PDA

View Full Version : Come On Be Honest. Why Is Maria Praised For Ball Bashing?


Pages : 1 [2]

Donny
Jun 24th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Because she's the "beautiful blonde girl" who beat the "sista" at Wimbledon '04 who man in the "establishment" couldn't stand winning slams on the tour.

What's funny to me is that 2004 was supposed to be the "breakout" year for the Russian women, ushering in the end of the WS... Yet Venus and Serena have won three times as many GS as every Russian combined since then.

sammy01
Jun 24th, 2007, 11:29 PM
i think people were just happy a williams sister didn't win wimbledon in 04 and i think sharapova flattered to decieve that year as i along with alot of people thought that she would become a player with more variety and would improve her touch but it dosen't seem to have happened!

lizchris
Jun 25th, 2007, 12:20 AM
umm...no...actually...she has power, control, and variety....which is good.


If she had varitey, she would be the 2007 AO champion, not Serena.

Thanx4nothin
Jun 25th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Oh dear, here we go again. I suppose she doesn't get as much flack as the Williams' but that's because she is just continuing on a trend, whereas they virtually invented it.

Orion
Jun 25th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Steve Tignor (who I usually can't stand) was spot on in an article on Maria last year around the YEC. At her best, she manages to play a freakish combination of power and percentage tennis. It's not percentage in the way that Hingis hits few errors, but percentage in that it sets her up to win most sets. She's very smart in which points she takes control of, which ones she does the change-up serve, which points she comes forward on, when to go for the winning groundstroke versus the strong groundstroke, etc. In a lot of ways, she synthesized the so-called "Big Babe" (god I hate that expression) game to maximize efficiency, all the while having a lot more mental fortitude than the players with near or comparable styles (Davenport, kind of Pierce, etc.).

HOWEVER (it's me, there's always a however), she (like Davenport) suffers from the same reliance on serve. Davenport won matches and was #1 in the world only when her serve was on. She couldn't win without setting up those 1-2 punch points she loved because she wasn't fast enough to handle a lot of the other kinds of points. Sharapova has the same problem, but to a lesser degree. While Sharapova will never be among the fast players on tour, she has gotten herself to the point where her movement is much harder to exploit on any surface than it was, say, two years ago. That's especially important and good, because Sharapova's serve isn't the same consistent weapon that Davenport's was. Largely, it's a technique thing. Sharapova has a very unique technique on her serve, reminiscent of Sampras, but doesn't have the same forward momentum required to keep it together. As a result, her shoulder is a little wonky, and her serve can unravel.

For my part, I don't particularly enjoy watching Sharapova play, but I do appreciate the brain behind her tennis. It's not a brain for moving an opponent around and shotmaking, but it is a brain for winning matches. And she does that tremendously consistently.

Thanx4nothin
Jun 25th, 2007, 12:25 AM
If she had varitey, she would be the 2007 AO champion, not Serena.

Not necessarily, just because you have variety doesn't ensure that you win matches. Patty has an abundance of variety, she isn't a 2 time GS champ is she?

Thanx4nothin
Jun 25th, 2007, 12:26 AM
Steve Tignor (who I usually can't stand) was spot on in an article on Maria last year around the YEC. At her best, she manages to play a freakish combination of power and percentage tennis. It's not percentage in the way that Hingis hits few errors, but percentage in that it sets her up to win most sets. She's very smart in which points she takes control of, which ones she does the change-up serve, which points she comes forward on, when to go for the winning groundstroke versus the strong groundstroke, etc. In a lot of ways, she synthesized the so-called "Big Babe" (god I hate that expression) game to maximize efficiency, all the while having a lot more mental fortitude than the players with near or comparable styles (Davenport, kind of Pierce, etc.).

HOWEVER (it's me, there's always a however), she (like Davenport) suffers from the same reliance on serve. Davenport won matches and was #1 in the world only when her serve was on. She couldn't win without setting up those 1-2 punch points she loved because she wasn't fast enough to handle a lot of the other kinds of points. Sharapova has the same problem, but to a lesser degree. While Sharapova will never be among the fast players on tour, she has gotten herself to the point where her movement is much harder to exploit on any surface than it was, say, two years ago. That's especially important and good, because Sharapova's serve isn't the same consistent weapon that Davenport's was. Largely, it's a technique thing. Sharapova has a very unique technique on her serve, reminiscent of Sampras, but doesn't have the same forward momentum required to keep it together. As a result, her shoulder is a little wonky, and her serve can unravel.

For my part, I don't particularly enjoy watching Sharapova play, but I do appreciate the brain behind her tennis. It's not a brain for moving an opponent around and shotmaking, but it is a brain for winning matches. And she does that tremendously consistently.


Excellent contribution to the thread there Orion! :worship:

Orion
Jun 25th, 2007, 12:30 AM
Oh, I didn't read the first post, so I missed whatever the racial undertones were.

I don't think the Williams were ever really crucified for playing power tennis when they were winning. And now that Serena's winning again, I think she's being praised again. But there's no denying that power tennis is not pretty when it's losing. 40+ errors in two sets isn't appealing, and power tennis tends to lend itself to that. I hate watching Sharapova (well, most of the time) when she's going through rough patches because it's simply not constructive to watch. I don't learn anything new about tennis watch Sharapova (or Venus, or Serena, or Pierce, or Davenport, or anyone) go through a shit-fest (excuse the language) when they're on court.

When they're winning, however, I have no problem rooting for Venus, Serena, Sharapova, etc. I suppose with power players, there are more fair weather fans, because they don't make losing look beautiful. I can watch Mauresmo or Hingis lose 3 and 3 and find something elegant about it. I can't get that from most power players 3 and 3 losses, and Sharapova is no exception.

Dan23
Jun 25th, 2007, 12:37 AM
Which member has Harkleroadfan as their 2nd account?

Orion
Jun 25th, 2007, 07:39 AM
any other thoughts, or should this stay buried forever?

bandabou
Jun 25th, 2007, 08:41 AM
But the thing with the sisters...even when slighting them as LDV does, he poses an interesting thesis.

The sisters can beat you in so many ways. Too strong for the finesse players, to athletic for the other power players, to mentally strong for the other athletic players. Just shows the challenges they pose out there for many players.