Questions from a non-Fan (Sharpen your knives)
If you've been around awhile, you've heard my opinion if the ranking system, and more importantly, the #1 ranking. For those who don't know, IMHO< at best, the #1 ranking, in today's WTA, implies that you'd make the semis at three out of four slams, ot the finals at two out of four. It does NOT mean, by any stretch, that you are the best player on the tour.
Having said all that, the JJ playing now isn't the JJ who got the #1 ranking. I accept that when ou re-tool our game, there's backsliding. Look at Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Amelie Mauresno, Justine Henin. All hs to significantly re-tool their games over the course of their careers. Add Lindsay Davenport and Jennifer Capriati, who had to change not their game, but their lifestyle.
If y'all, who are JJ fans, say she's just adjusting, I accept that. But the WTA off-seaon isn't that long. In the worst case, the ABSOLUTE worst case, JJ could have done a rounf of steroids inthe off-season. That's that worst, and I don't think it's true. Why? Tennis players get tested more than any other athletes in any other year round sport. There's no way to get an advantage, in tennis, in today's system. Sesil K is living proof.
JJ isn't gonna win ten slams. I get that. But she was seeded #1 at OZ. And six weeks later, she's *15 in race points. She hasn't pulled a Vaidisova, but something's wrong. Something, IMHO, more than ''added muscle, have to adjust'.
There are FAR fewer holders of the #1 ranking, than slam winners. That argues that it is easier to win a slam than to be ranked #1.
Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Last edited by Volcana; Mar 15th, 2009 at 09:33 AM.