Martina Hingis at her best, was truly an aggressive baseliner. I believe this was her comfort zone. Her aggression was in taking control of the point by taking the ball early, hitting with great placement and depth, and having a wide variety of shots to select from. I truly believe she ran into trouble when she was forced out of this aggressive stance by speedy power players who became more consistent, or by power players who became more fit. For example, early Venus was prone to errors, so if Martina could extend rallies, she would often win the match. From 1997-99 Hingis won 9 of their 14 matches. Whereas by 2000, Venus was far more consistent and therefore winning more matches against Hingis. After 2000 Venus won 5 of 7. On the flip side, From 96-97 Hingis won 5 out of 6 matches.against Davenport. This was often because, as she would against most slower players, she would simply out maneuver them or tire them out. After Davenport began to commit more to fitness, she began to dominate Hingis off the ground due to better positioning and would win 11 of their last 17 matches.
early in her career, if Hingis was pulled wide in a rally she'd aggressively strike back, with either a big shot down the line or a daring drop shot (especially on the backhand side). And she'd make it more than she'd miss. As the game became more physical Hingis found it harder to use those same strategies and became more passive, and just tried to extend the rally and wait for an error.
a lot changed in those 4 years. Capriati became fitter, the overall level of power and athleticism on the women's tour increased, while Hingis was very lethargic and tentative in the 2001 final. At her best, Hingis attacked the points and hit daring shots, she didn't just rally. But from 1999 onwards she started more passively and by mid 2001 onwards, Hingis was started playing powder puff tennis and had no chance against the powerful hitters. That said, even in this 1997 match there were moments when Capriati clearly overpowered Hingis
Capriati didn't improve much but Hingis was declined from the beginning of 2000. There was a transitional period in women's tennis at that time of post Graf & pre Serena era in which Capriati benefitted tremendously. Venus was suck on slower surface like in A.O & F.O. Infact Capriati had more success & consistency in 90's but Seles & Graf was there. Graf was her true nemesis. Without her she might even won a slam in 90's.
@@rajusaha855 no, Capriati improved a lot.. not only was she fitter but she was able to hit the ball harder and more consistently for longer rallies. If you saw her 2001 French Open finals marathon against Kim Clijsters , they would be trading bullets 30+ shots per point. The 90’s Capriati would not have been able to do that. At best she would show flashes of greatness but wouldn’t be able to do it on a consistent basis. She also didn’t just lose to Seles or Graf. She also had some uncharacteristic losses to lower ranked players like Amanda Coetzer. She really improved her fitness, and with that her confidence and belief in herself. Her groundstokes were always text book perfect and she’s always had good eye hand coordination and natural brute strength but they became more lethal when she had to adjust her grip to be more extreme on both sides, allowing her to hit the ball harder but with more margin for error.
@@quiddynope she was not improved. Apart from 3 slams she hardly won any big titles. In 2001 Capriati barely winning the F.O over first time finalist Clijsters by 12-10 & then Hingis choke away 4 match point in 2002 A.O. So even against past prime Hingis & newcomer Clijsters, Capriati struggled heavily. The main reason of her success that there was no GOAT level of players like Graf (who was Capriati nemesis) & peak Seles on the tour .The WTA tour had depth at that time (I agree) but didn't have a consistent champions. Hingis never recovered after her 1999 F.O debacle, Seles was past her prime, Davenport was good but sucks on slower surface same as Venus & Serena yet to reached her peak. Once Serena reached her peak then Capriati stop winning slams. For me Capriati take the huge advantage of the void being left post Graf era & pre Serena era. Infact it terms of her consistency & her result she was best in 90's. At one stage from 1991-93 she reached QF or better in 8 of 10 slams during the height of Graf/Seles era. That was impressive. Without Graf or Seles she might won a slam then & people would said that was Capriati 's peak because in tennis we judge everything solely on slams without looking at circumstances & quality of opponent.
