Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by TennisFan436, Jan 22, 2013.
huh? S. Williams lost to V. Razzano in the 1st RD at the FO last year!
This reminds me of the early Venus vs. Serena matches, when Serena used to not try too hard so Venus can move ahead.
Serena has a record of taking one for the team. She's 31 and realizes the sport needs new blood.
Serena mentors this kid, yet here she is too injured to put up a fight...right.
Good win for Sloane.
Some of those commentators (i.e. one who's on AO Radio) are actually on the S.Williams payroll--getting paid for working on her website) and ever since her anger meltdown ("ball down your throat") at the U.S. Open have been trying to rehabilitate her image. They know their meal ticket is gonna start losing more and winning less, which means they will make less money from that particular meal ticket, unless they are able to transform her into something she hasn't been in the past.
IOW, what year did the WS start helping out the other women in USA tennis?
You didn't actually watch the match, did you?
I'm "suspicious" about the fact that Serena started making it clear to Sloane that she had some sort of injury only in the second set after Sloane broke her. Unfortunately for Sloane, she responded to that show of injury with sympathy and almost failed to secure the set. Not saying serena faked the injury ... only that she started "acting out" only the fhirst time Sloane was about to serve for the second set. Then, on top of that, she took a medical time out before Sloane could serve for the second set. Some people have accused Rafa of the same thing. She would not have done either of those interruptions (not to mention destroying her racket) if she had been trying to throw the match to Sloane.
No. it's pretty obvious that serena wanted to win that match herself.
Well summed up sir, very well summed up!
It was known for long long time that Serena is not a complete all-around player.
Serena was good at bullying other opponents who, for some mysterious reasons, all tried to play Serena with Serena's own game which Serena happens to be quite good at.
A truly skilled all-courter would have tamed Serena.
Henin was such a player.
Heck, even Zheng shows us how to handle this incomplete bully.
Its just that skilled all-court players seem out of fashion these days.
Will Stephens develop into 2hbh all-court player who will grace tennis court, entertaining us the very thirsty crowd, for years to come?
Looks that way and certainly hope so.
I am beginning to believe in women's tennis now,,,
Bravo, Stephens. Bravo!
My warmest regards for you darling.
Also my highest regards for your parents who brought you up this magnificent way!
I am sooooooooooo happy for you now.
. . . . .
Pay attention: I'm not the one using it as an excuse--another Amercan (Blake) did use that, and in his era, he is right: not one of the American's of the Blake/Roddick/Fish generation or the Isner/Querry generation has met ultimate success at Wimbledon--meaning won the even (and no, Roddick lucking his way to a finals is not winning. In fact, his lone majors win was where? The hardcourts of the USO) . That is what Blake referred to, so again, you are incorrect.
If you make excuses why a surface is not to your liking, or you avoid the event altogether, then you will not even consider such an opportunity, because for that kind of player, it is not realistic.
Yes! Way to take out the most unserene Serena, Sloane!
Just watched the replay and was surprised and pleased before starting that the video length was 2:35. Knew that it had to be going 3, but thought for sure Sloane would choke it Almagro-style.
Serena's such a little baby. Notice all the little drama she pulls whenever things don't go her way. The medical timeout at just the crucial moment, right before Sloane serves for the set (which worked, as Sloane completely faltered there). Then the destruction of the racket in the third. And all the dramatic little pauses and self-pitying out there. UGH.
Honestly, Serena seemed like the 19-year old out there, while Sloane seemed like the cool, 31-year old professional.
I love how Sloane said she might put a poster of herself on her wall to replace the poster of Serena. LOL. I bet Serena's fuming about that comment.
The only player I actively root against in either men or women's game goes down to a 19 year old with virtually no big match experience. Awesome!
I think Stephens has the game to be a multiple slam winner - she's remarkably well put together for a 19-year old, and her mental lapses in this match and earlier rounds are things that will get better with experience. Give her 4 years - she'll have at least one by then, maybe more.
Vika will still probably take her in the semis, though.
I hate the people on TW who act like they like Sloane just because she beat the player they hate.
Like Sloane for game and character.....not when it suits your needs.
Good job by the Sloane ranger, good to see the underdog get up. Her timing looked off early and she didn't look to me like the world beater she was hyped up to be, but then she picked up her game after the first set. Good to see her come to net to finish off some points. Serena didn't enjoy having to hit the extra balls that the speedy Sloane made her hit, also Serena's forehand started to get tentative under pressure.
I'm not mad. I just enjoy pointing it out when people are overrating Serena, as they always do.
This was refreshing. Hopefully Sharapova wins the AO but I fear annoying Azarenka might repeat.
Stephens or Li winning would be amazing for the sport.
Wow, some of you are mad with hatred.
Um, Serena has lost about 2 times in almost a year.
Her 2 closest rivals:
One has only beaten her twice and has not beaten her in EIGHT YEARS
The other has only beaten her ONCE.
Serena had 2 injuries and clearly could not execute her serve (serving in the 70 and 80 MPH) and could not hit as penetrating groundstrokes as she usually does and she still ALMOST won in 3 very close sets.
And some of you are declaring that you knew she was not a complete player.
Wow, as for the race angle, you won't like Stephens terrible much if she starts winning. Right now you are just happy she got the win over the woman who is VASTLY SUPERIOR to everyone else and is undoubtedly (if we are being honest) the best woman who ever played the game.
Serena is amazing. Still is. Will be more motivated than ever at the French. Prepare to be angered.
It would be almost impossible to "overrate" Serena.
She is heads and shoulders over EVERYONE ELSE in a very deep field of tough, strong, fit players.
There is no one on tour who can touch her when she is playing even remotely well.
Come back to reality. Please.
ITA. I think the match with Azarenka will really show us what Sloane is or is not made of.
