PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2

Lolo8
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:47 AM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.

@m@nd@
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:50 AM
umm...no...actually...she has power, control, and variety....which is good.

Greenout
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:51 AM
As in real life and hailing for cabs; a pretty face can get you a little
bit further than others.

Lolo8
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:51 AM
What variety? I have yet to see it.

Jakeev
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:52 AM
People seem to think that just because Maria won Wimbledon last year, she should be this extroardinary player day in and day out.

HOGWASH!!!!!!!

She is barely 18 for crying out loud and still developing as a player.

Now if Maria is still around when she is 24 and has let the world passed her by because she still plays the way when she was 17, than please by all means start a thread then and bemoan her.

But give it a rest already.......

Lolo8
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:56 AM
People seem to think that just because Maria won Wimbledon last year, she should be this extroardinary player day in and day out.

HOGWASH!!!!!!!

She is barely 18 for crying out loud and still developing as a player.

Now if Maria is still around when she is 24 and has let the world passed her by because she still plays the way when she was 17, than please by all means start a thread then and bemoan her.

But give it a rest already.......
Give it a rest? It's a fair question that no one talks about.

@m@nd@
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:59 AM
What variety? I have yet to see it.

well she does hit dropshots and tries to go to net more often but unfortunately is not very good at volleying

Jakeev
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:00 AM
Give it a rest? It's a fair question that no one talks about.

I just answered your question in my last post.........so I say again.......give it a rest.......

margaret_gn
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:10 AM
I wouldn't call Maria's game 'power'...'power' is Serena, Alicia Molik etc but what I've noticed about Maria's game is her accuracy. In Wimbledon last year she hit lots of really good angled shots. From the Aus Open (in sydney we don't get the privilege of watching indian wells/miami...only the matches i taped from the aussie tourneys :( ) she didn't play that well, nothing memorable and I've been trying to figure out how she got as far as the semis, and again, accuracy...cos she didn't get that many unforced errors...(and her winners stats weren't that high either).

So yeah, I don't think her game's that powerful at all. If she wants to be put in that same category as Roddick she needs to put on some weight :) and commentators aren't raving about her power either, only for the fact that she's young, blonde, has won wimbly etc etc...

Dinkie
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:13 AM
As in real life and hailing for cabs; a pretty face can get you a little
bit further than others.

So true, I agree.

And please don't call her the female Andy Roddick, at least Roddick got game.

Andy.
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:16 AM
Maria does hit with a lot of power but she is very accurate and consistant. She wins by pushing her opponents back with deep heavy balls. I dont see whats wrong how is winning with spins and finese any different to winning with power

Maria Croft
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:23 AM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.

Your just another Hater, all the things you have said so far on this forum where about Maria in a bad way, get a life !!

And she does a lot more then just power, people who think that haven't seen her play or just don't wanna see anything !!

Maria Croft
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:25 AM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.

whatever !!

hablo
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:30 AM
I wouldn't call Maria's game 'power'...'power' is Serena, Alicia Molik etc but what I've noticed about Maria's game is her accuracy. In Wimbledon last year she hit lots of really good angled shots. From the Aus Open (in sydney we don't get the privilege of watching indian wells/miami...only the matches i taped from the aussie tourneys :( ) she didn't play that well, nothing memorable and I've been trying to figure out how she got as far as the semis, and again, accuracy...cos she didn't get that many unforced errors...(and her winners stats weren't that high either).

So yeah, I don't think her game's that powerful at all. If she wants to be put in that same category as Roddick she needs to put on some weight :) and commentators aren't raving about her power either, only for the fact that she's young, blonde, has won wimbly etc etc...

So you say accuracy?? Interesting!! ;)

hablo
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:33 AM
So true, I agree.

And please don't call her the female Andy Roddick, at least Roddick got game.

I'm sorry I just don't like Andy!! :lol:

And to think that people like MacEnroe were dissing Goran saying all he had was a serve and then drooling all over Roddick is just too much for me!! (this has nothing to do with your post, just ranting and raving!! :angel: ) . . . :bounce: Mind you, Roddick is supposed to also possess a fantastic forehand!! ;)

Lolo8
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:37 AM
Your just another Hater, all the things you have said so far on this forum where about Maria in a bad way, get a life !!

And she does a lot more then just power, people who think that haven't seen her play or just don't wanna see anything !!
No sorry I don't have a life. My soul purpose is to expose Maria for what she really is, an overrated ball basher! :p :p :p :p

Maria Croft
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:39 AM
No sorry I don't have a life. My soul purpose is to expose Maria for what she really is, an overrated ball basher! :p :p :p :p

thanx for telling the truth....

Lolo8
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:41 AM
thanx for telling the truth....
Thanks for agreeing that she is an overrated ball basher. :lol:

Veritas
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:45 AM
Thanks for agreeing that she is an overrated ball basher

*sigh*

It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread

Sure :o

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:03 PM
Maria overpowered Venus in the SF, she was bashing the ball around the court, forcing errors, whereas Venus was making lots of unforced errors too. So I say, Venus and Serena are really taleneted in other things than crushing balls too, I've watched so many matches of V&S in 1998-99 and they have power but I have noticed how they did these great drop shots , then lob volleys, coming to the net more often. V&S use their power 'cause they have it, but they do have plan B, I've seen it. They are better in defense too. Venus really got to know how to play Martina in 1998, Serena too. They mixed it up, hit extra shots when they needed to, came to the net.Serena made the fourth round of French at 16 in 1998, before losing to eventual champion Arantxa 6-4 5-7 3-6, she knows hot to play clay courts too.

jj74
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:11 PM
It's about a question of time, Maria is a rising star, so people cheering her but if she became so dominant as Serena, Seles or Graf, the people who dislike her will appear behind the rocks. It's always the same, when a new talent appears people like it, when she became dominant people dislike and at the end of her career pleople recognize her achievements

XaDavK_Kapri
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:15 PM
It's about a question of time, Maria is a rising star, so people cheering her but if she became so dominant as Serena, Seles or Graf, the people who dislike her will appear behind the rocks. It's always the same, when a new talent appears people like it, when she became dominant people dislike and at the end of her career pleople recognize her achievements
That's SO true :clap2:

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:16 PM
Interesting indeed.....so now it's yeah but she's acurate?

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:27 PM
You don't always have to turn this into Anti-Maria thing.
I think this is a good subject to talk about, Maria relies really much on big ground strokes, and forcing errors

kiwifan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:35 PM
I like Sharapova because she's an aggressive power player.

I agree with the basic premise of this thread; why is it okay for her to be a power player but it was bad for Venus and Serena...:devil:

Sort of like all those Jen fans who say Serena just hits the ball hard.

And the Chucky fans who hate the sisters, "because they're arrogant".

GM has always been filled with these strange contradictions that no one seems to be able to explain. :tape:

And I love the so called "tennis fans" who act like Serena's never hit a drop shot or a lob before. :retard:

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:43 PM
I wouldn't call Maria's game 'power'...'power' is Serena, Alicia Molik etc but what I've noticed about Maria's game is her accuracy. In Wimbledon last year she hit lots of really good angled shots. From the Aus Open (in sydney we don't get the privilege of watching indian wells/miami...only the matches i taped from the aussie tourneys :( ) she didn't play that well, nothing memorable and I've been trying to figure out how she got as far as the semis, and again, accuracy...cos she didn't get that many unforced errors...(and her winners stats weren't that high either).

So yeah, I don't think her game's that powerful at all. If she wants to be put in that same category as Roddick she needs to put on some weight :) and commentators aren't raving about her power either, only for the fact that she's young, blonde, has won wimbly etc etc...
Accuracy? Yeah, you have watched Venus' and Serena's matches clearly, Serena's defense is better, better volleys already in 1998. Maria hits harder than Venus and Serena, I've noticed this.
Maria will improve her variety a lot for sure and that will bring her many more Slams, she's really young, so can't really compare :)

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 12:46 PM
I like Sharapova because she's an aggressive power player.

I agree with the basic premise of this thread; why is it okay for her to be a power player but it was bad for Venus and Serena...:devil:

Sort of like all those Jen fans who say Serena just hits the ball hard.

And the Chucky fans who hate the sisters, "because they're arrogant".

GM has always been filled with these strange contradictions that no one seems to be able to explain. :tape:

And I love the so called "tennis fans" who act like Serena's never hit a drop shot or a lob before. :retard:

Serena's saved match points with drop shot, for example vs. Martina Hingis in 2001 AUS QF. I think serena has terrific lob volleys and she uses this drop shot, lob volley combined sometimes, especially backhand lob is impressive ;)

Experimentee
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:14 PM
Serena has a lot more variety than Maria, and she was considered the downfall of tennis. In case ppl didnt notice, Serena is also powerful and accurate. If she wasnt accurate and hit out all the time she wouldnt have won 7 Slams.
If you watch the match at the AO vs Sharapova, Serena used a greater variety of shots, trying to bring Sharapova in, hitting short slices which Maria couldnt handle, and angled shots to take her out of court.

Experimentee
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:18 PM
It's about a question of time, Maria is a rising star, so people cheering her but if she became so dominant as Serena, Seles or Graf, the people who dislike her will appear behind the rocks. It's always the same, when a new talent appears people like it, when she became dominant people dislike and at the end of her career pleople recognize her achievements

Serena was 17 when she won the 99 US Open, not in the top 5 and was not dominant then. The day after she won the media was filled with articles about how ugly her game was, how she was ruining tennis, and how many UE's she made (ignoring all her winners), etc. I remember a particular one in the Herald Sun written by Bruce Matthews. All about how Serena overpowered poor little Hingis with her ugly tennis.

