AO 2013 - Quarterfinals - Serena Williams v. Sloane Stephens

[TERRASTAR18]

Originally Posted by tudwell

I'm not mad. I just enjoy pointing it out when people are overrating Serena, as they always do.

i enjoy haters who were nonexistent jumping on a bandwagon because their real favorites couldn't do the job.....again 1 match.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Soianka

There was much less depth in women's tennis in the 70's and 80's. Go look at some of the old draws. The early round matches were all cakewalks..not because Graf, Evert, and Navratilova were so great but rather because most everyone else was not.

You had overweight, out of shape, non-athletes in the top 100 of the WTA.

These days, the game is at a completely different level with very talented, fit and athletic players throughout the top 100 and below.

You may not want to believe it but Evert, Shriver and Navratilova have said so themselves.

But Graf was a freak of an athlete, kind of like Nadal.

[Soianka]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

But Graf was a freak of an athlete, kind of like Nadal.

Yes, she was but most of her "peers" were not.

Many of them were not even in decent athletic shape.

I suspect if Graf played today, she would still be a champion though I believe she would have had to develop her topspin backhand into a weapon and have more complete game in order to be a dominant player these days.

[TERRASTAR18]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

What about the French Open last year?

the same thing that happened to fed in the 08 final, those both went 3 sets....

[Love Game]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

Monfils and Tsonga are French, so i wouldn't expect people to feel the same way about them as the Williams sisters. Race politics are different outside of the US than they are in the US. The US has a peculiar political culture related to race due to it's origin as a nation of colonisers/settlers, history of slavery and the various waves of emigration.

The Williams sisters have kept American tennis relevant. Americans should be thankful for them both, but particularly Serena, for that. Sloane Stephens will hopefully do the same in the future.

Why the hate? Do you really want your country to be as irrelevant for women's tennis as it currently is on the mens side?

apparently you havent read the TOS. Insulting another member's country is something you agree not to do when you sign up.

now. i thougth our government schools were bad. obviously, yours are worse. the continent that became the USA started out as a colony of GBR, has never had colonies of it's own. in plain english, usa was never "colonizers."

government schools! ... the word "colonize" has a "Z," not an "S" ... pfffft!

[Winners or Errors]

Originally Posted by Love Game

apparently you havent read the TOS. Insulting another member's country is something you agree not to do when you sign up.

now. i thougth our government schools were bad. obviously, yours are worse. the continent that became the USA started out as a colony of GBR, has never had colonies of it's own. in plain english, usa was never "colonizers."

government schools! ... the word "colonize" has a "Z," not an "S" ... pfffft!

Um, never had colonies? What about the Philippines? And I think the poster you were responding to was referring to our spreading throughout the territory that is today the USA, but was at the time in possession of Native Americans...
"continent that became the USA?" Are you forgetting Canada, Mexico, and all the other countries north of the Panamanian isthmus?

I seriously hope your post was tongue in cheek.

[Love Game]

Originally Posted by Winners or Errors

Um, never had colonies? What about the Philippines? And I think the poster you were responding to was referring to our spreading throughout the territory that is today the USA, but was at the time in possession of Native Americans...
"continent that became the USA?" Are you forgetting Canada, Mexico, and all the other countries north of the Panamanian isthmus?

I seriously hope your post was tongue in cheek.

first of all, this entire subject is what is known as "OFF TOPIC" to the thread.

edit: and youre right about "continent that became the USA" ... that was a misstatement. guess I should have said "land that became the USA"

boy oh boy. where did you go to school?

Let's take this point by point:

definition of colony:
1 a: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.
b: the territory inhabited by such a body.

Question: In what sense does "the Philippines" fit the definition of "colony" of the USA?

edit: the term "native americans" is as inaccurate as calling the people who were living in europe at the time "native europeans." yes, they were all natives of their separate continents, but so what? the tribes of north america were living at the same time as the tribes of europe. they were many individual tribes with individual cultures and identities, some of whom were warlike and some of whom were peaceful. the europeans (roughly the area that recently became the european union) were a relaively warlike people (read the history of the roman empire sometine) with horses and guns (which the north american tribes did not have) and written languages to record everything they did. without written histories, we don't know what the tribes of north america did to each other. At any rate, the Indian Nations of the land that became USA remain sovereign nations. The same cannot be said for the indian nations of the land that became mexico and south america.

hmmmmmmm?

