The "What's Wrong With Her?" Thread

[jones101]

Originally Posted by vandre

no petkodance today! boo!!!!!

oh well, you can't always get what you want!

Sharapova was motivated by her disrespectful dancing, juding from her comments at Indian Wells this year.

Question: Petkovic thought you would be tired in the third after the long match you had the previous night. Didn't seem to be that way.

MARIA SHARAPOVA: Because I didn't do the dance after. I wasn't tired.

I sensed that she was tired -- probably a lot of the dancing that she's been doing -- and I took advantage of it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/...?urn=ten-wp268

[soyizgood]

Sharapova's screams have gone silent today. We still have Schivone's AAH-HEE!! left.

[soyizgood]

Li's had a very good clay season. Now finish the clay season with a bang!

I'll modify the list after the finals.

[ben123]

Originally Posted by jones101

Sharapova was motivated by her disrespectful dancing, juding from her comments at Indian Wells this year.

Question: Petkovic thought you would be tired in the third after the long match you had the previous night. Didn't seem to be that way.

MARIA SHARAPOVA: Because I didn't do the dance after. I wasn't tired.

I sensed that she was tired -- probably a lot of the dancing that she's been doing -- and I took advantage of it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/...?urn=ten-wp268

wow sharapova is rly a cow
rly not a sympathic girl i dont get how ppl can like her

[Doublebounce]

Does anyone know what the projected rankings will look like after roland garros? i know jelena will fall outside the top 10, and maybe stosur? Li Na and Sharapova dont really have anywhere to move... and bartoli, aggie, kuzy,petko, and petra i dont know how they will turn out. It doesnt seem like anyone has anywhere to move up!

[soyizgood]

^^^ Li will be #5 if she loses the final, but #4 if she wins. I'll have to look at everyone else's. Kvitova I know stays the same or even goes up because she did better than last year.

Still doing the math, but so far:
1. Wozniacki - 10255 - 340
2. Clijsters - 8115 + 100
3. Zvonareva 7755 + 180
No real points movement among those three.
4. Azarenka - 5425+ 495 , but if Li wins the final Li gets this rank
5. Li - 4635 + (1240 or 1840) if she loses the final
6. Schiavone - 5246 no extra pts as she's the defending champ, but if loses final minus 600 pts and Sharapova bumps past her
7. Sharapova - 4481 + 740, just barely below Schiavone, but moves up if Schiavone loses the final
8. Kvitova - 3743 + 495
9. Bartoli - 3000 + 740
10. Stosur - 4645 - 1240

Still sorting out:
Jankovic - lost 620 pts and looks to fall to #15
Petkovic - gains 400 pts
Radwanska - gains 400 pts
Pavlyuchenkova - gains 340 pts
Kuznetsova - gains 340 pts
Goerges- gains 60 pts
Ivanovic - lost 95 pts

[WinNCash]

Originally Posted by soyizgood

^^^ Li will be #5 if she loses the final, but #4 if she wins. I'll have to look at everyone else's. Kvitova I know stays the same or even goes up because she did better than last year.

Petko lost first round to Svetlana last year so she should go up as well... or at least not fall.

[soyizgood]

Originally Posted by WinNCash

Petko lost first round to Svetlana last year so she should go up as well... or at least not fall.

Actually it was the 2nd round, but Petko gains 400 pts so moves past Jankovic if I am correct.

[soyizgood]

I hate having to use multiple sources to calculate points:

WTA points scale: http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-A...howitworks.pdf
Current rankings: http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Rankin...~1~100,00.html
This year's FO results: http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/sc.../ws/wsdraw.pdf
Last year's FO results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Fr...en%27s_Singles

[Doublebounce]

Thank you so much! it seems like there isnt much movement among the top 10 besides jelena and sam, and just a bit of shifting around the top 15

[soyizgood]

Originally Posted by Doublebounce

Thank you so much! it seems like there isnt much movement among the top 10 besides jelena and sam, and just a bit of shifting around the top 15

If Li wins:
4. Li
5. Azarenka
6. Sharapova
7. Schiavone

If Schiavone wins:
4. Azarenka
5. Li
6. Schiavone
7. Sharapova

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by soyizgood

If Li wins:
4. Li
5. Azarenka
6. Sharapova
7. Schiavone

If Schiavone wins:
4. Azarenka
5. Li
6. Schiavone
7. Sharapova

Hopefully Li wins then. Azarenka doesnt belong in that top 4 yet.

[soyizgood]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Hopefully Li wins then. Azarenka doesnt belong in that top 4 yet.

Azarenka still hasn't made a slam SF yet despite winning Miami twice. I'm pulling for Li despite my being a fan of both Vika and Na.

[NadalAgassi]

Azarenka seems to be going the Wozniacki way at the moment. Enough game to dominate or win regularly on the regular tour but not the extra gear for the majors when the better players take it up a notch. I have a feeling she is more likely to eventually make the adjustments needed than Wozniacki though who doesnt even seem disheartened at the defeats and almost oblivious to her shortcomings.