Junex
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:20 PM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.


I think the best answer is because young players of this generation are all playing "power tennis" (well except for the very few)!

During the period where WS are criticized for their game, no other player played with so much power like they used to and tennis people where in a bit shocked because it is a revolution in the game. Remember how change affects the conservatives.

By now it is very fair to say that the WS has really revolutionizes the game and if tennis people would still insist on saying that "power tennis" is bad for the game then they will end up like the big joke they were because in all honesty everyone is playing "power tennis" nowadays and if they bash Maria for it, the they have to bash half of the WTA tour!

Fair enough?

Doc
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:37 PM
Maria doesn't just hit the ball hard. You don't get to world No 3 by just hitting the ball hard. :rolleyes:

Maria is accurate in a way most players aren't, and goes for winning shots or shots that force errors because of their pace and closeness to the lines. She is also a good defender and good returner. she has a good armoury of shots, and is beginning to go to net more (mostly in easier matches so far).

If by "variety" you mean playing loads of loopy shots, or waiting for the other player to make an error (which style seems even more lacking in variety to me), then I don't think you're going to see that from Maria. Different players have different styles. A few days ago loads of people were posting how Justine's "variety" was going to totally confound Maria. But Maria found enough variety in her own game to match it.

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:41 PM
Maria doesn't just hit the ball hard. You don't get to world No 3 by just hitting the ball hard. :rolleyes:

Maria is accurate in a way most players aren't, and goes for winning shots or shots that force errors because of their pace and closeness to the lines. She is also a good defender and good returner. she has a good armoury of shots, and is beginning to go to net more (mostly in easier matches so far).

If by "variety" you mean playing loads of loopy shots, or waiting for the other player to make an error (which style seems even more lacking in variety to me), then I don't think you're going to see that from Maria. Different players have different styles. A few days ago loads of people were posting how Justine's "variety" was going to totally confound Maria. But Maria found enough variety in her own game to match it.
Slice is really important when defending, it gives you time to settlte down, she still overhits under pressure. Volleys should improve and she'll be great.

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:45 PM
Ok, it's maybe a fair question. My answer is that her game is based not just on power but presician. This is how she is different to say, Roddick, or sometimes Serena; these players bash the ball and hope it lands in a good position. But Maria finds the corners, or pulls angles from nowhere. This is my reason for admiring her so much as a player.

(I'm only generalising when I talk about Serena and Roddick; of course they control where the balls land, but I don't think they do this anywhere near as well as Maria.)

starr
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:49 PM
I agree with that, and it also has to do with looks. Neither Andy nor Serena float gracefully around the court. They both look heavy and powerful, so it's more noticed when they brick volleys than when they make volleys or drop shot. Also it has something to do with their demeanor on the court. They both look pissed off most of the time.

moby
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:54 PM
Maria is more Davenport than Williams in her hitting.

She (like Lindsay) may not have as much sheer pace as V&S, but her consistency is unreal, especially when you consider that she pretty much goes for depth and placement on all her shots. I think the maturity of her game is greater than V&S at the corresponding age.

@starr: I've some qualms about your post, because pretty much what you said about Andy and Serena can be applied to Maria as well.

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 02:59 PM
I agree with that, and it also has to do with looks. Neither Andy nor Serena float gracefully around the court. They both look heavy and powerful, so it's more noticed when they brick volleys than when they make volleys or drop shot. Also it has something to do with their demeanor on the court. They both look pissed off most of the time.


You both (D. Huttchins and starr) are wrong, really badly wrong and seemingley don't know the game.
Maria really just hits with high risk, sometime she finds the lines and corners, sometimes not, her accuracy is not definitely stunning. It's hard for her to play the retrievers, like Ai, or Kim yestreday, she's just overhitting in frustration when all those balls come back. I don't understand this angle-talk. Serena has terrific angles, when she's really on she knows excatly how to get out of difficult positions (pinned like deep to the forehand corner). Her forheand crosscourt is espeacially great. She has a plan B, she's had it in Maria's age, has it now, she really goes to the net to confuse the opponent, saved match points against Kim with a forehand volley. Maria was helpless against Lindsay in IW. Maria is vulnerable at the net and she isn't such a fighter, she hasn't saved match points yet. I must say that Serena has great variety especially with the backhand (volley is great). Your explanations are nonsense, Maria has even more power than Serena and uses it more, for sure.
Forget the angles, you really don't find a difference in them in top 5
Serena has great accuracy like all top 5 players, you won't be number one by hitting with pace hoping it will go in. :rolleyes:

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:07 PM
Maria is more Davenport than Williams in her hitting.

She (like Lindsay) may not have as much sheer pace as V&S, but her consistency is unreal, especially when you consider that she pretty much goes for depth and placement on all her shots. I think the maturity of her game is greater than V&S at the corresponding age.

@starr: I've some qualms about your post, because pretty much what you said about Andy and Serena can be applied to Maria as well.
Hmm, wrong, Maria had like no volleys, drop shots or lob volleys at 16. Maria has a lot more powerful forehand than Venus, she really can't slice, and the slice is very attackable. I'd definitely say, Venus and Serena had better game overall at 17.

moby
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:12 PM
She certainly can't be better than V&S at everything. But mentally, Maria seems to be doing a better job holding it together than V&S at 17. Her groundstrokes have proven to be solid, day in day out. And slices hardly bother her, although V&S still have trouble handling them (to a certain extent).

I'm not a fan of hers, but I expect great things from her.

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:14 PM
no, I really do not agree. It's her ability to hit high accuracy, often very angled winners from out of nowhere. Very few players currently equal Maria's ability to produce these kind of shots IMO.

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:15 PM
She certainly can't be better than V&S at everything. But mentally, Maria seems to be doing a better job holding it together than V&S at 17. Her groundstrokes have proven to be solid, day in day out. And slices hardly bother her, although V&S still have trouble handling them (to a certain extent).
I used to agree about the mental ability. But I worry when she gets herself depressed in a match. You only had to look at her body language in IW; it was not good. But I think overall you are right; but she can just be a bit fragile at times.

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:20 PM
I definitley don't think she's ever been mentally stronger than Venus and Serena. Venus went on to her first US open final in 1997, saving 2 match points in the semis against Irina Spirlea (the other one with a brilliant Backhand down the line by the way ;) ) Serena came back from 1-6 2-5 15-40 to beat Lindsay in 1998 and always had the confidence.
Venus showed great court sense in that USO semi -97, when she started making ground stroke errors too much late in the third set, she started serve-and-volleying.(Plan B) I don't think Maria could've beaten Martina Hingis in 1999 USO final either, like Serena.

matthieu_tennis
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:20 PM
when she goes to the net its terrible omg i never see someone without volley like that but the rest of the game is very good big power, angle , she move wells for a 6 hoot girl, she can hit all the corners in any position

RenaSlam.
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:20 PM
She doesn't have the variety yet. Then again, her POWER game is working pretty well, don't you think? She's underrated in the quickness department, IMO because of her reach

moby
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:23 PM
I wouldn't worry about her net game. It might get better.

Besides, Andre Agassi can't volley to save his life either.

Experimentee
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:23 PM
Right Serena only wins because she hopes the ball lands in, while Sharapova means it :retard:
Serena must be the luckiest person on earth then, to win 7 Slams like that.

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:26 PM
Right Serena only wins because she hopes the ball lands in, while Sharapova means it :retard:
Serena must be the luckiest person on earth then, to win 7 Slams like that.
I did say I was being general........

maybe a little too general, but I was only trying to put the point across....
I just think Sharapova has better pinpoint accuracy.

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:26 PM
Right Serena only wins because she hopes the ball lands in, while Sharapova means it :retard:
Serena must be the luckiest person on earth then, to win 7 Slams like that.
That's right. :yeah:
When people have nothing intelligent to say something (deny Maria's power crushing play) They explain complicately

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:28 PM
Besides, Serena has many other aspects of her game like simply finding space on the court to power the ball into which is just unexpected, which are major aspects of her game.

VRee_Willario
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:32 PM
I like Maria, but I'm just too furious in defending V&S.
I'm also very negative of her when she beats like Venus, but I'll get over it, I'm already over it,.
Maria's game is great to watch :D , two galaxes out of boring

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:37 PM
I like Maria, but I'm just too furious in defending V&S.
I'm also very negative of her when she beats like Venus, but I'll get over it, I'm already over it,.
Maria's game is great to watch :D , two galaxes out of boring
y'know, I like you:D

:p


:hug:

Experimentee
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:41 PM
I did say I was being general........

maybe a little too general, but I was only trying to put the point across....
I just think Sharapova has better pinpoint accuracy.

It isnt even true as a general statement. Both hit hard and close to the lines, and you cant say one has better accuracy just becuase you think the other is lucky, or whatever you are trying to say. Of course Serena hits the ball with accuracy, and considering how often she does it, its pretty obvious it isnt a fluke that it lands in.

skanky~skanketta
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:43 PM
I wouldn't worry about her net game. It might get better.

Besides, Andre Agassi can't volley to save his life either.

obviously u havent watched many of andre's matches. he's volleyed soooo many times on matchpoints and WON. and his record up at the net is usually pretty awesome.

please think before u actually say something.