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by TERRASTAR18

i enjoy haters who were nonexistent jumping on a bandwagon because their real favorites couldn't do the job.....again 1 match.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagons. I've always been fairly vocal opposition to the likes of NadalAgassi who laughably overrate Serena, as great as she actually is.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by TERRASTAR18

i enjoy haters who were nonexistent jumping on a bandwagon because their real favorites couldn't do the job.....again 1 match.

Yes--and most are silent now, as their own hype of this "better" American, or "next hope" crumbled--as expected--against Azarenka. How fast the bandwagon wheels fell off, rolling in opposite directions...

[rk_sports]

deleted.....

[Winners or Errors]

Originally Posted by Love Game

first of all, this entire subject is what is known as "OFF TOPIC" to the thread.

edit: and youre right about "continent that became the USA" ... that was a misstatement. guess I should have said "land that became the USA"

boy oh boy. where did you go to school?

Let's take this point by point:

definition of colony:
1 a: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.
b: the territory inhabited by such a body.

Question: In what sense does "the Philippines" fit the definition of "colony" of the USA?

edit: the term "native americans" is as inaccurate as calling the people who were living in europe at the time "native europeans." yes, they were all natives of their separate continents, but so what? the tribes of north america were living at the same time as the tribes of europe. they were many individual tribes with individual cultures and identities, some of whom were warlike and some of whom were peaceful. the europeans (roughly the area that recently became the european union) were a relaively warlike people (read the history of the roman empire sometine) with horses and guns (which the north american tribes did not have) and written languages to record everything they did. without written histories, we don't know what the tribes of north america did to each other. At any rate, the Indian Nations of the land that became USA remain sovereign nations. The same cannot be said for the indian nations of the land that became mexico and south america.

hmmmmmmm?

Too many questionable premises above to debate, as it would take the thread far off topic. I'd dispute all of your definitions and interpretations if we had time to sit down and chat about it, but such debates about semantics never get anywhere...
____________________

Back on topic of the thread. Good to see Stephens take out Williams. I was sad to see her get somewhat routinely defeated by Azarenka today, but am hoping she continues to make progress.

I don't really care how Serena played. As with any tennis match, it's what you have on the day you play. Not everyone plays their best every day, and winning ugly is something players have to find a way to do if they're going to be the GWOAT.

[Love Game]

Originally Posted by Winners or Errors

Too many questionable premises above to debate, as it would take the thread far off topic. I'd dispute all of your definitions and interpretations if we had time to sit down and chat about it, but such debates about semantics never get anywhere...
____________________

Back on topic of the thread. Good to see Stephens take out Williams. I was sad to see her get somewhat routinely defeated by Azarenka today, but am hoping she continues to make progress.

I don't really care how Serena played. As with any tennis match, it's what you have on the day you play. Not everyone plays their best every day, and winning ugly is something players have to find a way to do if they're going to be the GWOAT.

semantics:
1 : the study of meanings:
a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development.
3 b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings
.... mirriam-webster

According to the rules of logic, an argument is either valid or invalid. In my experience, those (including judges appointed for life) who must redefine the established definitions of words in order to achieve rhetorical validity are on the far left side of the political spectrum and inevitably want to change the United States Constitution to suit themselves, rather than in accordance with legal Amendment procedure.

-----

sloane stephens is "new guard" of women's tennis. both s.williams and v.azarenka used medical time outs (rather than tennis prowess) to try to throw sloane off her rhythm and "win ugly--by any means necessary." Both of their MTOs were ten minutes, rather than the three allowed by the rule book.

my feeling is that both azarenka's and williams' best tennis is behind them. stephens will only improve ... it's what's between her ears (her attitude determines her altitude) that makes the difference ... and women's tennis, itself, will be the better for it. IMHO

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by Love Game

semantics:
sloane stephens is "new guard" of women's tennis.

1. Stephens has not proven herself as part of any "new guard," since she won one match thanks to an injured player, and lost in convincing fashion in the next round, which she well on her way to do before any medical time-out.

2. Stephens has not won a major, nor is she close to winning one. Her AO run was not even as impressive as Oudin's USO run from 2009, where the latter defeated 3 top, healthy players (Dementieva, Petrova and Sharapova) in a row.

my feeling is that both azarenka's and williams' best tennis is behind them.

