Read what Peter Bodo wrote about Venus & Martina on link.
One of the respondent's post is below. But check them all out. The June 7th's comments are towards the bottom of the page. I couldn't have stated the below comments better if I'd written them. And some of you know how - I love to write. LOL!
I do declare!
There are couple glaring blind spots in the reasoning in your profile of Venus's loss yesterday. I'll keep this brief:
1)It's hard--if not impossible--to validate your theory about the paralyzing ennui on Planet Venus. How, after all, did she overcome this ennui just long enough to rehabilitate her injured elbow, commence training again, return to match play, achieve quarterfinal andd semifinal berths in her two previous tournaments, knock off her old rival Hingis in a three-set match in one of them, and charge all the way to the quarterfinals at the French Open (along the way staging come-from-behind victories in a couple matches)? Surely, this profound ennui you describe should have shortcircuited her efforts before now. Your theory about her boredom and lack of enthusiam for tennis just doesn't fit the available evidence, does it.
2)But the problem isn't that your theory is half-baked or half-cooked, or some such metaphor. Rather, your argument reads suspciously like the theory you've been cooking up on the Williams sisters for a few years now. That is, you've written time and again that the Williams sisters are inconsistent and prone to losing now because their hearts aren't in the game anymore. The clearest evidence of that, you've said, is their long absences from the game. But even when Venus defies your conventional wisdom by actually returning to match play on the surface on which she is perhaps least accomplished to grind it out with players who are far more match tough, you and others still hold on to this overcooked theory. I'm afraid the evidence just isn't on your side, at least in the case of Venus Williams.
Venus has told us she had been training everything but her serve during her lay-off. Perhaps you and other journalists should just take her at her word (that's when she's not serving up coy or cryptic responses). Her results in the 14 matches she has played since her return lend credibility to her claim. The Williams sisters have never needed as much match play as others to shift their games to the grand slam level. But of course, as they have gotten older and the competition has become stiffer, the kind of spectacular returns to match play they used to engineer have more difficult to produce.
Venus was impressive in reaching the quarterfinals of the French Open. She should have beaten Vaidisova yesterday (and I'm a fan of the youngster's game--it's clearly patterned after the Williams sisters' although she lacks their speed and agility). But I think the rust crept back into Venus's game in the second set and Vaidisova just didn't give her enough of an opening to pull it back together in time to recompose and figure out how to win. Venus herself has conceded she is far from her top form and not yet firing on all cylinders (how's that for a coy denial). But she has prided herself on having the mental fortitude, composure, and intelligence to figure out how to win ugly--that is, how to win even when her game is not in peak form. It's a champion's trait--winning ugly--and both both Venus and her sister Serena have plenty of it. Unfortunately, it's a strength that deserted Venus yesterday.
Nevertheless, I suspect she'll be happy with how well she performed at Roland Garros. She has given herself a pretty solid match play edifice on which to build for her run at Wimbeldon. I'd be wary of counting her out for the rest of the season with shopworn arguments about boredom and distraction, Pete. You may have to change that tune again just as you did last summer. Haven't you learned by now?
Posted by Rsquared on 6/7/2006 @ 10:15 AM