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:47 PM
Maria can be extremely consistent on the court with her power shots and I do realize her unncanny ability to put the ball in play when it seems like she shouldn't be able to. The problem I have with her game is that she doesn't have a proper plan B. If you get those shots back to her, she has no idea what to do. That's why she got double bagelled by Lindsay at IW. LD sent her shots back to her as hard as they came or with interest. Maria has to improve her speed and her net game if she wants to have a chance to dominate women's tennis. I think she is getting too much credit for using angles because to me she doesn't use them any more than the average top 20 player. She doesn't use them like a Myskina, Justine, Serena. etc,.

I do think she gets praised for ball bashing while the sisters get downed for it, but the same applies to any other Russian who hits hard and Lindsay and Capriati before them so it's nothing new to the Williams sisters or their fans.

skanky~skanketta
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:48 PM
I did say I was being general........

maybe a little too general, but I was only trying to put the point across....
I just think Sharapova has better pinpoint accuracy.

hence the 34 errors in her game yesterday.

and i could backtrack to wimbledon (her best surface, no less) and talk about the match vs sugiyama, and frazier where she had oodles of errors. nice pin point accuracy.

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:48 PM
I wouldn't worry about her net game. It might get better.

Besides, Andre Agassi can't volley to save his life either.


Are you afflicted??

This is one of the most misguided things I've ever read on this board.

moby
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:50 PM
obviously u havent watched many of andre's matches. he's volleyed soooo many times on matchpoints and WON. and his record up at the net is usually pretty awesome.

please think before u actually say something.

You must be an Agassi fan. ;)

I was exaggerating of course, but I think Andre usually only comes to the net when he gets an easy ball, and pros hardly ever miss those. I've seen him made absolutely bonehead decisions at the net too.

skanky~skanketta
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:52 PM
I agree with that, and it also has to do with looks. Neither Andy nor Serena float gracefully around the court. They both look heavy and powerful, so it's more noticed when they brick volleys than when they make volleys or drop shot. Also it has something to do with their demeanor on the court. They both look pissed off most of the time.

IMO, maria is hardly graceful...especially on the run. obviously it seems that serena is a cumbersome whale to some because she's bigger built hence "less graceful". and i think the word float gracefully around the court can only be applied to federer.

you said it yourself. looks can be deceiving.

skanky~skanketta
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:54 PM
You must be an Agassi fan. ;)

I was exaggerating of course, but I think Andre usually only comes to the net when he gets an easy ball, and pros hardly ever miss those. I've seen him made absolutely bonehead decisions at the net too.

die-hard fan actually. go to the wet-dreams thread in non-tennis and you'll see what i mean.

but yeah, even sampras made some bonehead decisions at the net in her hey-day.

the thing is that i love andre and i dont like sharapova. and to compare them both is like whoa. hold up there!

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:54 PM
IMO, maria is hardly graceful...especially on the run. obviously it seems that serena is a cumbersome whale to some because she's bigger built hence "less graceful". and i think the word float gracefully around the court can only be applied to federer.

you said it yourself. looks can be deceiving.

All you have to do is watch the Aussie Open when Serena locks in against Maria and Lindsay and she moves with such fluidity she looks like she is in slow motion, but she's actually tracking all their balls down.

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:55 PM
"It isnt even true as a general statement. Both hit hard and close to the lines, and you cant say one has better accuracy just becuase you think the other is lucky, or whatever you are trying to say. Of course Serena hits the ball with accuracy, and considering how often she does it, its pretty obvious it isnt a fluke that it lands in."

no, you misunderstand me. No way is it a fluke that Serena's shots land in, If I meant that, I would say I knew nothing about tennis; she just doesn't go for the lines; uses more margin for error; whiich her game needs; Maria's accuracy takes the balls in winning shots consistantly nearer the edges.

"hence the 34 errors in her game yesterday.

and i could backtrack to wimbledon (her best surface, no less) and talk about the match vs sugiyama, and frazier where she had oodles of errors. nice pin point accuracy."

if you look at the stats in yesterday's game, both players had many errors. Maria isn' good in the wind because this takes away her ability to go for the lines, she loses this edge to her game and becomes a more ordinary player, esp. against someone like Kim, who can reach every shot.

I don't remember the 2 wimbledon matches you refer to (despite being present at the match vs. Fraiser!), so I guess I can't comment on whether I agree with you or not, I'll go and take a look at the stats + reports.

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:57 PM
"It isnt even true as a general statement. Both hit hard and close to the lines, and you cant say one has better accuracy just becuase you think the other is lucky, or whatever you are trying to say. Of course Serena hits the ball with accuracy, and considering how often she does it, its pretty obvious it isnt a fluke that it lands in."

no, you misunderstand me. No way is it a fluke that Serena's shots land in, If I meant that, I would say I knew nothing about tennis; she just doesn't go for the lines; uses more margin for error; whiich her game needs; Maria's accuracy takes the balls in winning shots consistantly nearer the edges.

"hence the 34 errors in her game yesterday.

and i could backtrack to wimbledon (her best surface, no less) and talk about the match vs sugiyama, and frazier where she had oodles of errors. nice pin point accuracy."

if you look at the stats in yesterday's game, both players had many errors. Maria isn' good in the wind because this takes away her ability to go for the lines, she loses this edge to her game and becomes a more ordinary player, esp. against someone like Kim, who can reach every shot.

I don't remember the 2 wimbledon matches you refer to (despite being present at the match vs. Fraiser!), so I guess I can't comment on whether I agree with you or not, I'll go and take a look at the stats + reports.

If the wind totally messes up Maria's game, what does that say about her accuracy?

victory1
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:58 PM
IMO, maria is hardly graceful...especially on the run. obviously it seems that serena is a cumbersome whale to some because she's bigger built hence "less graceful". and i think the word float gracefully around the court can only be applied to federer.

you said it yourself. looks can be deceiving.

:worship: :worship: I was thinking the same thing and was about to write it until I saw your post!!

VS Fan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 03:58 PM
I love Venus and Serena, but ANYONE should notice that Maria does seem to harness her power very well, hitting hard AND deep and landing in the court of play. She also chases down balls well. I have seen the sisters do this as well but they are not as consistent.

victory1
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:01 PM
I love Venus and Serena, but ANYONE should notice that Maria does seem to harness her power very well, hitting hard AND deep and landing in the court of play. She also chases down balls well. I have seen the sisters do this as well but they are not as consistent.

That's also true!!:bounce:

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:05 PM
I love Venus and Serena, but ANYONE should notice that Maria does seem to harness her power very well, hitting hard AND deep and landing in the court of play. She also chases down balls well. I have seen the sisters do this as well but they are not as consistent.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :kiss:


I think this sums up pretty much what I was trying to say.


Btw, if you play tennis, you will know that in the wind, you cannot go for the lines as much, and you must leave greater margin for error in case the wind carries the bal out of play. Also remember the wind was unpredictable. This does not help you to be accurate. All I was trying to say is that this was one edge that was taken off Maria's game.

moby
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:06 PM
If the wind totally messes up Maria's game, what does that say about her accuracy?

Nothing. It means that she has no Plan B, as stated on this forum for a million times.

It also means that her strokes have not been preprogrammed to factor in elemental variables such as wind. And that the accuracy is limited to hitting "pure" shots. Unless you're Chris Evert, that's about as accurate as most people can go. And hardly anyone reaches that level.

Experimentee
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:07 PM
hence the 34 errors in her game yesterday.

and i could backtrack to wimbledon (her best surface, no less) and talk about the match vs sugiyama, and frazier where she had oodles of errors. nice pin point accuracy.

Exactly what I was going to say. Sometimes people act like Maria is so consistent and doesnt make errors, but of course she does. Especially against Sugiyama, she was just hitting lots of hard shots that were going out. Maria is not any more accurate than Serena is.

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:08 PM
Nothing. It means that she has no Plan B, as stated on this forum for a million times.

It also means that her strokes have not been preprogrammed to factor in elemental variables such as wind. And that the accuracy is limited to hitting "pure" shots. Unless you're Chris Evert, that's about as accurate as most people can go.

OK, the WS for example are very good wind players, but still get trashed for their groundies.

moby
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:10 PM
OK, the WS for example are very good wind players, but still get trashed for their groundies.

:confused: They are?

IMO, Venus and Serena have a better understanding of spins than Maria, so that could be why they are better in the wind.

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:15 PM
:confused: They are?

IMO, Venus and Serena have a better understanding of spins than Maria, so that could be why they are better in the wind.

Yes they are. I don't really think they've had matches were the wind attributed to their loss and they have always been praised for being able to fight through the wind.

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:18 PM
Yes they are. I don't really think they've had matches were the wind attributed to their loss and they have always been praised for being able to fight through the wind.
This is probably true, Maria hits very flat shots, the topspin used by the williamses carries the ball down onto the court at just the right moment.

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:21 PM
This is probably true, Maria hits very flat shots, the topspin used by the williamses carries the ball down onto the court at just the right moment.

She'll temper her own greatness if she doesn't fix this. She'll be rolling along in a tournament and then come across bad conditions or a retrieving player like Kim and probably lose a match she should win.

La Reine
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:23 PM
Sharapova is a consistent power player, yet I'm surprised that too many people can't beat her because all it takes is to get her out of her comfort zone (if she'll let you), and she has a very small comfort zone right now. But once she's there, she's lethal.

