand when she burst onto the scene. Justine was slightly built and with the guidance of coach Carlos Rodriguez developed a great work ethic and will to win to go with her undoubted talent. Justine refuted the notion that her forehand was her weaker shot, not too dissimilar to her hero Stefan Edberg, who was also considered to have a better backhand than forehand. Justine’s strengths were her movement, athleticism and ability to turn defence into attack. Justine’s weakness was perhaps a mental one, she was prone to the odd episode of gamesmanship in big matches. Or should that be “gameswomanship”.
Justine believed she over trained in the mid-2000s leading to long injury layoffs. However, in 2007 after her divorce, Justine hit her best form; shortening the points, going for even more winners and taking to the net as often as possible, classic old school tennis. I think one of Justine’s best achievements was defeating Serena Williams three quarterfinals in a row in 2007 at the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open; not an easy task.
Justine’s overtraining may have led to her to early retirement in 2008, however, the jury is still out on why she ended so suddenly whilst still number 1 in the world. Like Bjorn Borg who also quit at a young age in 1981, Justine made a comeback in 2010 but after a few months, fractured her elbow at Wimbledon and never played professional tennis again.
Martina Hingis
Martina Hingis comes in with a total of 87 weeks spent at the top. However, in reality, Martina was a non-factor for virtually the whole of this particular decade and her number 1 status was an overhang from her total domination of the tour in the late 1990s.
In fact, Martina won five major titles but they all came from 1997 to 1999. Martina made three Australian Open finals in a row from 2000 through 2002 but lost to Lindsay Davenport and twice to Jennifer Capriati. Martina did win a creditable sixteen titles including eight Tier 1 titles and also won the 2000 Masters in Madison Square Garden defeating Monica Seles in a great match (in 2000 the WTA championships was called Masters). Anyone who has watched tennis for a long time will know the authorities are forever changing the names of tournaments :-0
Overall including the 1990s, Martina won forty-three titles and a whopping eighty-six doubles titles. Martina was one of the most popular players and helped usher in the superstar era of the 2000s where for a time women’s tennis was as popular as any other sport in the world, thanks to the many rivalries which often seemed to have a touch of grudge about it. Martina knew her contemporaries were coming and, in the end, overtook her.
Martina was an intelligent and instinctive player, confounding her opponents, particularly players like Mary Pierce and Monica Seles who both struggled against her. Martina had a great backhand down the line and was technically superb at net, even if she was not very tall at 1 metre 70 (5 ft 7 inches); no doubt being a superb doubles player helped her in that department. Martina didn’t hit the ball very hard but put her opponents in awkward places with lots of angles; players like Agnieszka Radwanska would have studied Martina’s game.
However, Martina did have some weaknesses. Unlike Justine who was a similar height, Martina had no intention of hitting the gym to get stronger. Martina’s serve was not the best and proved to be very attackable against her rivals who were faster and stronger overall with better fast twitch fibres. Martina had none of these natural attributes, hence her career was going south even before she gave up in 2002 with bad ankles, which she attempted to blame on Sergio Tacchini providing poor quality sneakers.
Martina made a comeback in 2006 even winning the Italian Open but by 2007 was suspended after cocaine was found in her system during a test at the US Open. Martina protested her innocence but never played professional singles again. Martina’s demise reminds me of Mats Wilander. Mats played a very similar game to Martina and had a hard time coming to terms with the power and athleticism of players like Sampras and Becker, fading quickly after winning three slams in 1988 and being number 1 that year. Wilander also suffered with lack of motivation, injuries and tested positive for cocaine in 1995. Like Martina, Mats was also a teenage champion, winning the French Open age 17 in 1982 but burned out pretty quickly.
Martina’s burn out along with other high-profile WTA players is the reason the age eligibility rule was brought in some years ago to protect and extend players’ careers.
Serena Williams
Serena Williams incredibly is still going (fairly) strong on the WTA tour. Now a mother and elder stateswoman Serena has taken over the Martina Navratilova role, who was also a great player well into her late thirties in the 1990s.
