ok for your edification and reading lesson.
Huh? The article doesn't make any predictions or any real analysis of the player's chances. Give me a break...you're looking to find some bias against them that doesn't actually exist in the article.
After that comes the Dementieva section winner, then Mauresmo, then Sharapova.
This is from the section discussing Davenport's draw, where the writer assumes that Sharapova will defeat Venus or Clisters.
The quarterfinal, against Petrova or Kuznetsova, is obviously more of a challenge, and then comes Clijsters, the best player of the summer.
This is from the discussion of Sharapova's draw, no mention of possible SF against Venus or Serena, instead assumes Clijsters will defeat whichever emerges from their possible 4th round encounter.
so, why Sharapova who is recovering from an injury and played the same # of events during the summer as both Venus and Serena but is nonetheless mentioned in later rounds. and Kim, who is 4-13 in h2hs against Williams sisters and has never beaten either in grand slam competition (her weakness) is likely to do so at this slam. At least mention them as possible survivors against Clisters and Sharapova.
now you get it?!!
doesn't take much to see that he favors Clijsters and Sharapova and both are as much a question mark in my mind as Venus and Serena, yet they are edited out as possibilities for later rounds.