JHH was trying to beat her in the first set by taking pace off the ball and playing it down the middle, but that's not the way to beat Sharapova, the way to beat her is to use power and variety (maybe use a short slice to force her to the net, move her from side to side with angled shots etc). I think at this stage of her career Hingis could probably beat her simply by being more cunning on the court.

Freewoman33
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:24 PM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.

Guess.

Szymanowski
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:26 PM
She'll temper her own greatness if she doesn't fix this. She'll be rolling along in a tournament and then come across bad conditions or a retrieving player like Kim and probably lose a match she should win.
Well, it's not something that needs 'fixing', because it generally works great for her. But yes, you are right, she needs to do something about playing in wind. :sad:

Infiniti2001
Apr 3rd, 2005, 04:50 PM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.

Why? It's just one more thing in years of always finding fault in everything they do and looking for reasons they aren't that good. People are going to see looking back, how much the sport shot itself in the foot by trying to downplay at every turn two of it's most marketable stars. I mean , downgrading them at every turn, rooting against them, building up anyone who beat them. They've already made it seem like no one measures up to Maria, so trust me --- people will tune out.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 3rd, 2005, 05:10 PM
Why? It's just one more thing in years of always finding fault in everything they do and looking for reasons they aren't that good. People are going to see looking back, how much the sport shot itself in the foot by trying to downplay at every turn two of it's most marketable stars. I mean , downgrading them at every turn, rooting against them, building up anyone who beat them. They've already made it seem like no one measures up to Maria, so trust me --- people will tune out.


I agree, and we've seen time and again players debunk that myth, and of course Lindsay did it best in great conditions when both players were fit and healthy. 6-0 6-0 :worship: :worship:

kiwifan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 05:22 PM
I think the best answer is because young players of this generation are all playing "power tennis" (well except for the very few)!

During the period where WS are criticized for their game, no other player played with so much power like they used to and tennis people where in a bit shocked because it is a revolution in the game. Remember how change affects the conservatives.

By now it is very fair to say that the WS has really revolutionizes the game and if tennis people would still insist on saying that "power tennis" is bad for the game then they will end up like the big joke they were because in all honesty everyone is playing "power tennis" nowadays and if they bash Maria for it, the they have to bash half of the WTA tour!

Fair enough? :yeah:

That's all I ever want out of GM posters, fairness. :cool:

pigam
Apr 3rd, 2005, 05:29 PM
I was impressed with Maria, she is still improving.
Her serve is not bashing, but placement.
She's able to change heights and she's very speedy.
she is the absolute best @ hard rallies from the baseline, thruogh the middle, let her be :yeah:
You better not hope she hugely improves her netplay or she will be evn ore difficult to beat!

LDVTennis
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:01 PM
Overrated or not, some critical weaknesses are starting to appear.

When forced to cover either extreme of the court, Maria doesn't seem to have the speed or the body position to hit her regular strokes.

When Kim made Maria run into the forehand corner, Maria would often resort to a kind of check forehand, which ended up going crosscourt and landing short.

When Kim could get Maria trapped in the forehand corner, the winning play was to hit a respectably deep shot to the other corner. Maria just doesn't seem to have the agility or speed to recover from hitting a shot in the deep forehand corner and to sprint to the opposite corner.

Like Davenport, Maria really needs to strike first to either extreme with her groundstrokes in order to win a point. If the point gets complicated, calling for her to run side to side to the extremes or back and forth to the net, she loses much of the leverage that her body gives her when she can stand in the middle of the baseline.

The more and more her opponents find the extremes against her, the more and more difficult Maria is going to find it to control points the way she wants to.

Say whatever you want about the Williams' sisters, but both at least moved well enough in their prime to defend the extremes of the court.

If we were talking about a technical problem with one of her strokes, we could say that with her coaching she'll eventually figure out what to do. But, speed and agility cannot be taught. If they could be, then Seles would have become as fast as Graf. Or, Davenport would now be as fast as Venus and Serena.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:05 PM
umm...no...actually...she has power, control, and variety....which is good.
Where's the variety? :confused:

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:05 PM
As in real life and hailing for cabs; a pretty face can get you a little
bit further than others.
Really, than Serena and Venus shouldn't have this problem. :rolleyes:

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:06 PM
well she does hit dropshots and tries to go to net more often but unfortunately is not very good at volleying
I haven't seen many dropshots from her, nor does she slice at all.

K-Dog
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:10 PM
I wouldn't call Maria's game 'power'...'power' is Serena, Alicia Molik etc but what I've noticed about Maria's game is her accuracy. In Wimbledon last year she hit lots of really good angled shots. From the Aus Open (in sydney we don't get the privilege of watching indian wells/miami...only the matches i taped from the aussie tourneys :( ) she didn't play that well, nothing memorable and I've been trying to figure out how she got as far as the semis, and again, accuracy...cos she didn't get that many unforced errors...(and her winners stats weren't that high either).

So yeah, I don't think her game's that powerful at all. If she wants to be put in that same category as Roddick she needs to put on some weight :) and commentators aren't raving about her power either, only for the fact that she's young, blonde, has won wimbly etc etc...


Please, Serena is not all about power. Her game has excellent angles, and she has topspin on her shots, not to mention the serve and the variety she possesses with that shot. Venus and Alicia both can play the net wonderfully, unlike Maria. Maris hits the same damn ball over and over and harder and harder depending on the importance of the point. Alicia has a backhand slice, topspin groundies, great vollies, and the most variety ever on a woman's serve. Alicia is a big girl, like Serena and Venus, but they are NOT all about power. Maria is a ball basher, plain and simple!

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:13 PM
Serena has a lot more variety than Maria, and she was considered the downfall of tennis. In case ppl didnt notice, Serena is also powerful and accurate. If she wasnt accurate and hit out all the time she wouldnt have won 7 Slams.
If you watch the match at the AO vs Sharapova, Serena used a greater variety of shots, trying to bring Sharapova in, hitting short slices which Maria couldnt handle, and angled shots to take her out of court.
I believe that's how Maria gets beaten. You can't let her pin you to the baseline, because she's too accurate and good at hitting the ball on the rise.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:14 PM
I think the best answer is because young players of this generation are all playing "power tennis" (well except for the very few)!

During the period where WS are criticized for their game, no other player played with so much power like they used to and tennis people where in a bit shocked because it is a revolution in the game. Remember how change affects the conservatives.

By now it is very fair to say that the WS has really revolutionizes the game and if tennis people would still insist on saying that "power tennis" is bad for the game then they will end up like the big joke they were because in all honesty everyone is playing "power tennis" nowadays and if they bash Maria for it, the they have to bash half of the WTA tour!

Fair enough?
Then they should fess up and apologize for what they said about V&S.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:15 PM
But she does have a weakness......she is slow.....most of the time she just gambles that the opponent will hit the ball back to her....while the tactic should be: never hit it back to the same spot twice.....if you are able to do this consistently you have a very good chance of beatin Maria.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:16 PM
Maria doesn't just hit the ball hard. You don't get to world No 3 by just hitting the ball hard. :rolleyes:

Maria is accurate in a way most players aren't, and goes for winning shots or shots that force errors because of their pace and closeness to the lines. She is also a good defender and good returner. she has a good armoury of shots, and is beginning to go to net more (mostly in easier matches so far).

If by "variety" you mean playing loads of loopy shots, or waiting for the other player to make an error (which style seems even more lacking in variety to me), then I don't think you're going to see that from Maria. Different players have different styles. A few days ago loads of people were posting how Justine's "variety" was going to totally confound Maria. But Maria found enough variety in her own game to match it.
Frankly, I think she outlasted Justine and wore her down in the third set because Justine is not as fit at this point as Maria.

starr
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:17 PM
She does need to be faster. She plays a little like Lindsay who so beautifully dominates the center of the court. You have to get her on the move. But it is easier said than done with both of these players.

I hope Maria is working on her speed day in and day out. :)

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:18 PM
Please, Serena is not all about power. Her game has excellent angles, and she has topspin on her shots, not to mention the serve and the variety she possesses with that shot. Venus and Alicia both can play the net wonderfully, unlike Maria. Maris hits the small damn ball over and over and harder and harder depending on the importance of the point. Alicia has a backhand slice, topspin groundies, great vollies, and the most variety ever on a woman's serve. Alicia is a big girl, like Serena and Venus, but they are NOT all about power. Maria is a ball basher, plain and simple!

Agreed.....but we should agree on this: serving is Serena and Serena is serving...

VeeReeDavJCap81
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:44 PM
Too bad Serena is not in her 2002-2003 form. Because she was so accurate, and would spray those lines so well. But anyone that watches tennis should know that both Venus and Serena have more variety than Sharapova. You can tell by watching Sharapova that she was trained to be a baseline warrior. V&S were trained to be warriors as well, but were trained to use more variety in their games. They're not JHH or Momo, but have the ability to use different shots, and do captilize when the opportunity presents itself.

To add to that. In the AO SF Serena did expose a few a Maria's weaknesses. On one game where Serena broke Sharapova she was hitting the ball hard and flat at her feet, and was forcing Sharapova into errors. Another thing I noticed is how many of Maria's lobs Serena smacked for overhead winners. And we won't even go there how Sharapova was aiming for Serena's forehand almost the entire match, but look what happened on those 2 mps. Players forget that Serena's fh isn't nearly as flawed as Venus' and the real reason why Serena makes many errors on the fh side is because she goes for a lot of winners with it.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:53 PM
If the wind totally messes up Maria's game, what does that say about her accuracy?
A true champion overcomes adversities. I guess Maria is only accurate in perfect weather.

