Monica Seles 1992 Flashback

[StaRy1993AdeL]

She won 8 Grand Slams and was only 19. And then this idiot put it to an end. At that point Graf had 11, she is almost 5 years older, and aside from Wimbledon '92 (where players complained because of her grunting and she stopped doing that in the final), Graf could not beat her in any major. And today Graf is known in history for having won 22 Grand Slams. The unfairest thing in the history of sport.

[svd0000]

@StaRy1993AdeL Seles did not give up after the tragedy. SHe is the best. Life is unfair. fuck it.

[Meade3763]

@svd0000

Seles was very lucky that she did suffer more than a major scratch. This could have ended terribly.

Quite amazing that she didn't feel able to play for two years, though. She must have had a fragile psyche after all.

[Meade3763]

@StaRy1993AdeL

Graf beat Seles at the FO 89.

And Seles could not beat Graf on grass, on fast hardcourts and indoors. Only on clay and at the AO's slow hardcourt surface. That's not enough to be the best.

BTW, how do you explain that Seles made 3 of the first 5 slam finals after her return? I mean, when this idiot put it to an end before? Some sort of "slow burn effect" ... ?

[kaash83]

I'll accept that as a statement that there are great players in every generation and had they played each other in their primes there would be a really tough competition. Until then, the numbers and stats speak volumes, and we'll let this debate continue for ages until someone comes and knocks of Fed's records.

[h247orlando1]

hi ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss­ssss

[Boudosaved]

People will always wonder what would have happened to Seles but for the injury, Borg if he had not retired early, Laver if he had played on the amateur tour between '62 and '69, Agassi if he had played the Aussie Open earlier in his career...

[raichmaneuvers]

Agassi didnt miss the Australian Open in any years he was likely to win. He choked in his slam finals in 90 and 91 every vs players like a 30 year old Andres Gomez so forget anything before 1992. In 92 and 93 Courier won, and 94 Sampras won. Courier owned him completely in the early to mid 90s, and Sampras was just too good in 94- not saddled by emotional baggage like in 95 or injury like in 99 (and Agassi still had to play the match of his life to eke by an injured Sampras in the 99 semis)

[adityavcet]

Your comment shows your thinking!. Stabbing Vs. Voluntary retirement, if you can think they are comparable then I think there is no point in debating with you.

[Boudosaved]

Take it easy, sheesh! No reason to get your girdle in a knot. I never said Seles would not have won more titles but for the stabbing. If you want a more similar (although not exactly the same) comparison, Agassi had a pinched nerve which hurt his back. He could have beaten Federer in the US Open but it acted up in the 3rd set. Lew Hoad had similar injuries and yet Pancho Gonazles said he was the best he ever played. When you're ready to get off your high horse, let's continue the debate.

[adityavcet]

I wont give injuries an excuse. Stabbing certainly an excuse. Federer is a living example of continous play and pressure, coming to finals in all major finals without rest or any news of serious injury. Can we ask why? Is he a robot? No. According to me, its simple. The method of play. If your game style is demanding more body work , it will cost you ultimately. After that if I am not injured, shud not be an excuse. Same with Sharapova, her game demands more body work, hence shoulder injury.

[Boudosaved]

Federer had mono and it cost him in the Aussie Open in 2008. He had no chance at the French Open when he played Nadal and it was a surprise he lost at Wimbledon. Even the mighty Fed is prone to exhaustion and illness. That being said, I think he is one of the best of all time. I don't say THE best because he has not had any major competition except for Nadal. Everyone else is several levels below his level of play.

[adityavcet]

My favorite is Nadal. An entertaining game style. Yes, Federer has carved his name as the best or among the best. But not getting enough players to play at his level is not his fault. Federer is prone to exhaustion and illness but not heard of a serious body injury for him to withdraw a major tournament. I always knew that in case Nadal gets defeated in FO, it would be federer all the way and it happened this time.

[Boudosaved]

Nadal is proving that when his knee does not give out, he can win on any surface. He will continue to be Federer's greatest opponent. But I still think Federer may have a better mental game. And now that he's won all slams, the pressure is off. The rest is gravy for him. If Fed played Agassi, Sampras, Laver, Hoad, Borg, Lendl, Gonzales, Rosewall at their heights, the matches would be more even.