3. The same crap posted about Serena last year at this time...and how did the year turn out? Serena dominating the last two majors, taking out any top player she faced (including Wimbledon's then-defending champion in the introverted Kvitova), along with making history in the Gold Medal match at the Olympics.

That was no accident, fluke or anything other than a healthy Serena doing her job. If Williams' ankle had not rolled in her 1st round match, Stephens would not have been able to stumble her way into a semifinal.

It would not be a stretch to see her defend her 2012 majors titles this year.

stephens will only improve ... it's what's between her ears (her attitude determines her altitude) that makes the difference ... and women's tennis, itself, will be the better for it. IMHO

She may or may not improve. Oudin's truly impressive USO run had the talking heads predicting the same thing, yet this did not happen. Vaidisova also had impressive majors runs, and long before she retired, it was apparent her run was not to become something she would build on.

That happens more often than new players rising to become majors winners.


4. You claim Azarenka's best tennis is behind her, when her career is still in the freshman stages? Funny you do not say anything of the sort about the loser in your avatar.

Bias is never a good thing.

[Love Game]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

She may or may not improve. Oudin's truly impressive USO run had the talking heads predicting the same thing, yet this did not happen. Vaidisova also had impressive majors runs, and long before she retired, it was apparent her run was not to become something she would build on.

That happens more often than new players rising to become majors winners.

4. You claim Azarenka's best tennis is behind her, when her career is still in the freshman stages? Funny you do not say anything of the sort about the loser in your avatar.

Bias is never a good thing.

hahaha ... that's your opinion and youre welcome to it, but mine is just as good as yours! ... Bias is what opinion is to the guy with a different opinion, so right back atcha big guy!

I don't remember vaidisova, and i never felt strength from oudin ..... as for the "loser in my avatar" ... that i agree with you on. she's a loser and a cheater, as is azarenka .... can't win without creating the hindrance of the scream ... the williams sisters also pull the hindrance scream out of their pockets whenever they start getting behind ... hahahaha at the way errani/vinci screamed as much and ended up beating the WS ..... that's what all those cheating screamers deserve: screaming in kind ..... a scream is not a grunt. grunting is not the problem. screaming is the problem.

__________

The legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement ... John Stuart Mill 1869

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by Love Game

hahaha ... that's your opinion and youre welcome to it, but mine is just as good as yours!

No, there is a difference between opinion and the facts of history--the latter you are not using.

Fact one: in 2012, many treid to write of Serena after the AO/FO results. That blew up in their faces as she won Wimbledon, the USO and made history at the Olympics. You are doing the same thing, and trying to ignore that a fully healthy Serena was next to invincible in the 2nd half of 2012.

Please tell us how that is not how history unfolded.

I don't remember vaidisova

How long have you watched tennis? She reached the semis of the '06 FO, semis of the '07 AO, and was a Wimbledon QF in2007/'08. Far greater majors run than Stephens, who only reached a majors SF thanks to an injured player.

Fact two: If you recalled history, then you would know Vaidisova and Oudin had stronger majors runs, but it did not amount to anything. Stephens has not proven anything by getting (what amounted to) a near-walkover by playing an injured player. Further, you cannot spin or erase her 1st set beatdown at the hands of Azarenka, who (before that set was midpoint) clearly had more than an edge over Stephens. Thus, her AO results are no idication that she is part of some "new guard" in the way majors winner Azarenka is.

and i never felt strength from oudin

Her USO run was all the "strength" one needed to think she was going somehwere, having defeated 3 top players in a row, but for all of that success, the game fell apart, and everyone figured her game out.

as for the "loser in my avatar" ... that i agree with you on. she's a loser and a cheater, as is azarenka .... can't win without creating the hindrance of the scream

It is amusing how the majority of players never complain about this so-called screaming, nor does it prevent others from defeating such players, otherwise, Sharapova would have 30 majors by now if it was such an advantage. Moreover, Kvitova is about as mousy as anyone could be, but she's not campaigning to bring an end to vocal players.

[Love Game]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

No, there is a difference between opinion and the facts of history--the latter you are not using.

Fact one: in 2012, many treid to write of Serena after the AO/FO results. That blew up in their faces as she won Wimbledon, the USO and made history at the Olympics. You are doing the same thing, and trying to ignore that a fully healthy Serena was next to invincible in the 2nd half of 2012.

Please tell us how that is not how history unfolded.