Julia1968
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:57 PM
Looks like several in this thread have been Sharapovanated.lol: :lol: :lol:

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 08:58 PM
Sharapova is a consistent power player, yet I'm surprised that too many people can't beat her because all it takes is to get her out of her comfort zone (if she'll let you), and she has a very small comfort zone right now. But once she's there, she's lethal.

JHH was trying to beat her in the first set by taking pace off the ball and playing it down the middle, but that's not the way to beat Sharapova, the way to beat her is to use power and variety (maybe use a short slice to force her to the net, move her from side to side with angled shots etc). I think at this stage of her career Hingis could probably beat her simply by being more cunning on the court.
Exactly.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 09:00 PM
Why? It's just one more thing in years of always finding fault in everything they do and looking for reasons they aren't that good. People are going to see looking back, how much the sport shot itself in the foot by trying to downplay at every turn two of it's most marketable stars. I mean , downgrading them at every turn, rooting against them, building up anyone who beat them. They've already made it seem like no one measures up to Maria, so trust me --- people will tune out.
The good thing is that the faulting and downplaying of the sisters never get them down and hasn't hurt them in continuing to play their games and continuing to be hailed as celebrities.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 09:05 PM
Overrated or not, some critical weaknesses are starting to appear.

When forced to cover either extreme of the court, Maria doesn't seem to have the speed or the body position to hit her regular strokes.

When Kim made Maria run into the forehand corner, Maria would often resort to a kind of check forehand, which ended up going crosscourt and landing short.

When Kim could get Maria trapped in the forehand corner, the winning play was to hit a respectably deep shot to the other corner. Maria just doesn't seem to have the agility or speed to recover from hitting a shot in the deep forehand corner and to sprint to the opposite corner.

Like Davenport, Maria really needs to strike first to either extreme with her groundstrokes in order to win a point. If the point gets complicated, calling for her to run side to side to the extremes or back and forth to the net, she loses much of the leverage that her body gives her when she can stand in the middle of the baseline.

The more and more her opponents find the extremes against her, the more and more difficult Maria is going to find it to control points the way she wants to.

Say whatever you want about the Williams' sisters, but both at least moved well enough in their prime to defend the extremes of the court.
If we were talking about a technical problem with one of her strokes, we could say that with her coaching she'll eventually figure out what to do. But, speed and agility cannot be taught. If they could be, then Seles would have become as fast as Graf. Or, Davenport would now be as fast as Venus and Serena.
I totally agree with your post (imagine that :p ). But, I want to add that Serena and Venus have variety in their respective games. When Venus comes to the net she hardly misses and Serena is good at slicing, drop shots and overhead lobs. These things are in addition to their topspin groundstrokes and ability to go out wide and make winners.

Lemonskin.
Apr 3rd, 2005, 09:06 PM
Why? Because it's taken her to #3 in the world, with a Grand Slam title to boot.

RVD
Apr 3rd, 2005, 09:12 PM
GREAT THREAD, and SO TRUE!
There have been some excellent points and rebuttals made in this thread that it would be too difficult to comment on all of them. But this one really caught my attention...

Overrated or not, some critical weaknesses are starting to appear.

When forced to cover either extreme of the court, Maria doesn't seem to have the speed or the body position to hit her regular strokes.

When Kim made Maria run into the forehand corner, Maria would often resort to a kind of check forehand, which ended up going crosscourt and landing short.

When Kim could get Maria trapped in the forehand corner, the winning play was to hit a respectably deep shot to the other corner. Maria just doesn't seem to have the agility or speed to recover from hitting a shot in the deep forehand corner and to sprint to the opposite corner.

Like Davenport, Maria really needs to strike first to either extreme with her groundstrokes in order to win a point. If the point gets complicated, calling for her to run side to side to the extremes or back and forth to the net, she loses much of the leverage that her body gives her when she can stand in the middle of the baseline.

The more and more her opponents find the extremes against her, the more and more difficult Maria is going to find it to control points the way she wants to.

Say whatever you want about the Williams' sisters, but both at least moved well enough in their prime to defend the extremes of the court.

If we were talking about a technical problem with one of her strokes, we could say that with her coaching she'll eventually figure out what to do. But, speed and agility cannot be taught. If they could be, then Seles would have become as fast as Graf. Or, Davenport would now be as fast as Venus and Serena.My GOD! This was an EXCELLENT analysis of Maria's strengths and weaknesses. Normally I've disagreed with many of your posts in the past LDVTennis, but this one is spot on!! So many great points in fact that I decided to 'bold' the entire thing. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/music049.gif
Damn good post. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/clap.gif

However, concerning V&S and how people viewed their past and present contributions to tennis...

Ultimately, history will show how they were unfairly castigated for their ambassador-ship to the game. These two ladies have been through so much during their career, and yet have given so much back to tennis. But all you hear is, "They should be grateful that tennis made them millionaires." Truth is, Venus and Serena have made many tennis manufacturers, executives, tournaments, concessioners, etc... TONS of many as well.
This is why I don't worry about the non-Williams fans.

The fact that so many can write with such regularity downgrading the sisters' game (though the sisters have many slam & tour wins to their credit) tells you something about these people. But this is how folks respond to fear. V&S scared a lot of people with their incredible game! So much so that many thought it was damn near the end of tennis as they knew it. But tennis didn't end. IT GOT BETTER... due in large part to V&S's so-called 'ugly' power game. now everyone and their grandmother is out there playing 'ugly' tennis. :lol:

There's so much more I wanted to say, but I'm sure the point has been made many times over.

Maria has strengths and weaknesses just like all great athletes. She has time to correct these, as did V&S. Time will be the true test to Maria's game. Just as it was and is to the sisters. The only difference is, Venus and Serena have NOTHING else left to prove. :shrug:

I just hope that time will also heal the dark hearts of the Venus and Serena detractors as well. Not just on this message board but also in the commentary booths. :yeah:

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 09:43 PM
Why? Because it's taken her to #3 in the world, with a Grand Slam title to boot.

You are right and she should be praised, but the sisters didn't get that same praise when they were up there, they were instead accused of destroying the game.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:25 PM
You are right and she should be praised, but the sisters didn't get that same praise when they were up there, they were instead accused of destroying the game.

Yup. Double standard city.

Junex
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:42 PM
Then they should fess up and apologize for what they said about V&S.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

If that will ever happen, even in GM, which all are anonymous that even hardly happen!

People are full of pride! and tennis people have double that thinking they were tennis gods!

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:46 PM
You are right and she should be praised, but the sisters didn't get that same praise when they were up there, they were instead accused of destroying the game.

Funny ain't it? Seems to be the story of their lives.....:sad:

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:51 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

If that will ever happen, even in GM, which all are anonymous that even hardly happen!

People are full of pride! and tennis people have double that thinking they were tennis gods!
It never hurts to hope for the good in people to come out. :)

Brooks.
Apr 3rd, 2005, 10:58 PM
I definitley don't think she's ever been mentally stronger than Venus and Serena. Venus went on to her first US open final in 1997, saving 2 match points in the semis against Irina Spirlea (the other one with a brilliant Backhand down the line by the way ;) ) Serena came back from 1-6 2-5 15-40 to beat Lindsay in 1998 and always had the confidence.
Venus showed great court sense in that USO semi -97, when she started making ground stroke errors too much late in the third set, she started serve-and-volleying.(Plan B) I don't think Maria could've beaten Martina Hingis in 1999 USO final either, like Serena.

sorry this is off the subject but you dont happen to have this match or know of someone who does by any chance??? :)

~CANUCK~
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:01 PM
You are right and she should be praised, but the sisters didn't get that same praise when they were up there, they were instead accused of destroying the game.

Ok but you are missing a big point here. Who was it that was saying they were bad for the game, the williams haters. Everyone else can pretty much agree they were good for the game. I don't like serena but the game needs her. You say they didn't get praise while they were winning, did you not give them praise and celebrate, what about all the other fans. The people who are celebrating maria's good play are her fans, and the haters are bashing her just like your favs.

xan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:05 PM
:
Btw, if you play tennis, you will know that in the wind, you cannot go for the lines as much, and you must leave greater margin for error in case the wind carries the bal out of play. Also remember the wind was unpredictable. This does not help you to be accurate. All I was trying to say is that this was one edge that was taken off Maria's game.

This is true. The gale conditions hurt Maria a lot more than Kim because Kim loops the ball higher over the net and doesn't count on going for the lines nearly as much as Maria does, hitting most of her shots well inside the court. In a strong, blustery wind like that at the final, a game based on accurate shotmaking was at a distinct disadvantage.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:07 PM
The commentators canuck....they didn' t praise the sisters at all....yet maria is god..

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:07 PM
Ok but you are missing a big point here. Who was it that was saying they were bad for the game, the williams haters. Everyone else can pretty much agree they were good for the game. I don't like serena but the game needs her. You say they didn't get praise while they were winning, did you not give them praise and celebrate, what about all the other fans. The people who are celebrating maria's good play are her fans, and the haters are bashing her just like your favs.

I'm talking about those in the tennis establishment and tennis media. I don't really care what anyone on this board says because they are only saying it cause of what they heard from the aforementioned group of people. This same group praises Maria for the same qualities that they downed the Williams sisters for exhibiting. They also ignored it when Lindsay and Jennifer did it.

~CANUCK~
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:11 PM
The commentators canuck....they didn' t praise the sisters at all....yet maria is god..

