Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by soyizgood, Feb 2, 2009.
Not sure that even Step can handle Lisicki's triangle choke.
Rumors of a possible Vaidisova comeback. Where's Tanya!?
Maricon ate her.
Reviewed updated list and have two issues:
I watched part of a McHale match during USO, and I don't think she's talented enough to be on this list. I'm not trying to be mean, but I think she is achieving at her level.
I think that if CSN is on here for not winning a tournament, then Stephens should be too. She has a devastating forehand, she's fast, and has a great serve (when mentally on), she should already have a few international titles and maybe even a weak field premier or two. What has stopped her? Only the other players in this thread know, I don't
There is a difference between Stephens and Navarro. Stephens has really only been around a year, maybe 2 if you want to really push it. She was pretty much another young American nobody before last years French Open. She is barely out of her teens. What do you expect her to just start racking up titles right out of juniors? That is in no way fair to her.
Compare her to Suarez Navarro who is 25 and has been around a lot longer. She made her first major QF in 2008 and played her first tournament final in 2009. She is well established as a clay court specialist and a talented woman who should have a title on clay at the very least by now. She has been on tour many more years and the consensus is by now she should have a title. Plus she has had a lot more time and opportunity to actually win one and has failed. Stephens by comparison has had much less time...give her time.
Suarez has had a lot more time and has failed...she deserves to be on the list because she really should have won one of those finals especially against either Kanepi or Pavluchenkova. Stephens is 20 and still relatively fresh out of juniors...Suarez is an established tour player. Two very different situations. Don't know how you expect Stephens to be racking up international and weak premier titles in 2 years time fresh out of playing predominantly juniors and ITF events.
CSN plays a lot of small events. I don't see what her excuse is for not winning at least one of them. She has a great backhand, good movement, and been on the tour for a bit. She's scalped a few top players.
Stephens isn't ready for this list yet. If she continues this "do nothing at non-slam events" next year, then she'll likely be on. IMO Stephens needs to improve her backhand, serve, and her mental focus to excel during the course of the year.
McHale was injured last year and is struggling to get back.
Ok fine. All good points. Just want to point out she is 20 (and a half, not just barely), everyone acts like she's a babe in arms. Plenty of people win tournaments by that age and plenty of people older but less talented. She acts like a headcase sometimes during matches and defeats herself, which is a qualifier to this thread (seems to be improving a little lately). Hopefully she'll pick one off in Asia and shut me up.
McHale is young, too, and way less talented, so I dont think she should be on the list either.
I think McHale is an overachiever.
Stevens, I'm not sure about yet. She may come on and be a challenger for #1 at some point, or may not.
I see a few folks want a pardon for McHale. I may grant that wish.
Since we're discussing taking someone off the list, who should be nominated to be on the list?
Not only iz Soy good, he iz kind and magnanimous.
I would better wait until a player matures to win her first slam and be consistent thereafter than win something at a small age and vanish into oblivion. We should give some time to Stephens to mature as a professional player.
where is our latest list by the way? I would like to review it and recommend my changes
Very 1st post.
McHale is on parole. Her fans can breathe a sigh of relief.... for now.
How old was Graf when she won her 1st major? Venus in 2000 as she won Wimbledon, Olympic Gold in singles (and doubles with Serena), and the US Open? Serena?
Safarova won her first tournament in 5 years this past weekend (Quebec). So that's a start in getting off the list.
Hingis was 16 when she won her 1st major. Hingis, Serena, and Venus were the last of the teenage phenoms allowed to play a full schedule. Sharapova on a partial schedule took Wimbledon at 17 while Kuznetsova won later that year at 19. Wozniacki made USO final as a 19 year old, but hasn't tasted a major final since.
You just aren't going to see teenagers winning slams anytime soon. Limiting players under 18 to play just a small amount of tour events stunts any phenoms chances right there. Juniors have a hard time with the learning curve. The way things are going 20 is the new 16.
It's about time she went a week without tripping over herself. Maybe she can teach that other Czech lefty.
the worm has his hooks in that other Czech lefty. i'm afraid she's a goner :evil:
Added Chakvetadze to the formal R.I.P. group. Sad what a choke job (USO 2007 SF) and an armed robbery can do to a person's psyche.
Wouldn't make a difference if she won that match. She'd have to play prime Henin in finals.