How long have you watched tennis? She reached the semis of the '06 FO, semis of the '07 AO, and was a Wimbledon QF in2007/'08. Far greater majors run than Stephens, who only reached a majors SF thanks to an injured player.

Fact two: If you recalled history, then you would know Vaidisova and Oudin had stronger majors runs, but it did not amount to anything. Stephens has not proven anything by getting (what amounted to) a near-walkover by playing an injured player. Further, you cannot spin or erase her 1st set beatdown at the hands of Azarenka, who (before that set was midpoint) clearly had more than an edge over Stephens. Thus, her AO results are no idication that she is part of some "new guard" in the way majors winner Azarenka is.



Her USO run was all the "strength" one needed to think she was going somehwere, having defeated 3 top players in a row, but for all of that success, the game fell apart, and everyone figured her game out.




It is amusing how the majority of players never complain about this so-called screaming, nor does it prevent others from defeating such players, otherwise, Sharapova would have 30 majors by now if it was such an advantage. Moreover, Kvitova is about as mousy as anyone could be, but she's not campaigning to bring an end to vocal players.

oh my. how angry you are. the future has yet to be revealed ... funny how you call the screamers "vocal players" ..... and how you refer to it as "so-called" screaming ... there are instruments that can measure the decibel level, revealing the difference between a "grunt" and a "scream" ..... Hello! "history" has nothing to do with an individual's "biased" (according to you) opinion ... opinions aren't based on "history." instead, theyre based on whatever "facts" have accumulated inside the head of the individual who has the opinion.

go ahead. keep soft pedalling their cheating and pretending that their screaming isnt offensive ..... i've heard commentators talk for a couple of years now about how the other players are afraid of serena, how they freeze up and stop playing their usual games when s.williams ("i'll stuff this ball down your throat") is their opponent ..... I like sloane for not being the timid mouse those others are.

none of us is obliged to believe that the other players dont complain about the screeching, screaming, ruination of the enjoyment ..... because i've heard commentators reading emails over and over for two years now about how the screaming has ruined their enjoyment of watching the matches. didnt you see the FO a couple years ago where the fans wouldnt stop imitating/mocking azarenka? and did you notice how happy and cheering they were when s.williams went out in the first round last year?

it's the fans complaining about those hideous screeches that has caused officials to try to figure out how to stop it .... cheaters like vika say with scornful contempt, "Good luck with that." that's the way those cheaters are: they apply "any means necessary" to continue adding to their millions, including hindering their opponents with screams to mask the sound of the ball hitting the strings of their own rackets and continuing until the opponent is about to hit the ball on the other side of the net .... not to mention taking ten minute MTOs when the rules permit only three!

p.s. I've only been watching tennis since Rafa beat Fred in Wimby 2008 ... and i can't afford one of those high priced satellite or cable systems that allows people to watch every match!

_____________________

The legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement ... John Stuart Mill 1869

[TERRASTAR18]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

1. Stephens has not proven herself as part of any "new guard," since she won one match thanks to an injured player, and lost in convincing fashion in the next round, which she well on her way to do before any medical time-out.

2. Stephens has not won a major, nor is she close to winning one. Her AO run was not even as impressive as Oudin's USO run from 2009, where the latter defeated 3 top, healthy players (Dementieva, Petrova and Sharapova) in a row.




3. The same crap posted about Serena last year at this time...and how did the year turn out? Serena dominating the last two majors, taking out any top player she faced (including Wimbledon's then-defending champion in the introverted Kvitova), along with making history in the Gold Medal match at the Olympics.

That was no accident, fluke or anything other than a healthy Serena doing her job. If Williams' ankle had not rolled in her 1st round match, Stephens would not have been able to stumble her way into a semifinal.

It would not be a stretch to see her defend her 2012 majors titles this year.





She may or may not improve. Oudin's truly impressive USO run had the talking heads predicting the same thing, yet this did not happen. Vaidisova also had impressive majors runs, and long before she retired, it was apparent her run was not to become something she would build on.

That happens more often than new players rising to become majors winners.


4. You claim Azarenka's best tennis is behind her, when her career is still in the freshman stages? Funny you do not say anything of the sort about the loser in your avatar.

Bias is never a good thing.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by Love Game

oh my. how angry you are.