@@rajusaha855 her best results were not 90-93. She lost in the first round of the US open. Nope. 2001 -2004 were her best results. She won 3 grand slams during the time when Lindsay, Serena, and Hingis, Seles, and Mauresmo were around.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Martina Hingis at her best, was truly an aggressive baseliner. I believe this was her comfort zone. Her aggression was in taking control of the point by taking the ball early, hitting with great placement and depth, and having a wide variety of shots to select from. I truly believe she ran into trouble when she was forced out of this aggressive stance by speedy power players who became more consistent, or by power players who became more fit. For example, early Venus was prone to errors, so if Martina could extend rallies, she would often win the match. From 1997-99 Hingis won 9 of their 14 matches. Whereas by 2000, Venus was far more consistent and therefore winning more matches against Hingis. After 2000 Venus won 5 of 7. On the flip side, From 96-97 Hingis won 5 out of 6 matches.against Davenport. This was often because, as she would against most slower players, she would simply out maneuver them or tire them out. After Davenport began to commit more to fitness, she began to dominate Hingis off the ground due to better positioning and would win 11 of their last 17 matches.
early in her career, if Hingis was pulled wide in a rally she'd aggressively strike back, with either a big shot down the line or a daring drop shot (especially on the backhand side). And she'd make it more than she'd miss. As the game became more physical Hingis found it harder to use those same strategies and became more passive, and just tried to extend the rally and wait for an error.
Thank you!! Love the commentary and quality! 🤩 you’re the best 💚
Hingis at this time she was invisible but at the 2001 Aussie got trashed by Jennifer capriati she was in the best shape of her life and very confident
a lot changed in those 4 years. Capriati became fitter, the overall level of power and athleticism on the women's tour increased, while Hingis was very lethargic and tentative in the 2001 final. At her best, Hingis attacked the points and hit daring shots, she didn't just rally. But from 1999 onwards she started more passively and by mid 2001 onwards, Hingis was started playing powder puff tennis and had no chance against the powerful hitters. That said, even in this 1997 match there were moments when Capriati clearly overpowered Hingis
Capriati didn't improve much but Hingis was declined from the beginning of 2000. There was a transitional period in women's tennis at that time of post Graf & pre Serena era in which Capriati benefitted tremendously. Venus was suck on slower surface like in A.O & F.O. Infact Capriati had more success & consistency in 90's but Seles & Graf was there. Graf was her true nemesis. Without her she might even won a slam in 90's.
@@rajusaha855 no, Capriati improved a lot.. not only was she fitter but she was able to hit the ball harder and more consistently for longer rallies. If you saw her 2001 French Open finals marathon against Kim Clijsters , they would be trading bullets 30+ shots per point. The 90’s Capriati would not have been able to do that. At best she would show flashes of greatness but wouldn’t be able to do it on a consistent basis. She also didn’t just lose to Seles or Graf. She also had some uncharacteristic losses to lower ranked players like Amanda Coetzer. She really improved her fitness, and with that her confidence and belief in herself. Her groundstokes were always text book perfect and she’s always had good eye hand coordination and natural brute strength but they became more lethal when she had to adjust her grip to be more extreme on both sides, allowing her to hit the ball harder but with more margin for error.
@@quiddynope she was not improved. Apart from 3 slams she hardly won any big titles. In 2001 Capriati barely winning the F.O over first time finalist Clijsters by 12-10 & then Hingis choke away 4 match point in 2002 A.O. So even against past prime Hingis & newcomer Clijsters, Capriati struggled heavily. The main reason of her success that there was no GOAT level of players like Graf (who was Capriati nemesis) & peak Seles on the tour .The WTA tour had depth at that time (I agree) but didn't have a consistent champions. Hingis never recovered after her 1999 F.O debacle, Seles was past her prime, Davenport was good but sucks on slower surface same as Venus & Serena yet to reached her peak. Once Serena reached her peak then Capriati stop winning slams. For me Capriati take the huge advantage of the void being left post Graf era & pre Serena era. Infact it terms of her consistency & her result she was best in 90's. At one stage from 1991-93 she reached QF or better in 8 of 10 slams during the height of Graf/Seles era. That was impressive. Without Graf or Seles she might won a slam then & people would said that was Capriati 's peak because in tennis we judge everything solely on slams without looking at circumstances & quality of opponent.
@@rajusaha855 her best results were not 90-93. She lost in the first round of the US open. Nope. 2001 -2004 were her best results. She won 3 grand slams during the time when Lindsay, Serena, and Hingis, Seles, and Mauresmo were around.