[kaash83]

I'm so sick of hearing people say Fed never had any real competition. Great players make everyday good players look average, hence they're great. Name 5 top players in the era of Tilden, or Laver? Name someone else besides Borg, Mcenroe, and Connors that was constantly ranked in top 3 in that era. Becker, Edberg, Wilander...who else? Agassi, Courier, Sampras...how many more?Fed has faced Hewitt,Roddick,Safin,and went on to take on the next-gen on Nadal,Murray, n Djokovic.Fed is the best,face it

[Boudosaved]

Hewitt is a has been. Roddick has a horrible record against Federer and has never won more than 1 slam. Safin is a has been. Nadal and Murray in their primes can beat Fed. Djokovic is a d-joke. During Laver's time, he beat Rosewall, Hoad, Roche, Ashe, Newcombe, Emerson and Smith...just to name a few. He was banned from competing in slams for 5 years and everyone thinks he would have won more. During Tilden's time, he beat Lacoste and Cochete. I personally think Gonzales was the best.

[kaash83]

Hewitt, Roddick,Safin, all started their career at about the same time as Fed. So dismissing them now as a"has been" just proves that Fed defeated players from his gen and is taking on the next-gen players. So you count Roche as a top player despite him winning one GS, and Ashe as well, who won 3, and won his popularity based on the fact that he was the first African-American.Fed is so good, he's taking on players almost 7-10 yrs younger and beating them.The has-beens are has-beens thanx to Fed.

[Boudosaved]

Who cares if he beat people from his generation? The issue is did he have any serious competition from other members of his generation and the answer is only from Nadal, mostly on clay, and Murray, who still can't beat him at a Slam. Look at Ashe's win loss record, not just slams and you will see he had a great record. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but don't bring racism into this.

[kaash83]

Absence of competition doesn't always have to mean that there weren't any good players. Federer has simply been astounding, and in his own league for most of his career. He has made great players look pretty novice. To dismiss his greatness by saying that he had no competition is taking a cheap shot at the sport of tennis period. Players will only get better with time and technology. Ashe was great, no doubt, but I do feel that his race had a lot to do with his overall fame and legacy.

[Boudosaved]

Hardly any of the guys in Fed's generation serve and volley. If Fed played Sampras in his prime, he would have been supremely challenged. Fed has one of the best all around games I have ever seen but what I am saying is don't look at the NUMBER of slams he has won...look at WHO HE HAD TO BEAT to win those slams.

[kaash83]

Serve and volley is a tactic,and every player will use the strategy that suit their abilities the best.Absence of huge number serve and volley players in today's age doesn't dismiss Roger's greatness. I guess we should also consider then innovation of racquets to determine all time GOAT then huh? Every generation has competition and winning on all different surfaces, all grandslams, and beating variety of diverse players clearly screams out how great Fed truly is.The number does matter the most

[Boudosaved]

Serve and volley is, generally, the best tactic that works against Federer. He has intimidated his opponents into staying at the baseline. Yes, we do need to look at the change in the racquets as it has increased the speed and power at which the ball can be hit. If the number matters the most, then you should consider that Laver was not allowed to play for 5 years after completing his 1st grand slam. Tennis commentators say he could have won another 10 minimum!!! So consider other factors.

[kaash83]

Ok so you would like to listen to the commentators when they say he could have won another 10 minimum? However you would like to disregard when the commentators, and other great tennis legends already rate Fed as the GOAT? Bottom line is this, Fed has won on all different surfaces, and has the most number of GS and counting. He has outlasted his generation and taking on younger generation and still winning. Fed is the greatest!

[Boudosaved]

A number of great players have won on all different surfaces. Fed is taking on guys 5 to 8 years younger than him. Big deal. Gonzales was 41 when he beat a 25 year old at Wimbledon. Noted tennis commentator Bud Collins said this as recent as August 2006: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales." Agassi was the oldest number one and he beat guys 10 to 15 years younger than him. Next argument? I'm enjoying this by the way.