Serena is third on this list, having spent 83 weeks as number 1 on the tour and winning thirty titles encompassing nine Tier 1 titles. Serena won nine major championships, including the “Serena Slam” from 2002 French Open to 2003 Australian Open, defeating Venus Williams every time! Serena also went on to defeat Venus in the 2003 Wimbledon final, putting paid to the nonsensical conspiracy theory by some that Richard Williams fixed the matches between the two sisters. Serena also won the year end WTA championships in 2002 and 2009 and was the natural successor to be the dominant player after Justine Henin’s sudden retirement in 2008.
Serena has the best serve of the last twenty years if not the greatest serve by a woman in tennis history. There were other great servers but Serena has been able to combine pace with spin, perhaps a Californian trait because her serve has an incredible number of similar characteristics to Pete Sampras, a player she looked up to as a youngster, including the left foot coming up and the smooth fluid motion. Serena also has a very reliable second serve with a lot of slice and kick and hits more aces than any other player I have seen in recent times.
Serena strengths encompass return of serve, a great backhand, athleticism, combined with a great will to win and competitive spirit. And let’s not forget another superb doubles player, with twenty-five career titles in doubles.
Technically I don’t think Serena has any major weaknesses at all, which is unusual for any tennis player. Serena’s problems have often stemmed from injuries at the wrong moments, and an unwanted ability to have meltdowns when the whole world is watching, especially at the US Open!
Patrick Mouratoglou, Serena’s coach since 2012 has been able to bring out the best in her game from a game plan and strategy point of view, creating an aura her opponents simply couldn’t match, improving her further from her younger 2000s version. Whilst it is fair to say Serena did most of her winning in the 2010s propelling her to a whopping 236 weeks as number 1, she was the dominant player in the early 2000s but was completely derailed by long term injuries which ruined her momentum. Without the injuries, Serena could have done in the 2000s what she did in the 2010s.
Having said that, her contemporaries did provide an overall stiffer challenge, and all of her big rivals also suffered an incredible amount of injuries, which is a theme of the 2000s.
Lindsay Davenport
Lindsay Davenport comes next on this list. Lindsay spent 76 weeks at number 1 and 98 overall, including 22 weeks as number 1 in the late 1990s.
Lindsay won only one major title in the 2000s defeating Martina Hingis in the 2000 Australian Open final in just over an hour, adding to her US Open win in 1998 and Wimbledon in 1999. Lindsay was always competitive but couldn’t quite get over the line. In 2000 Lindsay lost both the Wimbledon and US Open finals to Venus Williams. And again in 2005 Lindsay lost the Australian Open and Wimbledon finals to Serena and Venus respectively; Lindsay was well set to win both finals but somehow managed to lose them. On each occasion Serena’s and Venus’ willingness to run down every ball wore Lindsay mentally when she was probably the better player.
Lindsay won twenty-eight titles in the 2000s, fifty-five in total and played in ninety-four finals, so clearly a very elite career. Lindsay also claimed eleven Tier 1 titles during this decade and won the year end WTA championships in 2001 in Hamburg, defeating Serena in a walkover.
Lindsay’s game became a blueprint for many tall players in the 2000s and 2010s. A good strong first serve, reliable second delivery, good groundstrokes and very clean ball striking. Lindsay was also a return of serve specialist by stepping in and taking the ball early. This type of game lends itself to hardcourts and Lindsay was not so strong on clay as a result. The one difference between Lindsay and the players who followed her is Lindsay was a good volleyer and won many doubles tournaments; it seems top players who came up in the 1990s were better doubles players than the current generation. Lindsay had a world class cross court forehand, reportedly taught by Robert Lansdorp in the Palos Verde area, Robert was also famous for working with Pete Sampras, Tracy Austin and Maria Sharapova.
As far as weaknesses go, Lindsay’s problem was her relative lack of movement, Lindsay would try to take that away from her opponent by getting the first strike in as often as possible but I think her losses in grand slam finals were against players who could run faster and get to her good shots. At 1 meter 87 (6 ft 2 inches), Lindsay wasn’t a player who wanted to play defence often; now and again was fine but it wasn’t her strength. Lindsay’s will to win compared to her direct rivals was also questioned, important in an ultra-competitive era that was the 2000s.
Amelie Mauresmo
Amelie Mauresmo spent a total of 39 weeks as number 1 first in 2004 then in 2006 when she won two grand slam titles in one season at the Australian Open and Wimbledon. Amelie initially exploded on the scene in 1999, making the Australian Open final as a teenager, losing to Hingis. Overall Amelie won twenty-five titles in the 2000s out of forty-eight finals she participated in. That haul included six Tier 1 titles and a year-end championship in 2005 where she defeated Mary Pierce in the final from a set down in Los Angeles.