..that would be you--as your history of attacking the Williams sisters is well known on this board.

the future has yet to be revealed

If you believed that, then you would not leap to two unsubstantiated claims:

1:

sloane stephens is "new guard" of women's tennis

As of this date, she's another in a long line of current players, but the "new guard" title is generally applied to those who have made a breakthrough statement--like winning a major.

Call us when that happens, but until then, your comment is a reference to a future that has not occured.

2:

my feeling is that both azarenka's and williams' best tennis is behind them.

How can you arrive at this conclusion sans anything to base that on. Have you seen the future to know who will win the rest of the majors? No--you cannot know that, and ignore the events of 2012, which suggest a very different future.

... funny how you call the screamers "vocal players" ..... and how you refer to it as "so-called" screaming

It is "so called screaming," and there's no overwhelming movement by other players to stop it, so it is not the issue you--or a couple of talking heads--want it to be.

none of us is obliged to believe that the other players dont complain about the screeching, screaming, ruination of the enjoyment ..... because i've heard commentators reading emails over and over for two years now about how the screaming has ruined their enjoyment of watching the matches.

The players' opinions matter more than yours. They have to deal with this so-called screaming, and while playing events, don't have the option to leave the seat or change the channel. On that note, they are not a mass force marching on WTA headquarters demanding action. They do not care. You do, but it has not hurt ratings, so again, the issue is irrelevant.

[Love Game]

how sad a rant, thundervalley. the way you slice and dice and mix and match first a sentence from one post, then a sentence from another post reveals your desperation to patch together some kind of point, but i'll guess i'm not the only one who's unable to figure out what it is ..... my "history" is, as I already said, part of the opinion salad that exists in your head, and youre welcome to it, no matter how innacurate ..... but you really shouldnt slice and dice, mix and match in order to rewrite another person's opinion.

the disadvantage of YOUR opinion is that we'd have to take your word for the inner thooughts of the professional players who face the hindrance cheaters across the net in order to credit it. But nobody here has the obligation to take your word for it ... and I don't.

It's we, the spectators, who have been complaining about the screaming for a couple years now: we, the spectators who have to forego watching matches by the worst of the offenders azarenka and sharapova ... we whom our family members complain to when they hear the screams coming from the television from the other end of the house and come to ask us about it because it is disturbing THEM ... we whom the wta doesnt want to lose as audience ... we are the ones who matter to the tournament directors who want to put "butts in the seats" ..... so much so that they've already spoken to azarenka, sharapova and even the williams sisters about it ..... didn't you know that? ..... havent you really heard about the decibel meter theyve been threatening to start using?

Go Li Na!!! Beat the Bellyaching Belarussian today!!!

LET'S DO AN EXPERIMENT:
Since the russian has already been taken out, the only hindrance screamer who remains is the belarussian ..... and she will be playing (and hopefully lose) in a few hours:

1. Count the number of times she does her hoot/scream in the first game.
2. Count the number of games.
3. Arrive at an estimate of the number of screams the belarussian puts onto the delicate inner ear hairs of anyone required to wear headphones to watch the match.

"Hair cells are the sensory receptors of both the auditory system and the vestibular system in all vertebrates. In mammals, the auditory hair cells are located within the organ of Corti on a thin basilar membrane in the cochlea of the inner ear. They derive their name from the tufts of stereocilia that protrude from the apical surface of the cell, a structure known as the hair bundle, into the scala media, a fluid-filled tube within the cochlea. Mammalian cochlear hair cells come in two anatomically and functionally distinct types: the outer and inner hair cells. Damage to these hair cells results in decreased hearing sensitivity, i.e. sensorineural hearing loss. ..." -- Wiki @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cell

any player who forces a fan to watch a tennis match in silence in order to avoid having their hearing damaged is someone who should be slapped with a "hindrance" rule violation.

in my opinion

______________
The legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement ... John Stuart Mill 1869

[Love Game]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

The players' opinions matter more than yours. They have to deal with this so-called screaming, and while playing events, don't have the option to leave the seat or change the channel. On that note, they are not a mass force marching on WTA headquarters demanding action. They do not care. You do, but it has not hurt ratings, so again, the issue is irrelevant.

How inconsiderate! telling spectators bothered by the hindrance screams to watch on mute or not at all ...

typical: pretending knowledge of the "ratings" during the matches of the hindrance screamers compared to the matches of those who play fair


__________
The legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement ... John Stuart Mill 1869