Lepchenko is much more competitive against Radwanska than Julia was at Melbourne.
4-4 in the first set, Lepchenko looks even better so far.
Here's my rant about the Lepchenko-gate.
We both and all know Julia's problem is in her head -- you know, it's very probable that Julia ends with a could have done better but didn't
tag. She's really stagnating despite all the auto-brain storming she does to herself privately trying to convince the most profound parts of her subconsciousness body that she is to be and maybe not made to but also publicly via the means we know excluding webcams-- trying the same to us, certainly a product of her irrationality on the situation (?) of her lack of perspective (?) The questions about the effectiveness of the coach now becomes questionable if these questions are admitted to be true (?).
Note the author intended to play voluntarily with explicit and abstract ideas
Julia's objectives are high but the progress made to attain these are pretty minim and it's not the mechanics in luck that didn't work for her, pay attentions to her draws -- and it comes to my impressions though the latter in plural is a fallacy since there's only one adequate sense to give an opinion on Julia eventually that there are girls of her country who has done almost everything she has in a shorter period. First we can think of but my thoughts always was initially unto Kerber who is one year older.
earlier than the example we're using yet she still finds herself with the similar or almost (?) achievements as the player we cited, not that it's a problem but just how the gap has reduced -- not only does that illustrate so but also in the rankings, on the verge of being over passed -- She is what ? She is 21 in technical WTA and RACE rankings, just a simple top 20 player for real ? A player could be ranked 20 and totally be ranked in the RACE higher significance perhaps of their true value, Julia, she's just equal to herself 20-21 <> 20-21 content to stay in that stage where she's neither a good player neither a bad one --
Just good enough to lose to players she shouldn't technically be losing to and get thumped by the better players she should theoretically be losing to certainly though not at the extent as the loss to Radwanska because of the talent we know her ; she is also good enough to strike a few wins here and there but also that better than good to lose to the proportions she's been the last few matches. A fact, Einsteins of the JuliaGnaute spaceship -- Julia's losses are more memorable than many of her beautiful wins, that's a fatality and hope : she loses bad but wins often most of times easily to lose bad -- Yay.
Didn't get it ? The fatality is you know she'll lose bad, the hope that she will string the 2-3 matches to lose bad -- it's like pushing someone under the guillotine, it hurts because it's Julia yet you can not hope for her to not go and take the bad/stupid defeat it'd be to her disadvantage.
It's really impossible to tell if that'll change, I'm really hopeful that it will really but it is a beautiful fatality and endearing destruction for ourselves to realize that she seems to be the perfect profile of the player who through time might keep navigating in a mid-average like mediocre state with amazing talent then when we will be all old and all married, JugsLia and JugsLaw, not playing on words, Jude Law, our childs
: 'If only...'
to them she/we will murmur in regret.