Amelie was a crowd favourite at Wimbledon where she had a very good record, playing in three semi-finals before eventually making the final in 2006 defeating Justine Henin to take the title. That match can be officially seen as the last ever serve and volley final, where in the third set both players serve volleyed consistently. However, on clay at her home major in Paris, Amelie was nowhere near as successful, never making it to a semi-final. The memo has been that Amelie and other French players succumb under the pressure of the French crowd. However, over the last thirty years, French players have done considerably better at Wimbledon than they have done at the French Open. Many French players play an all court game and grass is more suited to their game style than clay. You would expect it to be the other way round but my explanation would be that many young French players learn to play on faster indoor surfaces, and not slow red clay.
Along with Justine, Amelie had the best one hand backhand in the business, there wasn't much in it between the two players. Amelie possessed elite athleticism, a good serve and was the best volleyer of her generation by some margin. I saw Amelie play live at Wimbledon in 2005 and 2006 and she was a joy to watch, and a good contrast to the many baseliners she faced. On hardcourts Amelie served volleyed less but was still able to create opportunities and take to the net to finish points.
Whilst Amelie's strengths were considerable, unfortunately her weaknesses were also considerable. Amelie's biggest weakness for many years were her nerves, she was able to overcome them for a period from late 2005 through March 2007. Amelie's forehand where she used an extreme western grip was also an issue. It was said that players who use an extreme western grip on the forehand would be poor volleyers but Amelie bucked that trend. However, in rallies Amelie often dropped the ball short brushing up the back of the ball and looping it high, not stepping in and hitting through the ball. On grass Amelie could cover that side with good athleticism and attacking the net but on clay those short balls were destroyed by opponents like Lucie Safarova in the 2007 French Open.
Amelie suffered tremendous injuries especially with her back, forcing her to change her service motion. Also, in spring 2007 after winning Antwerp against Clijsters, Amelie suffered appendicitis and had her appendix removed at short notice, she was never the same player again, retiring in 2009 aged 30.
Despite one or two regrets here and there, Amelie can be satisfied with her contribution to the 2000s.
Kim Clijsters
Kim Clijsters was another popular player; every player on this list was a household name beyond just tennis fans.
Kim spent a total of 19 weeks as number 1 and won thirty-three titles in the 2000s, and forty-one overall. Out of those thirty-three titles, five were Tier 1 titles including the year end championships in in 2002 and 2003 where she defeated Serena Williams and Amelie Mauresmo in successive finals. Kim’s ascent to number 1 in 2004 was controversial as she became the first ever number 1 player who had yet to win a grand slam title. Ironically, Amelie Mauresmo also became number 1 for the first time later that year and found herself with the same criticisms directed at her.
Clijsters won the US Open in 2005 and 2009, whilst her other two grand slam wins came at the US Open in 2010 and the Australian Open in 2011. In 2005, Clijsters had a remarkable run, winning virtually every hardcourt tournament she entered in North America, starting with the Indian Wells / Miami double, Los Angeles, Canadian Open and the US Open. Unfortunately, Clijsters could not defend her title in 2006 due to a wrist injury and by mid-2007 Clijsters was retired at the young age of 24 to start a family.
Unlike Hingis and Henin who also made comebacks, Clijsters’ first comeback in 2009 was far more successful, not only winning two more slam titles but also Cincinnati and year end WTA Championships in 2010.
Kim’s strengths included her speed, power off the ground and athleticism. Kim possessed world class movement; her father Leo played full back for Belgium in the 1986 world cup. Kim’s best surface by far were hardcourts as her game involved a lot of timing. Kim was very good on clay, making two French Open finals but was in her element on hardcourts and indoor surfaces. I recall a match in the 2006 WTA championships where she destroyed Svetlana Kuznetsova in forty-five minutes.
