Are you living on the same planet? Caro favourite in that match vs Sveta? No she wasn't. Minor upset against a slam winner that year - NO.
You seem like a pretty reasonable person so I hope you will keep an open mind and at least consider my position here. True, Svetlana had won a slam that year (on clay). I'm sure that one thing we can agree on is that clay is a very different surface than a hardcourt. I think we can also agree that it is not uncommon for players who win a slam to have trouble maintaining that high level of play. We have seen some recent slam winners (Na Li, Petra Kvitova, Sam Stosur) go into some slumps/mini slumps after winning their slams. I would argue that something similar (albeit on a smaller scale) happened to Svetlana. In 2009 she won Stuttgart, was in the final of Rome and won the French Open (she lost in the first round at Madrid). Undeniably those are great results (aside from Madrid) and she had a fantastic clay season. However, her results on clay from April-June are largely irrelevant concerning her results on hardcourts in August and September. How did she do compared to Caroline after the French Open leading up to the U.S. Open? Let's compare:
Eastbourne-Svetlana lost her first match, Caroline won the tournament
Wimbledon-Svetlana lost in the third round, Caroline lost in the fourth round (they both lost to Lisicki)
Bastad-Svetlana did not play, Caroline made the final
Los Angeles-Svetlana did not play, Caroline lost her first match
Cincinnati-Svetlana made the third round, Caroline made the fourth round
Toronto-they both lost their first match
New Haven-Svetlana made the quarters, Caroline won the tournament
Svetlana was 5-5 during this stretch, Caroline was 19-5. Clearly, Caroline was the "hotter" player heading in to the U.S. Open. Looking at how they did leading up to the U.S. Open it seems reasonable to claim that they were fairly evenly matched but that Caroline was the favourite. I will concede that rather than say "Caroline was the favourite" that I should have said "Caroline was the slight
favourite." I still maintain that the number eight ranked player, who clearly had better results immediately leading up to the event in question, defeating the number sixth ranked player is not a huge upset. If you look at how they did in their first three matches they both won all three in straight sets and were never in any real danger of losing, they were both playing good tennis.
There is also their previous head to head record to consider. They had met three times prior to the 2009 U.S. Open. The first time was in 2008 in the fourth round at Indian Wells. Svetlana won that match fairly convincingly (6-2 6-3). Later that year they played at Eastbourne and this time Caroline scored an impressive win (6-2 6-2). The last time they met was in Miami where Svetlana outlasted Caroline in a three set match (6-4 6-7 6-1). Looking at those results you have to give Svetlana the advantage but also consider that Caroline had defeated her before and that their last match went to three sets. Is it shocking that Caroline was able to defeat a player two spots higher than her in the rankings who she had a 1-2 record against? I don't think it was but you may disagree.
Of course this was the same tournament you claimed Kim had an easy draw because she only had to face Caro in the finals.
Once again I would ask that people do not put words in my mouth. I never said "Kim had an easy draw because she only had to face Caro in the finals." I absolutely never said those words. I think this is probably the post you are thinking of:
Womens Tennis in General
What I said was:
Facing Caroline, Vera and Na in slam finals is probably easier than facing Jennifer Capriati and Justine Henin.
That seems like a very measured, reasonable and uncontroversial statement to me. At the time that Kim faced Caroline and Na in a slam final neither one of them had ever been in one before. Vera had been in a slam final once before but it is probably fair to say that on both occasions she was overwhelmed and unable to play her best tennis. Capriati was a recent slam winner that was still on a hot streak and Justine had previously taken Venus (arguably the best grass court player of her generation) to three sets in a Wimbledon final. Kim first played Justine on clay in a grand slam final, Justine arguably being the greatest clay court player of her generation. I think my original statement is very reasonable and I even used the word "probably" rather than "definitely" since there is no way to prove my statement, it is just an opinion.
Perhaps you should go to Serena's forum and mention her slam wins 2003-2007 were easy because Justine wasn't playing at any of them. Or her 2010 Wimbledon title has an asterisk because she didn't even have to beat any top 10 player on her way and see the reaction you'd get.
I'm not a fan of Serena, why would I post in her forum? I never suggested that Caroline's run to the 2009 U.S. Open final should have an asterisk next to it so I'm not sure why you are suggesting that. There is one big difference between what Serena did and what Caroline did. Serena won those slams you are referring to, Caroline did not so I don't see how it is an accurate comparison.
I know that Caro was the underdog in that match in a big way before the match and during. I watched it. And Sveta played really well for nearly two sets - well enough to beat other players in 2 straight sets. And I was thrilled in that David and Goliath scenario that she managed to hang in there and turn it around. How anyone without an agenda of their own could say that was easy is beyond me.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that that particular match was easy. I claimed that her draw, particularly the latter part, was easy. Which it was. Above I think I laid out a good case as to why I believe that Caroline was the slight favourite heading into that match and very much not "the underdog in that match in a big way." If you have a convincing counterargument as to why you believe that Caroline was the underdog I would like to hear it.
You rarely see one player ranked that low so deep (quarters/semis) in a slam and Caroline had two such players. Wickmayer had never been past the second round in a slam and since then she never made it past the fourth round. Oudin had made the fourth round at Wimbledon that year but since then she hasn't been past the second round at a slam and has had eight first round exits. These were not tough opponents that players typically face at that stage of grand slams, I just don't get why it is wrong to admit that. I'm not accusing her of fixing the draw or anything nefarious. She has no power over who makes it that far and all she can do is play whoever is across from the net but the reality is that she had two very low ranked players and found herself in a very favourable position that deep in a slam that very rarely happens. That is what I am saying now and that is all I ever said about it.