Right now, I'm not buying the hype.
I think she has potential, but I don't think she is a top 10 beater (unless she is lucky and the opponent is injured, etc) yet.
I was more impressed with Madison Keys' game and attitude.
it's hard to "hype" a 19-year-old who's taken out the world no. 3 in her first grand slam quarter ever.
in brisbane she only beat world no 14 cibulkova
come to think of it ... hasn't sloane beaten every top tenner she's played this year?
give the young lady a chance ... she's only ranked no. 25 herself! :shock:
Voice of reason!
again from LoveGame
My only worry is if some of these posters replied to understand the language of reason...
. . . . .
The hype is that she was a real threat to Serena.
Even an injured and severely hampered Serena nearly won the match.
Had Serena been serving anywhere close to how she normally does, it would have been a 2 set relatively routine win for Serena.
If Azarenka and Sharapova are not real threats to Serena and they are not, certainly Sloane is not one either at this point.
If the hype is true, Sloane will beat Azarenka or at least play a very good match tonight. We will see.
I have a feeling though that Azarenka is going to beat Sloane very soundly maybe even giving her a bagel.
What a great result! And finally a final of some interest. Good result whoever wins. Thank you Sloane for preventing another foregone conclusion final. even if injury played a part. I like Sloane, at first i thought she was a bit cocky but i think its her sense of humour. like that business about saying serena was disrespectful - i actually do think she was joking around a bit.
I don't understand your point.
The REALITY is that Sloane actually beat Serena.
Doesnt matter it was on a day that Serena wasn't 100%.
Serena has beaten plenty on days when she wasn't 100%.
But she wasn't up to snuff physically on Day 11 of the AO 2013.
Fitness is all part of the win/loss cycle.
If every 30+ veteran only played on days when they were 100%,
then the "changing of the guard" would take 20 years, instead of just 15.
As far as the whooping crane azarenka giving sloane a bagel ...
THAT will not become "reality," I predict!
LOL @ people predicting an Azarenka sweep. The same Azarenka that:
1. Hates the heat
2. Almost lost to Jamie Hampton
3. Almost lost to Kuznetsova
Can't wait for tonight!
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?
With due respect, this is the wrong question.
The real relevent question is:
"Do we really want a castle if it were founded upon beach sand?"
imho, the answer is "NO".
Better to start anew with solid secure foundation.
Even if it may take a while longer...
Of course we are already beginning to feel that Stephens will be part of latter efforts.
. . . . .
So? Week-in, week-out consistency is a huge part of a player's legacy. If she can't keep up her consistency and her fitness, then her losses are deserved. I'll admit she's the one to beat and should probably be ranked number one to reflect that, but it's no one's fault but her own that she doesn't actually have the number one ranking. And regardless, the second half of last year was her best playing in years. That's hardly the consistency I would expect from the greatest women's player of all time. The reality is that she has far less slams, far less Masters, and far less time at number one compared to true GOAT candidates like Steffi Graf. Serena has two year-end number one finishes, and arguably one more year (2012) when she should have finished number one. That's still not even half as many as Graf had. I'm glad to see Serena's actually taking the sport seriously at the moment and really seems focused in a way that she hasn't been for some time, but that doesn't change the fact that some people on this forum vastly overrate her legacy.
You cannot be serious. Roddick making it to 3 Wimbledon finals and taking Federer, the greatest grass court player of all time, to 16-14 in the 5th set means that Roddick sucks on grass? I think the only grass must be the one that you're smoking!
Oh, really? So if you told James Blake that the Wimbledon committee will allow him to skip the first 6 rounds and allow him to play in the Wimbledon final, you're saying that he's going to turn that offer down? Not in a million years! Not even a clay court specialist like Sergi Bruguera would turn that offer down.
Yes, her 2 whole losses in the last 8 months.
Even Chris Evert and Martina N recognize how weak their eras (and Steffi's) were compared to the depth of Women's tennis today.
You can say whatever you want, but the bottomline is Serena is nothing short of phenomenal.
Serena will be back and apparently she isn't going anywhere anytime soon (did you see her press conference?). Another 5 years in the game at least...
I can't believe what comments get removed here sometimes..
It happen frequently for threads that are involve with Serena.
I don't know about 5 years but she's got another 24-36 months at least of dominating, I think.
Plenty of time to surpass 18 singles grand slams.
I agree she's phenomenal, but that doesn't make her "undoubtedly" the greatest of all time.
Careful unless you want to get banned again. :-|
What I just said is ban worthy? Can you even say the word "ban"? :lol:
I would argue your point. You can only judge the strength of the field by their peers. I grew up in the 70's, Chris, Martina and Steffi dominated in their era's against their peers. This just goes to show how much better they were against them day in and day out.
Give Serena a 65 sq in wooden racket on a slow clay court and I would still probably take Chris over her even with Serena's advanced training methods of today.
The reason today' fields are deeper is because there are few that can stand heads and shoulders above the rest.
And as great as everyone likes to say Serena is... how many French Open titles does she have..? And I would imagine she would not have that one if the surfaces of all 4 majors played like they did back in the 70's and 80's before they homogenized them. That rings true for a lot of players that have the career grand slam including one Andre Agassi.
well it's easy for graf who played 2/3 of the different disiplines of tennis. some goat, especially when her biggest rival was taken out....oh to have such luxuries.
sloane is a top 20 player on thne rise...
yet she had a losing record against serena...:?
maybe you should watch the whole match before making idiotic comments.
What about the French Open last year? :twisted:
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.
i enjoy haters who were nonexistent jumping on a bandwagon because their real favorites couldn't do the job.....again 1 match.
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.
the same thing that happened to fed in the 08 final, those both went 3 sets....
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! :roll: ... 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.
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.
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.
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...
Separate names with a comma.