[kaash83]

A number of players? 5 to be exact. Gonzales nor Laver were one of those 5. The 43 yr old Gonzales also beat a 19 yr old connors at one stage,a great achievement, but how consistent was he when it came to winning it all? Nice Wikipedia info there about Bud Collins but the same Bud Collins also said that Fed is a weak clay court player and that Agassi was done when he reached 141 in the world. Beating younger player might now be a big deal, but constantly thrashing them and claiming top spot is.

[Boudosaved]

Gonzales played on the pro circuit and was similarly banned from many of the Slams; he was ranked no. 1 longer than any other tennis player (8 years I think); he beat all the Slam winners; Fed is 2nd on clay to Nadal; Agassi ditched Brooke and got a great coach. My point is that Fed is not that much older than his competition.

[kaash83]

Beating all the slam winners is not a strong argument to list him as an all time great.However, I do believe he is one of the all time greats. Youre right, Fed is simply awesome on clay and Collins is losing his mind in his old age. Agassi just started to re-focus and got his priorities straightened after 1998. Fed is technically considered one of of the oldies,pushing 28 and defeating top ranked players in teens and early 20s. Has it happened before?Yes but it's also pretty rare and remarkable.

[Boudosaved]

Fed would have won more clays by now had it not been for the master - Rafa. Agassi did get his priorities straight and won most of his slams after the age of 29. Also you need to look at how many tournaments per year a player plays. Borg limited his tournaments so that winning on grass and clay were easier. Same with Armstrong and Tour de France. Don't forget Lendl who (2nd to Connors) has the most total wins because he entered more tournaments even though it wore him out before each slam.

[kaash83]

Yes I don't need a history lesson on Aagassi or how Rafa is the greatest clay court player of all time. I'm a die hard Aagassi fanatic and could review his entire life to you from his childhood days. I see your point but the number of tourneys a player plays is up to the players themselves(with exceptions such as Laver who was banned). Some players are just not physically capable of competing at their top gear all-year round. Federer is one of those rare players who can.

[Boudosaved]

Hello?!??!? That is my point. Fed does NOT do all the tournaments (I'm talking non-Slam tournaments). He is more picky.

[kaash83]

Hello?!?!?!?!? Fed is the greatest of all time(slam or non-slam)

[Boudosaved]

I'll accept it as your opinion. My opinion is that he is the best of his generation. Had he played Tilden, Vines, Gonzales, Hoad, Laver, Rosewall, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras or Agassi in their primes, I think he would have had more competition.

[goodfellacr]

@kaash83 Totally agree with you!

[championxeneixe]

Im not accept any "record" from any player after 1993 Seles incident.Sorry,but the history of woman tennis is FAKE after that.

[Hoffenheim08]

Because of this small stab wound?

Why?

[lpvcrcd]

Monica ...the best female player I ever saw.. The last 8 grand slams she entered  before the stabbing she won 7 not bad for a teenager!!!

[jsndnl]

Talking about WTA, Monica Seles is always the BEST!!!

[FCBrugge111]

super monica !!!

the greatest!!

[kljMN2]

I think given all the interruptions (awful interruptions I might add) what Seles did in tennis is amazing. She has won over so many fans forever.

[Chazzoli]

But she's an ethnic Hungarian.

[aertin]

She was born in city Novi Sad in Serbia

[bernulaci]

@aertin she was born in Újvidék, now Serbia, i am sorry but only now, yesterday and tomorrow its in Hungary.

[joelywooley]

There is/was no woman more exciting to watch than Monica Seles! If what happened breaks my heart, I can't imagine what it does/did to hers.

[Antidote001]

It's amazing all the Seles videos being uploaded on youtube...keep them coming.

[laxjok2001]

dissident you took the words out of my mouth.

the greatest ever.

[dissident000]

the greatest ever.

[goodfellacr]

Monica was destined to become the best ever!

[italo36]

@goodfellacr

too bad the brutal attack ruined that

[IloveMonica4ever]

what a timely upload! great video!