Kim perhaps didn’t quite have the will to win as some of her opponents in her early years and lost a lot of big finals as a result. I also feel that Kim’s backhand was attackable and Amelie Mauresmo was one of the few players to exploit that. Kim dd not like high balls to her backhand, she struggled up there a lot. Fortunately for Kim, in the women’s game most players are not capable of hitting kicker serves so Kim ‘s weakness was not as exposed as much as it could have been. Mauresmo’s strategy of high topspin backhands to her backhand, then low slices forcing her to hit up really disrupted Kim’s rhythm, a tactic Sampras employed against Agassi for many years.
Kim’s legacy is a number of top European players now favour hardcourts above all other surfaces. In the 1980s and 1990s hardcourts specialists were often associated with North American players; as opposed to European players who grew up on clay or fast indoor carpet courts, Clijsters was the first true European hardcourt specialist.
Interestingly, at the age of 37, Kim is currently on her second comeback, but don’t expect any tangible success.
Maria Sharapova
Maria Sharapova exploded onto the scene in 2004 when she defeated Lindsay Davenport in the Wimbledon semi-final and stunned Serena Williams in the final. Maria went on to defeat Serena later that year in the WTA championships final in Los Angeles. Maria was 17 years old.
As the decade progressed Maria quickly established herself among the elite, being a contender at all of the big tournaments at WTA and Grand Slam level. In the 2000s, Maria won Wimbledon in 2004, the US Open in 2006 and the Australian Open in 2008. From 2003 to 2009 Maria won twenty titles including seven Tier 1 titles and spent 17 weeks as number 1. Taking her whole career, Maria won thirty-six titles with twenty-three runners-up, 21 weeks as number 1 and an excellent 645 wins to 171 losses.
Maria’s strengths included her height, like Lindsay Davenport she is 1 metre 87 (6 ft 2 inches) and had a significant advantage with the serve. Another Sampras disciple, Maria also employed the left foot pointing up before serving motion. Maria had one of the best backhands on tour; along with a great competitive spirit and will to win, prepared to stay on the court as long as it took to get the job done. Maria worked on her relative lack of movement a lot and improved considerably as time went on, with lots of little steps and always on her toes. That might explain her great improvement on clay, almost becoming a specialist on the surface.
Maria did have a few problems. Her volley technique was not the best and as her shoulder got worse, she was not capable of hitting an overhead of any description, letting the ball drop to hit drive volleys instead. Maria missed a lot of tennis due to shoulder problems and her serve turned from one of the best in the business to a double fault liability which was a pity. Moreover, Maria’s biggest issue was certainly Serena Williams! After winning their first two meetings, Maria never beat Serena again, as if Serena made it a mission to ensure Maria would never beat her, twenty meetings including finals in Australia and French Open.
Maria will be remembered for failing a drugs test in 2016 and handed a worldwide ban. Maria protested her innocence but you have to question why an athlete would take medlonium ad infinitum for ten years, not paying attention when the drug was added to the banned list in 2015. Ban or not, it can never be good to take something continuously as there could always be potential side effects.
Now officially retired, let’s remember what a great player Maria was in the 2000s and 2010s.
Jennifer Capriati
Statistics wise, Jennifer Capriati is by far the least successful player on this list but between 2001 and 2004 was such a contender she has to be included.
Jennifer won six tournaments between 2000 and 2004 and three of those were grand slam tournaments!! The rest of Jennifer’s fourteen titles came in the 1990s when she was a teenage phenomenon who went badly off the rails due to depression and too much expectation. It was great to see Jennifer come back strong at the start of the millennium, winning the Australian Open and French Open in 2001 defeating Clijsters in a three-set marathon; and also made the semi-finals of Wimbledon and the US Open later that year. Jennifer repeated her Australian Open win in 2002 beating Hingis for a second straight year in a crazy match. Jennifer spent 17 weeks as number 1 in 2001.
Jennifer won one Tier 1 title but repeatedly lost big finals during this period; however, she kept putting herself in the position to have a crack at the championship match. Looking briefly at the 1990s, Jennifer won the Canadian Open in 1991 and Olympic gold in 1992 where she beat Steffi Graf.
Jennifer’s strengths were her baseline game with solid groundstrokes and backhand. Jennifer had very good movement and when stretched out wide on the forehand, got good purchase on her cross-court shots. One of Jennifer’s best achievements was her rivalry with Serena Williams, Jennifer was one of the few players who could legitimately say she stood toe to toe with Serena, was not intimidated and beat Serena on multiple occasions, including the 2001 French Open and Wimbledon quarterfinals, then in the 2004 French Open and US Open quarterfinals. They played seventeen times with a ten to seven lead in Serena’s favour, much closer than anyone else who played Serena other than Henin and Hingis.
