PDA

View Full Version : Slamless Russian headcases, did they underachieve to not win atleast 1 or not?


grafselesfan
09-15-2009, 12:12 AM
It seems increasingly likely that Dementieva, Petrova, and perhaps even Safina will never win their elusive slam title. Dementieva made a nice try at Wimbledon, had high hopes from many going into the U.S Open and as often with her bombed. This year typified her career, sometimes stumbling near the finish line, other times not even coming close, remaining both slamless and an enigma in her own bizarre way.

Safina is self explanatory. The best thing that could happen to her is to lose her bogus #1 ranking and the scrutiny which is causing her continued self sabatoge, and to fire her coach who seems to be an albatross for her now.

Petrova? Maybe I am reaching to even think she had a shot. Then again you look at this fortnight and she probably had a great shot at being in the final if she didnt choke in Petrova-like fashion from 6-1, 4-3, 40-15 serving vs the talented up and coming Melanie Oudin. She has had either times given some dark horse consideration. In any case she seems to be as much a headcase as ever, and as far from being able to go the distance of winning 7 matches as ever.

Kuznetsova is a headcase and underachiever to some, and showed signs of that again here in her bizarre match and loss to the talented up and coming Wozniacki. Still atleast she already has bagged 2 slams, no matter how much luck she might have gotten or what else she does from here.

Those are sort of the main ones that come to mind. I dont think anyone really believed Zvonareva had the weapons to win a slam, and would be surprised if she ever did win one. Same with Chakvetadze, even when she was up there. So are the slamless headcase Russians who even are good enough to inspire hopes of some for a breakthrough slam win (rightly or wrongly so) like Dementieva, Safina, and Petrova underachievers you believe if they never win one. Or do you believe ultimately they are not so good it is an underachievement for them to remain slamless, and they are overrated by many people who have expected them to win one.

bluetrain4
09-15-2009, 01:00 AM
Kuznetsova is the most confusing player to me.

I've never had less faith in a two-time Slam champ. She's a great athlete, has all the shots, can sometimes put together beautiful tennis, but is prone to horrible patches of inconsistency and nightmarish decision-making, in addition to nerves and mental lapses.

It's simply a crapshoot if she wins a Slam. She's often two completely different players within the course of a tournament, even within the course of a match, a game, a point.

Tennis' Jekyll and Hyde.

grafselesfan
09-15-2009, 01:12 AM
Kuznetsova is the most confusing player to me.

I've never had less faith in a two-time Slam champ. She's a great athlete, has all the shots, can sometimes put together beautiful tennis, but is prone to horrible patches of inconsistency and nightmarish decision-making, in addition to nerves and mental lapses.

It's simply a crapshoot if she wins a Slam. She's often two completely different players within the course of a tournament, even within the course of a match, a game, a point.

Tennis' Jekyll and Hyde.

I dont even know whether to call Kuznetsova an overachiever or an underachiever. She has missed out on some big opportunities to come up with some major legitimate wins in slams which could have led to some additional slam wins. The 2004 French Open round of 16 she had match points on Myskina who went on to run the table to the title beating Venus, Capriati, and Dementieva. She might have done the same had she won that match. The 2005 French Open she had a match point on Henin in the round of 16, and as usual Henin went on to win the title after surviving. The Australian Open this year seemingly had Serena Williams beat but couldnt finish the job again, and Serena again was the eventual winner. So it seems in a way she is underachieving and could have won more from that standpoint.

On the other side though the 2 slams she won were flukish in nature. Bascially the way she did win her 2 slams was close to by default when analyzing the circumstances. The U.S Open not meeting either Sharapova (her scheduled 4th round), Henin (her scheduled quarters), being killed by Davenport in the semis before she aggravated an injury and was hobbling the last 2 sets, then beating a visibly injured and many years later slamless Dementieva in the final. The French Open this year arguably the weakest French Open lineup based on present form per surface in history. She and Safina seemingly the only 2 plausible champions on present form on the surface. In the quarters choking away a 2 set win vs Serena who at this point in her career is a mediocre clay courter, then shockingly Serena being the one to choke the win back after building a 3rd set lead. Then in the final Safina pretty much proving with her performance she couldnt win a slam final if a lawn chair was on the other side probably so more or less a walkover win.

So I am not sure how to evaluate her.

JohnnySpot
09-15-2009, 01:27 AM
I want another incredibubbly hot russian tenni splayer to come onto the scene and wow us. Its been a while.

David_Is_Right
09-15-2009, 05:51 AM
If hot women is what you want, you're probably better off watching field events in athletics or gymnastics than tennis.

goober
09-15-2009, 06:50 AM
If hot women is what you want, you're probably better off watching field events in athletics or gymnastics than tennis.


Gymnastics? I guess if you are into 14-15 year girls that look like preteens. :) If you want to watch hot women, going to a sporting event is probably not the easiest way to do it.
;-)

THUNDERVOLLEY
09-15-2009, 07:14 AM
So are the slamless headcase Russians who even are good enough to inspire hopes of some for a breakthrough slam win (rightly or wrongly so) like Dementieva, Safina, and Petrova underachievers you believe if they never win one. Or do you believe ultimately they are not so good it is an underachievement for them to remain slamless, and they are overrated by many people who have expected them to win one.

The named headcaes were more media desire than reality; on the actual scene, we witnessed failure after failure by this so-called "revolution" of one-dimensional play, hair dye for some, and a gargantuan sense of entitlement for no legitimate reason. As the media (particularly the frequently ill American media where tennis is concerned) continued to act as the Russians' PR firm, the majority proved nothing--other than the ability to be occasional spoilers, and the inability to play anything other than the awful baseline game, and a mastery of failed hype.

Then, there's Safina--the cretin creating her own little world where being #1 is more memorable/important than being a slam winner. A moron for the ages.

So, I do not see any of your choices winning slams, unless the serious threats either miss the slam or lose early, which would allow a fluke lower ranked player to make the final, thus handing them an empty victory.




Of the slam winners, Kuznetsova--if her career began with improving her speed and breaking the incessant lack of focus--could have been more than the hit-and-miss player she will always be.

David_Is_Right
09-15-2009, 07:47 AM
I guess if you are into 14-15 year girls that look like preteens.

lol point taken. I should have specified artistic gymnastics, where they're normal age and size :)