Im honestly confused. I mean obviously there are commentators that are gonna be baised and say stupid shit. But as far as i know most of the ones ive seen have said that they have raised the bar in tennis bringing it to a new level. How exactly is that not praising them?

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:16 PM
This is true. The gale conditions hurt Maria a lot more than Kim because Kim loops the ball higher over the net and doesn't count on going for the lines nearly as much as Maria does, hitting most of her shots well inside the court. In a strong, blustery wind like that at the final, a game based on accurate shotmaking was at a distinct disadvantage.
Oh boo hoo hoo. :rain: Like I said before, true champions and great players come up with an alternative plan to overcome all adversities, aside from injuries, to win. Kim faced the same wind. :rolleyes:

xan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:24 PM
Oh boo hoo hoo. :rain: Like I said before, true champions and great players come up with an alternative plan to overcome all adversities, aside from injuries, to win. Kim faced the same wind. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you didn't read my post. I said the that wind particularly affects players who depend on going for accurate shots. Maria's game is centred on that. Kim's is not.

~CANUCK~
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:24 PM
Oh boo hoo hoo. :rain: Like I said before, true champions and great players come up with an alternative plan to overcome all adversities, aside from injuries, to win. Kim faced the same wind. :rolleyes:
What exactly are you getting at with this. all players have their weakness's. Marias is movement, she is an awful mover on the court, and when there is wind that gets exposed big time becoz you need to be a good mover to play well in the wind. So now she is not a true champion becoz she isn't perfect. What about Venus and her second serve, or her forehand for that matter. Or lindsay and her shitty attitude on court, or jen and her temper. These are all great champions but have big weakness's in there game. Should we start saying they aren't true champions as well?

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:25 PM
Perhaps you didn't read my post. I said the that wind particularly affects players who depend on going for accurate shots. Maria's game is centred on that. Kim's is not.
Perhaps you didn't read my post. I said that she should have had an alternative plan. You're saying that Maria can only play and win in perfect conditions. That's not the sign of a true champion.

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:27 PM
Perhaps you didn't read my post. I said the that wind particularly affects players who depend on going for accurate shots. Maria's game is centred on that. Kim's is not.

The bigger point is that Maria has to learn how to change her game so she can deal with the windy conditions instead of letting them take her out of a match.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:31 PM
What exactly are you getting at with this. all players have their weakness's. Marias is movement, she is an awful mover on the court, and when there is wind that gets exposed big time becoz you need to be a good mover to play well in the wind. So now she is not a true champion becoz she isn't perfect. What about Venus and her second serve, or her forehand for that matter. Or lindsay and her shitty attitude on court, or jen and her temper. These are all great champions but have big weakness's in there game. Should we start saying they aren't true champions as well?
The wind affected her movement? :confused: I never said she was perfect. I said that if she has to have perfect conditions to win, then she's not a true champion. Venus has always had problems with her second serve and forehand, even when she was winning slams and being a finalist in slams, but she had more to her game and the weaknesses were overcome. Lindsay obviously finds ways to overcome her "shitty attitude" on court. She's No. 1. Jen's temper is not her weakness in her matches, and even if it were she'd overcome it. I'm not saying that Maria won't figure out a way to overcome the fact that she needs perfect conditions to win, but only time will tell.

xan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:32 PM
I'm talking about those in the tennis establishment and tennis media. I don't really care what anyone on this board says because they are only saying it cause of what they heard from the aforementioned group of people. This same group praises Maria for the same qualities that they downed the Williams sisters for exhibiting. They also ignored it when Lindsay and Jennifer did it.

The Williams sisters were attacked because they changed the game with a new level of power play. For a while they just lew all the other players away, and many commentators were annoyed, seeing their favourite players' and their varying tactical games just wiped off the map. They then moaned about brutal power dominating everything.

Things are different now. A lot of the women play with power, and competition is back. Hence an exciting new competitor like Maria is welcomed to the mix.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:33 PM
The Williams sisters were attacked because they changed the game with a new level of power play. For a while they just lew all the other players away, and many commentators were annoyed, seeing their favourite players' and their varying tactical games just wiped off the map. They then moaned about brutal power dominating everything.

Things are different now. A lot of the women play with power, and competition is back. Hence an exciting new competitor like Maria is welcomed to the mix.
What a cop out answer. :rolleyes:

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:38 PM
Im honestly confused. I mean obviously there are commentators that are gonna be baised and say stupid shit. But as far as i know most of the ones ive seen have said that they have raised the bar in tennis bringing it to a new level. How exactly is that not praising them?

You must be like the only one who has heard this...

~CANUCK~
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:38 PM
The wind affected her movement? :confused: I never said she was perfect. I said that if she has to have perfect conditions to win, then she's not a true champion. Venus has always had problems with her second serve and forehand, even when she was winning slams and being a finalist in slams, but she had more to her game and the weaknesses were overcome. Lindsay obviously finds ways to overcome her "shitty attitude" on court. She's No. 1. Jen's temper is not her weakness in her matches, and even if it were she'd overcome it. I'm not saying that Maria won't figure out a way to overcome the fact that she needs perfect conditions to win, but only time will tell.

i never said the wind affected her movement, where did you get that from? I said maria is a bad mover, and when there is wind it gets exposed. She is a bad mover when there is wind or when there is no wind. Maria has been playing good tennis for less then a year now and i would say she is doing pretty good for herself. You say that venus had more things to her game to get over the weakness's and i totally agree with that, but you are making it seem like maria is no good at all coz she has one major flaw to her game. She has won a slam already, this year she has made 3 finals and 2 semis. There are always going to be things in peoples games that keep them from winning on certain days, its as simple as that. Why can't lindsay do well on clay, she is no good at all on red clay, does that mean that she is not a true champion becoz she hasn't found a way to win in the dirt yet?

xan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:38 PM
Perhaps you didn't read my post. I said that she should have had an alternative plan. You're saying that Maria can only play and win in perfect conditions. That's not the sign of a true champion.

I didn't say anything about needing perfect conditions. You should read my posts with more care. What I said was that the extreme windy conditions favoured Kim's type of game (loopy shots, hitting well inside the lines) over Maria's ( pinpoint accurate shots to the lines, low over the net.) Maria doesn't need perfect conditions to win, but it doesn't take a genius to see how a game based on accurate shotmaking is at a disadvantage in extreme blustery wind conditions.

~CANUCK~
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:40 PM
You must be like the only one who has heard this...

You are joking right. I don't know how many times ive seen pam, mary jo, mary and ect.. say that they brought the game to a new level. All you guys seem to hear is the bad stuff and totally ignore the fact that they do say nice stuff also. Like last night, Lizchris was bashing mary for making a comment but totally ignored the fact that latter on in the matc mary said that serena was one of the best fighters on tour

xan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:42 PM
i never said the wind affected her movement, where did you get that from? I said maria is a bad mover, and when there is wind it gets exposed. She is a bad mover when there is wind or when there is no wind. Maria has been playing good tennis for less then a year now and i would say she is doing pretty good for herself. You say that venus had more things to her game to get over the weakness's and i totally agree with that, but you are making it seem like maria is no good at all coz she has one major flaw to her game. She has won a slam already, this year she has made 3 finals and 2 semis. There are always going to be things in peoples games that keep them from winning on certain days, its as simple as that. Why can't lindsay do well on clay, she is no good at all on red clay, does that mean that she is not a true champion becoz she hasn't found a way to win in the dirt yet?

:worship:

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:42 PM
The Williams sisters were attacked because they changed the game with a new level of power play. For a while they just lew all the other players away, and many commentators were annoyed, seeing their favourite players' and their varying tactical games just wiped off the map. They then moaned about brutal power dominating everything.

Things are different now. A lot of the women play with power, and competition is back. Hence an exciting new competitor like Maria is welcomed to the mix.

So again....it's just a matter of not wanting the sisters to dominate or winning period.

Think that if Maria came up first with just power that she'd been killed like the sisters have? Or that sisters came up after her that they wouldn't have been critisized?

Knizzle
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:46 PM
The Williams sisters were attacked because they changed the game with a new level of power play. For a while they just lew all the other players away, and many commentators were annoyed, seeing their favourite players' and their varying tactical games just wiped off the map. They then moaned about brutal power dominating everything.

Things are different now. A lot of the women play with power, and competition is back. Hence an exciting new competitor like Maria is welcomed to the mix.

Things have not changed that much in less than 2 years.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:46 PM
You are joking right. I don't know how many times ive seen pam, mary jo, mary and ect.. say that they brought the game to a new level. All you guys seem to hear is the bad stuff and totally ignore the fact that they do say nice stuff also. Like last night, Lizchris was bashing mary for making a comment but totally ignored the fact that latter on in the matc mary said that serena was one of the best fighters on tour

Of course they throw out the odd little bean, but most of the time...it's business as usual.

xan
Apr 3rd, 2005, 11:57 PM
So again....it's just a matter of not wanting the sisters to dominate or winning period.

Think that if Maria came up first with just power that she'd been killed like the sisters have? Or that sisters came up after her that they wouldn't have been critisized?

Interesting question.

If Maria had come first, she would probably not have been criticised as much as the Williams' because there is just one of her. She would have been greeted just as Seles was - as a prodigy. If there had been two Sharapova Sisters, however, threatening to dominate tennis with power hitting. They'd have got flak.

If the Williamses had appeared on the scene now, I think they wouldn't have been criticized so much.

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:06 AM
Interesting question.