Henin was in the zone there and could not be remotedly hurt by a poor womens Hingis wannabee like Chakvetadze. Chaks would likely have double bageled her which would have been even worse for her already fragile psyche than choking an opportunity in the semis.
They all got to play full schedules from the word go at 15-17 years old. Now players cannot play full unlimited schedules until the age of 18. Also, players under 18 are only allowed like 3 wildcards a year into tour events so that also contributes to their very few chances of breaking through young. This is not the 90s anymore when players like Capriati and Martina H. could play as many tournaments as they wanted and be in the top 10 at 14 or 15 years old. The new age related rules make that virtually impossible. Before complaining I suggest you understand all the circumstances and the changing of times on the tour.
I don't think the point in mentioning the choke was that she would have beat Henin, but rather that blowing the SF and not even getting the chance to play in the final had devastating consequences for her confidence and psyche. So, although it may not have made a difference in the outcome of that USO (Henin still wins), it would have made a big difference in Chakvetadze's career.
Don't be so dismissive of what other people write.
Should we be shocked that Ivanovic and Pironkova got awarded wildcards to play in Sofia? Ivanovic ALWAYS gets offered a wildcard to this Minnie Mouse YEC. Pironkova gets special treatment despite struggling just to stay in the top 100. What a joke!!!
Doesn't matter. No one these days has been nearly good enough at 15 to 17 to win WTA matches.
I certainly hope someone will come along, though.
Quite a disturbing article when you think about it. Producing human beings so that they'll become products/brands is taking it a step further than previous generations. Marketing strategies used to be added on later, not from the get go and with a defined purpose.
Mladenovic hires Dusan Vemic as a coach. He was a sparring partner of Djokovic and acted as his coach when Marian Vajda wasn't there earlier this year. Hope it won't butcher her volley game, since he's among the only young guns who actually knows how to volley. Sorry Nole, I had to jab your volley game.
TBH, that girl doesn't really need to know how to play better tennis. Well she can and has areas where she can get technically better, but I don't think it's a priority. She needs to know how to build a strategy and how to execute said strategy. She shoots herself too often in the foot with rather ridiculous shot selection. Sometimes you wonder what the hell she's trying to do, which is sad. She often would fall to inferior players that have a more consistent game and a better strategy.
I think the courts are too slow for her singles game to flourish. In the 90's she could probably be a threat at Wimbledon and the US Open.
Truly terrifying article
Terrible future awaiting us. Have you noticed how brand names are everywhere in sports? "Gillette Stadium", "Met Life Stadium", "American Airlines Arena", "AT&T Stadium", "Sports Direct Arena". Ugh.
Name their son Typhoon?
That's the one name they seem to be missing.
The idea of giving your children names that can be used as marketing tools is quite bizarre.
You think so? To me, I think she needs better tactical knowledge TBH. Against Stephens she was trying I/O FH all the time while Stephens loves not to move and was to happy to counter her. Against Bouchard and during her previous match (her opponent forfeited), I couldn't determine what she was trying to do. At points she'd chip 'n charge on clearly wrong balls even if she's good at net. A match that was a good chance since she was seeded #2, Bouchard was seeded #5, and the number #1 seed got knocked in first round. I know it's hard against the talented local player, but still... She doesn't play a game, she plays shots, tries stuff. A bit like Kvitova. Kvitova always tries stuff, flashy things, has great shots, and makes stupid mistakes tactically speaking and goes through matches like a shadow.
And despite her size (6'1"/1.85m), I don't find her serve consistent enough enough as a weapon. Or at times too predictable: on ad side she always serves a kick to the BH on second serves. Always. Almost like Robson with her perma-slice on the second serve on deuce side (plus frequent mental collapse on her serve in the end of sets/matches). It isn't as terrible as Sharapova (post shoulder injury, but she doesn't seem to care anyway), but it could be much, much better. A great example would be Venus prior her health issues who used her size greatly. Mladenovic at times pulls crushing serve winners, and at other times she just gets the ball in play with her uber predictable second serve.
If tactically speaking she makes progress, she's Top20 material for me. If her FH and serve become even better she's at least Top15 because she has good tennis instinct, but lacks diligence. Or she'll play mixed doubles with Nestor. Funny she has really good results in doubles with four titles, or even mixed with titles in doubles and one slam semis (USO), one final (RG) and one title (SW19) this year. Maybe she's more tactically focused since she has to work with a partner, who knows. Or maybe she's that good at net. she has the shots to do so. But she lacks the little "something".