[soyizgood]

Congratulations to Li Na! She played the tournament of her life and was rewarded with the ultimate clay prize. Your 2011 Roland Garros Champion, Li Na! New rank: #4.

She also gets a "Stay Off This List Pass" for the rest of the year. Don't worry, Na. We still love you.

[soyizgood]

Weird that the top 5 is composed of 3 players that have yet to win a major: Wozniacki, Zvonareva, Azarenka.

Wozniacki hasn't sniffed a slam final since USO 2009, Zvonareva only knows how to get humiliated in slam finals and at 26 only has won TWO Premier and above titles, Azarenka runs out of gas in QFs of majors but does enough to generate hype.

Honestly, I do think the importance of winning a slam is somewhat over-the-top. Yes they are the biggest events, but at most only four players can win them any given year. Also, nobody whines about Lee Westwood being #1 in golf when he's never won a golf major. Nobody whines when Jimmie Johnson doesn't win the Daytona 500 yet he's been #1 when it counts year after year. Some play the schedule while some play for the big events. Heck you can pull a Kafelnikov and win big and small stuff at times.

[jerriy]

^Your Daytona comparison doesn't hold up as there are too many races and one Daytona......... but the golf situation is indeed a bit closer to the way it is in tennis.

I suspect if Westwood remains #1 for years without winning a major then he will also get the questions, though perhaps he will escape the level of "heavy" scrutiny that Woz is facing.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by jerriy

^Your Daytona comparison doesn't hold up as there are too many races and one Daytona......... but the golf situation is indeed a bit closer to the way it is in tennis.

I suspect if Westwood remains #1 for years without winning a major then he will also get the questions, though perhaps he will escape the level of "heavy" scrutiny that Woz is facing.

But, listening to golf commentators, though they do allude to the rankings quite a bit, they really don't seem that invested in it. They understand completely that it's just a function of a preset points system and the "best" player may not be ranked No. 1. Though they don't completely dismiss it (recognizing that the No. 1 ranking speaks to a level of quality and consistency), they don't worship it either.

The HUGE difference IMO with golf is that golf is not a sport where you play directly against you're opponent. There is is no direct cause and effect. If Phil Mickelson shoots 66, that doesn't stop Lee Westwood from shooting 64. In tennis, great tennis by one player stops the other player from winning points and games. If Tiger Woods makes 4 consecutive birdies, so can Jim Furyk. If Federer serves four aces or service winners, his opponent can't have those points also. And, this is obviously the case for any type of winner or forced error, including groundstrokes, volleys, serves.

So, being No. 1 in tennis, besides reflecting good quality on a consistent basis, suggests that you should be able to beat everyone else. That your tennis is good enough to directly effect enough other players to win tournaments. Sure, Woz has at one time or another beat all the other top players. But, if she can't do it on the big stages, the No. 1 seems a somewhat empty. Not completely, but a little.

[PSNELKE]

Li played definately awesome, she deserved that win.
It´s a huge thing for her and for the tennis fans in China I think.
It would definately be a shame if she finished her career without a major win.

Well done.

[jamesblakefan#1]

Originally Posted by soyizgood

Honestly, I do think the importance of winning a slam is somewhat over-the-top. Yes they are the biggest events, but at most only four players can win them any given year. Also, nobody whines about Lee Westwood being #1 in golf when he's never won a golf major. Nobody whines when Jimmie Johnson doesn't win the Daytona 500 yet he's been #1 when it counts year after year. Some play the schedule while some play for the big events. Heck you can pull a Kafelnikov and win big and small stuff at times.

Westwood isn't #1 anymore, Luke Donald (another guy w/o a major) is. In golf rankings matter less - there's no seeding format, you're playing the course, not an opponent. Thus it's harder to win a major in golf, since someone can go out and play the day of their life and there's nothing you can do to stop them from winning, like Schwartzel at the Masters this year.

The only similarity I would say is that everyone knows that if Tiger or Phil play their best, they can win any tournament despite what the rankings say, just like WTA a few yrs ago when Venus and Serena weren't #1.

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

But, listening to golf commentators, though they do allude to the rankings quite a bit, they really don't seem that invested in it. They understand completely that it's just a function of a preset points system and the "best" player may not be ranked No. 1. Though they don't completely dismiss it (recognizing that the No. 1 ranking speaks to a level of quality and consistency), they don't worship it either.

The HUGE difference IMO with golf is that golf is not a sport where you play directly against you're opponent. There is is no direct cause and effect. If Phil Mickelson shoots 66, that doesn't stop Lee Westwood from shooting 64. In tennis, great tennis by one player stops the other player from winning points and games. If Tiger Woods makes 4 consecutive birdies, so can Jim Furyk. If Federer serves four aces or service winners, his opponent can't have those points also. And, this is obviously the case for any type of winner or forced error, including groundstrokes, volleys, serves.

So, being No. 1 in tennis, besides reflecting good quality on a consistent basis, suggests that you should be able to beat everyone else. That your tennis is good enough to directly effect enough other players to win tournaments. Sure, Woz has at one time or another beat all the other top players. But, if she can't do it on the big stages, the No. 1 seems a somewhat empty. Not completely, but a little.

Very well said.