If Maria had come first, she would probably not have been criticised as much as the Williams' because there is just one of her. She would have been greeted just as Seles was - as a prodigy. If there had been two Sharapova Sisters, however, threatening to dominate tennis with power hitting. They'd have got flak.

If the Williamses had appeared on the scene now, I think they wouldn't have been criticized so much.

Hmmm.....so it's about them being sister now?

roarke
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:07 AM
Lindsay plays power tennis, very few drop shots or angles, limited variety. The same for Jennifer Capriati. Monica Seles plays power tennis but she could find the angles very well, not very good with drop shots or lobs though. Justine use to play with lots of loops and lobs but she changed her game to power tennis. She does play with variety and so does Kim to an extent. Power by one handed backhand or two handed backhand is still power. Venus and Serena plays power tennis with variety. Venus is now incorporating more net work into her game and she will only get better at it. Maria plays power tennis..... she hits the ball extremely hard thus making it hard for the returner. However as soon as she is moved around the court or faced with drop shots she shows weakness. The other players will adjust to her brand of power tennis soon and then she will be forced to use more variety. Serena and Venus were bashed day in and day out for their power tennis by the commentators, other coaches, other players and some of the same people on the board who admired other players for playing the same game. They are still being bashed today even now, except now they are bashed for having a life outside of tennis, or for not being able to win as they use to. Imagine the outrage if they were still dominating like they did before........!

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:11 AM
Lindsay plays power tennis, very few drop shots or angles, limited variety. The same for Jennifer Capriati. Monica Seles plays power tennis but she could find the angles very well, not very good with drop shots or lobs though. Justine use to play with lots of loops and lobs but she changed her game to power tennis. She does play with variety and so does Kim to an extent. Power by one handed backhand or two handed backhand is still power. Venus and Serena plays power tennis with variety. Venus is now incorporating more net work into her game and she will only get better at it. Maria plays power tennis..... she hits the ball extremely hard thus making it hard for the returner. However as soon as she is moved around the court or faced with drop shots she shows weakness. The other players will adjust to her brand of power tennis soon and then she will be forced to use more variety. Serena and Venus were bashed day in and day out for their power tennis by the commentators, other coaches, other players and some of the same people on the board who admired other players for playing the same game. They are still being bashed today even now, except now they are bashed for having a life outside of tennis, or for not being able to win as they use to. Imagine the outrage if they were still dominating like they did before........!

Tjaaa....what can one say?

ktwtennis
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:12 AM
The reason is that Maria on a consistent basis makes fewer errors than the Williams and attempts to construct points...

Brooks.
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:16 AM
The reason is that Maria on a consistent basis makes fewer errors than the Williams and attempts to construct points...

i wouldnt exactly call it constructing points per say :tape:

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:39 AM
The reason is that Maria on a consistent basis makes fewer errors than the Williams and attempts to construct points...

Of course.....the sisters are mindless bashers afterall...how could one forget...

Sharapova's_Boy
Apr 4th, 2005, 12:43 AM
Wow, Maria certainly has the longest hate threads. :eek:

Add that to her growing list of acheivements. :yeah:

franny
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:45 AM
Honestly, do you know why Lolo? I'll tell you why. It is because the great Williams sisters made it acceptable. When they first came on, they were crucified for it. But look who the fans go out to see. Look who is by far the most recognizable female athletes in the world. Look who won 7 major titles and is the most imposing figure on the court. That is why Maria is praised for Ball Bashing. Because in today's game, it works. It is crucial. That is why Lindsay is praised for it as well. The Williams sisters, while getting heat on it when they first came on the tour, made it okay to play big babe tennis. Just think of the Williams as two amazing women who opened so many doors for others. Think of them as Christ-like figures for women tennis. They got booed and suffered through so much ordeal so that these young girls that are coming up now don't have to. Don't complain of double standard, don't complain of racism, and don't complain of superficiality. Be happy that this is the case because it speaks testament to what the Williams have done for the game. THey are pioneers of the game and they have risen tennis to a level that these girls now are praised for matching.

Dominic
Apr 4th, 2005, 04:43 AM
To be honest, it looks like she hits less and less hard everytime I see her play. At the ao at one point in the serena match she was averaging 67mph which is almost slow.

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 05:07 AM
Lindsay plays power tennis, very few drop shots or angles, limited variety. The same for Jennifer Capriati. Monica Seles plays power tennis but she could find the angles very well, not very good with drop shots or lobs though. Justine use to play with lots of loops and lobs but she changed her game to power tennis. She does play with variety and so does Kim to an extent. Power by one handed backhand or two handed backhand is still power. Venus and Serena plays power tennis with variety. Venus is now incorporating more net work into her game and she will only get better at it. Maria plays power tennis..... she hits the ball extremely hard thus making it hard for the returner. However as soon as she is moved around the court or faced with drop shots she shows weakness. The other players will adjust to her brand of power tennis soon and then she will be forced to use more variety. Serena and Venus were bashed day in and day out for their power tennis by the commentators, other coaches, other players and some of the same people on the board who admired other players for playing the same game. They are still being bashed today even now, except now they are bashed for having a life outside of tennis, or for not being able to win as they use to. Imagine the outrage if they were still dominating like they did before........!
:worship: :worship: :worship:

Dominic
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:21 AM
I totally agree with your post (imagine that :p ). But, I want to add that Serena and Venus have variety in their respective games. When Venus comes to the net she hardly misses and Serena is good at slicing, drop shots and overhead lobs. These things are in addition to their topspin groundstrokes and ability to go out wide and make winners.

Oh please, its not because serena hits a dropshot in a while that she's good at it. Her dropshots suck, most of them sail beyond the service line.

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 08:49 AM
Honestly, do you know why Lolo? I'll tell you why. It is because the great Williams sisters made it acceptable. When they first came on, they were crucified for it. But look who the fans go out to see. Look who is by far the most recognizable female athletes in the world. Look who won 7 major titles and is the most imposing figure on the court. That is why Maria is praised for Ball Bashing. Because in today's game, it works. It is crucial. That is why Lindsay is praised for it as well. The Williams sisters, while getting heat on it when they first came on the tour, made it okay to play big babe tennis. Just think of the Williams as two amazing women who opened so many doors for others. Think of them as Christ-like figures for women tennis. They got booed and suffered through so much ordeal so that these young girls that are coming up now don't have to. Don't complain of double standard, don't complain of racism, and don't complain of superficiality. Be happy that this is the case because it speaks testament to what the Williams have done for the game. THey are pioneers of the game and they have risen tennis to a level that these girls now are praised for matching.

I appreciate the gesture franny, but I think you and I both know this is bullshit.

Stamp Paid
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:15 AM
The reason is that Maria on a consistent basis makes fewer errors than the Williams and attempts to construct points...

LOL, attempt to construct points? :crazy:

Maria's match point #3 in the ao sf, thats a contructed point. :hearts:
I've never seen Maria actually contruct a point, however. :scratch:

Szymanowski
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:22 AM
LOL, attempt to construct points? :crazy:

Maria's match point #3 in the ao sf, thats a contructed point. :hearts:
I've never seen Maria actually contruct a point, however. :scratch:
This has turned into a very silly thread....... :rolleyes:


If you can quote one point, and base your analysis of a player on that, you are very silly :rolleyes:

Of course, I'm sure you have other reasons for saying what you just did, but please try and at least back up a point, otherwise there's no logical discussion going on in here; there's too many people saying things with 1 piece of evidence, and it just doesn't stand up when you look at the bigger picture.

And nobody ever backs down, or admits when they're wrong.

Szymanowski
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:23 AM
Sorry, I was maybe a little harsh in this last post, most people in this forum are sensible posters, but I wish people would try and back up what they say a bit more.

franny
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:38 AM
I appreciate the gesture franny, but I think you and I both know this is bullshit.

Oh Knizzle, I guess that if that didn't satisfy you then I will try an alternative reasoning. How about the fact that in an America where "whiteness" is marked as the standard for who should be making the money and who should be dominating, whether it be in society, politics, or the workforce, the average American just cannot stand the fact that two black athletes could be that good. America is not racist, that is not what I am trying to say. I think that often times, people confuse the posessive investment in whiteness for racism. The fact is that Americans need white people to be on top. Any minority group that gets on top would be subjected to their place. It is a matter of power in society. White people have the power and therefore must seek to maintain it. Serena and Venus Williams took the game by storm and outhit all them white kids that were previously dominating the tour. People couldn't stand that. It could have been felt subconsciously, but it was felt nontheless. I think that it's just something that will never go away in society. Asians will always be subjected as unassimilable in society and blacks will always be seen as inferior to whites. That is why you will never see an Asian governor, senator, or president. You will also never see de facto racism dissapear from our society. It is just that the history of America has reimplemented white supremacy, and whether we choose to accept it or not, it will always be there. We minorities can cry foul all we want, but it's just a part of our society. Education, quite frankly, is the only way to rid our nation of this, and yet most Americans, especially those situated in the midwest are not educated; at least not about diversity and ethnic studies. Again, I am not implying that racism took place back then. I am simply implying that possessive investment in whiteness is the reason behind the double standard. That is that and we must accept it.

However, I will stand by my opinion that the William Sisters have made ball bashing more acceptable. What they have done for tennis is insurpassable. They have been great for this game whether tennis experts or the media wants to admit or not. It was just that they took it to such a high level that no one could catch up to them, and that frustrated the media. If you combined this with the fact that Americans cannot stand to see two black females dominate their white counterparts and you get what you get. However, no one has surpassed the Williams yet. Do not forget that, these younger players are being praised for catching up to them, not surpassing them. We'll see what happens when one or two player begin to dominate the game again with yet another higher level of play.