Yeah, I'll admit my ignorance in this particular case. It was a poor post. I only watched her playing once and I had the impression her game was at its best when it was simplified; when she was able to produce clean strokes and finish the point early. You've obviously followed her career closely and can therefore shed a better light on her assets, possibilities and weaknesses. Thank you for the (instructive) reply.
To be honest, French women tennis is so pitiful compared to the mass of great male players France has been able to produce and still produces that I'm almost hell bent on any girl that looks anywhere near promising and is French. Which makes well, only Mladenovic and Garcia. Cornet is still "young" (23yo), but she no longer is a "great hope" since she struggles to find her greatest level on court, the one that allowed her to be #16. And I don't really like her TBH.
Yet Mladenovic's problem isn't as simple as Robson's. Robson's problem is getting some nerves and getting a better serve. Working tactically takes more time, and you also have to progress technically and physically meanwhile. Mladenovic has the shots, but she needs to connect the dots. The fact she played that much with an experienced player like Nestor doesn't seem to have helped her in singles since she already is a good doubles player, even if Nestor praised her during the interview after the final of Wimbledon and thinks she'll be much better in a matter of years. I don't really want her to keep it to doubles because that's where she wins, I really want her to make a breakthrough as a singles player. That's why you cannot really miss some opportunities like Montréal, where the top seed is out and you're the second seed. Even if playing Bouchard with the crowd supporting the local player isn't easy, it really was a great opportunity she let go here. Especially given the scoreline: 3 and 2 in 1:14 minutes. :| Semis were attainable; then there would've been the #3 seed which wouldn't have been easy of course, but yeah, I am dissapoint.
I saw her in a match recently (new have maybe?) where she became absolutely unglued because she could hear noise from the neighboring courts. :shock: That is another thing she will have to fix: concentration or focus, whatever that is.
I agree that the mother comes across as nutty when she discusses the bizarro naming of her daughters. But is it any different from Richard Williams stating the reason Serena and Venus were conceived was because he saw a woman winning a nice paycheck and he wanted to spawn girls so they can play tennis and make a lot of money and get the family out of poverty. It's only a bad story if Tornado and Hurricane don't make it in the tennis world.
I enjoyed watching Caroline Garcia playing against Serena Williams in Wimbledon. She has a good game, I suppose it's "just" a matter of being more consistent: a familiar problem in French tennis .
I don't see what's wrong with wanting to get out of the ghetto, or making sure your children don't have to struggle and grow up poor. That, I can totally understand.
That's what I thought. No nuttier than Richard's plan. And as awful as people think it is, I can see her point. I actually think it's really smart to avoid the whole "next Venus and Serena" thing. And they're pretty cool names even if they don't make it in tennis. It's not like they named them Carrion and Dingleberry.
There's nothing wrong about wanting to get of the ghetto but a couple of posters have derided the mom of the Black Sisters for her naming strategy. I was just pointing out that Richard Williams had a strategy too. Also, if you believe his story, he and Oracene were struggling financially. So he decided to intentionally bring 2 more mouths to feed into the world with the hope that they would become champion tennis players. It worked out for him. It's one thing to already have kids and try to pin your hopes on them. (I imagine that this is very common among tennis players of modest means) But it's another thing all together to deliberately bring children into this world when you are already struggling and the reason you do it is for them to make money for you. Thank goodness he did so the sports world had the opportunity to witness what I think is the quintessential American story of the Williams Sisters. But it is a low percentage strategy.
When I first heard the names of the Black Sisters I was skeptical and thought it was nonsense but now I really don't care. If they make it then the names will be great for marketing. If not, then their names will be forgotten.
To be clear, I'm not criticizing the mother's "plan" for her daughters' future. I'm just amazed that marketing has become a second nature in human relations. It's not even discussed anymore. You have to be able to sell yourself as if you're a product, no matter what you do. It wasn't always such an obvious thing to do. That's all I'm saying.
It's true. I sometimes wonder if the tennis suffers for it...if on a subconscious or even conscious level players are concerned about the way they look and act while they're playing. We know it makes for more boring interviews.
Separate names with a comma.