Jennifer’s’ main weakness was probably her serve, she had the Elena Dementieva problem of tossing the ball too far to the right and hitting round the ball, making her serve a liability, for instance, Jennifer served for the US Open final twice against Dementieva in 2004 and still lost. Jennifer worked hard to put herself in winning positions but once she got there would play passively, not closing the net to put the pressure on her opponents and finish vital points. It was frustrating to watch Jennifer get short mid court balls she could crush but run back to the baseline to keep the rally going then losing it. That lack of conviction resulted in her getting rattled often, taking out her frustration on officials for perceived wrong calls, Jennifer just didn’t take destiny in her own hands at the US Open in particular.
Like every other player here, Jennifer had serious injuries, in fact so serious her career was cruelly cut short by the end of 2004 at the age of just 28.
Venus Williams
Venus rounds off this list of champions. On the face of it, it seems a little surprising such a great player would be last to be featured but there is a reason for that which we will come to shortly.
Venus has had a stellar career and is still playing at the age of 40, following in the footsteps of Americans like Jimmy Connors and Pancho Gonzales. Venus has incredible numbers, seven grand slam titles in the 2000s including five Wimbledon and two US Open titles. Venus has also played in all of the major finals, including the 2002 French Open and 2003 Australian Open final where she lost both to Serena. Venus also won Olympic gold in 2000 and the WTA championships in 2008, defeating Vera Zvonareva in three sets. Venus won twenty-one titles in the 2000s including three Tier 1 titles out of a total of forty-nine titles won since the late 1990s and counting.
Venus’ strengths include a world class first serve and tremendous athleticism for a player 1 metre 85 (6ft 1 inches). Venus might be the fastest player in this list and there are some fast players here, a great will to win allied with tremendous defence. Venus’ serve is technically not the best, but she created a lot of pace, regularly getting up to speeds of 192kph (120 mph) and occasionally up to 210kph (130 mph). Venus also has one of the best backhands in the business and is very good at coming to the net off good approaches to finish points.
Venus has a great first serve but her second serve has been a liability, where she is prone to double faulting. Mainly due to the fact that Venus’ body position is not in a good spot to hit technically proficient second serves consistently. This issue possibly prevented Venus winning a lot more in her career; as the saying goes you are only as good as your second serve. Venus’ forehand could also be attackable with a few technical glitches on that shot. Therefore, a great player but by no means perfect.
So, how come Venus rounds out this list of stars? Venus spent the least number of weeks as number 1 in the world. A grand total of eleven weeks in 2001 which for a player of her ability is not a lot. I liken Venus to Boris Becker in the 1980s and 1990s. Becker is seen as one of the greats and one of Wimbledon’s finest players appearing in seven finals. Becker also won forty-nine titles and is one of the greatest indoor players and a multiple Davis Cup Winner. However, despite all of these achievements, Becker spent only thirteen weeks as number in his entire career, which happened in 1991. Venus comes into this category where it is hard to believe someone who is seen as a pioneer in changing the way the game is played could spend so little time as number 1.
Honourable Mentions
Svetlana Kuznetsova
Svetlana won two majors in the 2000s, the US Open as a teenager in 2004 and the French Open in 2009. Svetlana’s highest ranking was 2 in 2007.
Mary Pierce
Mary won the Australian Open in 1995 and French Open in 2000 plus in 2005 had an Indian summer, getting to the final of the French Open, US Open, Federation Cup and WTA Championships, unfortunately losing all of them….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Featured post
Is Stefanos Tsitsipas in the Last Chance Saloon?
Stefanos Tsitsipas recently announced he will work with “supercoach” Goran Ivanisevic during the upcoming grass court season. Now, on the fa...
-
2024 was a year of flux and transition on the WTA Tour. A year which saw Ayrna Sabalenka finish number 1 over Iga Swiatek. The WTA Final... -
Recently I took a look at the current Top 10 players in the ATP rankings. I was asked to research Alex De Minaur and provide a technical sum... -
Carlos Alcaraz has won two grand slam titles and is ranked number 2 in the world. Any player would be happy with that but Alcaraz is ...