Szymanowski
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:54 AM
One thing is for sure, it's such ugly tennis, it didn't get either of the sisters a grand slam now, did it?:rolleyes:

Surely it doesn't matter what people think of the tennis so long as the player in question is able to win!

moby
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:31 AM
Oh please, its not because serena hits a dropshot in a while that she's good at it. Her dropshots suck, most of them sail beyond the service line.

Yeah, I've got this thing to say about Serena's variety (and in particular, her dropshot): Good effort. :tape:

She tries it relentlessly even though it clearly does not work. I still remember several of her dropshots becoming lowbs (i.e. semi-lobs that bounce on the service line). However the rest of her game allows her the freedom to play around in the match. :shrug:

beall420
Apr 4th, 2005, 05:37 PM
The reason Maria is praised is the same reason she is now the highest paid female athelete despite very few accomplishments as opposed to other greats. SHe is white, blond, blue eyed and has a hard luck story to tell. Almost all the commentators are white as i imagine many of the endorsers are.

racism! pure and simple

La Reine
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:06 PM
IMHO Sharapova is a more consistent albeit less experienced form of Serena Williams, though Serena at this stage has more variety to her game than Sharapova. I have a feeling Sharapova's idea of point construction is moving the ball from side to side whereas Serena plays with angles as well.

Venus has better touch at net, comes to net more often (doesn't that involve more point construction?), is getting better with her serve placement, and in general has the potential for more variety to her game than both Serena and Sharapova.

I do agree with franny however. It's all about the RACE, especially in America.

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:10 PM
Oh Knizzle, I guess that if that didn't satisfy you then I will try an alternative reasoning. How about the fact that in an America where "whiteness" is marked as the standard for who should be making the money and who should be dominating, whether it be in society, politics, or the workforce, the average American just cannot stand the fact that two black athletes could be that good. America is not racist, that is not what I am trying to say. I think that often times, people confuse the posessive investment in whiteness for racism. The fact is that Americans need white people to be on top. Any minority group that gets on top would be subjected to their place. It is a matter of power in society. White people have the power and therefore must seek to maintain it. Serena and Venus Williams took the game by storm and outhit all them white kids that were previously dominating the tour. People couldn't stand that. It could have been felt subconsciously, but it was felt nontheless. I think that it's just something that will never go away in society. Asians will always be subjected as unassimilable in society and blacks will always be seen as inferior to whites. That is why you will never see an Asian governor, senator, or president. You will also never see de facto racism dissapear from our society. It is just that the history of America has reimplemented white supremacy, and whether we choose to accept it or not, it will always be there. We minorities can cry foul all we want, but it's just a part of our society. Education, quite frankly, is the only way to rid our nation of this, and yet most Americans, especially those situated in the midwest are not educated; at least not about diversity and ethnic studies. Again, I am not implying that racism took place back then. I am simply implying that possessive investment in whiteness is the reason behind the double standard. That is that and we must accept it.

However, I will stand by my opinion that the William Sisters have made ball bashing more acceptable. What they have done for tennis is insurpassable. They have been great for this game whether tennis experts or the media wants to admit or not. It was just that they took it to such a high level that no one could catch up to them, and that frustrated the media. If you combined this with the fact that Americans cannot stand to see two black females dominate their white counterparts and you get what you get. However, no one has surpassed the Williams yet. Do not forget that, these younger players are being praised for catching up to them, not surpassing them. We'll see what happens when one or two player begin to dominate the game again with yet another higher level of play.

:worship: I'm EXTREMELY satisfied with this post. No BS in here.

La Reine
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:14 PM
Uhh, I coulda swore Serena won the AO 2005?? :scratch:

Knizzle, has your sarcasm radar gone bad? :tape: :lol:

kabuki
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:16 PM
Interesting question.

If Maria had come first, she would probably not have been criticised as much as the Williams' because there is just one of her. She would have been greeted just as Seles was - as a prodigy. If there had been two Sharapova Sisters, however, threatening to dominate tennis with power hitting. They'd have got flak.

If the Williamses had appeared on the scene now, I think they wouldn't have been criticized so much.

Unfortunately, I disagree. Totally.

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:24 PM
Knizzle, has your sarcasm radar gone bad? :tape: :lol:

Ooops :o

mboyle
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:25 PM
Because she makes about half as many UFEs on an average day as the sisters did in 02/03.

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Because she makes about half as many UFEs on an average day as the sisters did in 02/03.

She wins half as less as they did too.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Oh Knizzle, I guess that if that didn't satisfy you then I will try an alternative reasoning. How about the fact that in an America where "whiteness" is marked as the standard for who should be making the money and who should be dominating, whether it be in society, politics, or the workforce, the average American just cannot stand the fact that two black athletes could be that good. America is not racist, that is not what I am trying to say. I think that often times, people confuse the posessive investment in whiteness for racism. The fact is that Americans need white people to be on top. Any minority group that gets on top would be subjected to their place. It is a matter of power in society. White people have the power and therefore must seek to maintain it. Serena and Venus Williams took the game by storm and outhit all them white kids that were previously dominating the tour. People couldn't stand that. It could have been felt subconsciously, but it was felt nontheless. I think that it's just something that will never go away in society. Asians will always be subjected as unassimilable in society and blacks will always be seen as inferior to whites. That is why you will never see an Asian governor, senator, or president. You will also never see de facto racism dissapear from our society. It is just that the history of America has reimplemented white supremacy, and whether we choose to accept it or not, it will always be there. We minorities can cry foul all we want, but it's just a part of our society. Education, quite frankly, is the only way to rid our nation of this, and yet most Americans, especially those situated in the midwest are not educated; at least not about diversity and ethnic studies. Again, I am not implying that racism took place back then. I am simply implying that possessive investment in whiteness is the reason behind the double standard. That is that and we must accept it.

However, I will stand by my opinion that the William Sisters have made ball bashing more acceptable. What they have done for tennis is insurpassable. They have been great for this game whether tennis experts or the media wants to admit or not. It was just that they took it to such a high level that no one could catch up to them, and that frustrated the media. If you combined this with the fact that Americans cannot stand to see two black females dominate their white counterparts and you get what you get. However, no one has surpassed the Williams yet. Do not forget that, these younger players are being praised for catching up to them, not surpassing them. We'll see what happens when one or two player begin to dominate the game again with yet another higher level of play.

This is the most intelligent post in the whole thread.

mboyle
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:17 PM
She wins half as less as they did too.

Serena okay, but she's winning about as much as Venus did in 02/03 (more than in 03, a little less than in 02.)

mboyle
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:18 PM
There have been many asian senators and governors:confused: ...

Tennisaddict
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:18 PM
I appreciate the gesture franny, but I think you and I both know this is bullshit.

I was about to say the same thing. It was a nice try but she didn't fool me.

It's really funny how these commentators keep bashing the game of the WS and praise Davenport, Sharapova and Capriati for it. Venus and Serena have more variety in their games then the last three mentioned and are also more talented, but they will never get the credit they deserve from the commentators not that they need any, but it goes to show how the double standard is established. Oh well, anybody who knows a thing or two about tennis knows that they are the best of their generation, they might not like or admit it, and they can try to hide it from the general public, but it doesn't make it any less true :yeah:.

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:22 PM
Oh please, its not because serena hits a dropshot in a while that she's good at it. Her dropshots suck, most of them sail beyond the service line.
Do you even watch her? :confused: I've seen very few sail beyond the service line. Even if they aren't the best drop shots on the tour, at least she has it in her arsenal. At least she uses it and sometimes it's successful. If you don't use it, how can it be successful? I can't say that for a lot of the so-called ball bashers around. :lol:

BTW, where's Dokic these days? You know the one who said the Williams' sisters story was over. :haha:

VRee_Willario
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Do you even watch her? :confused: I've seen very few sail beyond the service line. Even if they aren't the best drop shots on the tour, at least she has it in her arsenal. At least she uses it and sometimes it's successful. If you don't use it, how can it be successful? I can't say that for a lot of the so-called ball bashers around. :lol:

BTW, where's Dokic these days? You know the one who said the Williams' sisters story was over. :haha:
Drop shot is effective when she uses it, and she has it in tough situations (match point down for example AUS QF 2001). And a great dropper at the net as well. She really does it very well when needed :worship:

Tennisaddict
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:30 PM
Oh Knizzle, I guess that if that didn't satisfy you then I will try an alternative reasoning. How about the fact that in an America where "whiteness" is marked as the standard for who should be making the money and who should be dominating, whether it be in society, politics, or the workforce, the average American just cannot stand the fact that two black athletes could be that good. America is not racist, that is not what I am trying to say. I think that often times, people confuse the posessive investment in whiteness for racism. The fact is that Americans need white people to be on top. Any minority group that gets on top would be subjected to their place. It is a matter of power in society. White people have the power and therefore must seek to maintain it. Serena and Venus Williams took the game by storm and outhit all them white kids that were previously dominating the tour. People couldn't stand that. It could have been felt subconsciously, but it was felt nontheless. I think that it's just something that will never go away in society. Asians will always be subjected as unassimilable in society and blacks will always be seen as inferior to whites. That is why you will never see an Asian governor, senator, or president. You will also never see de facto racism dissapear from our society. It is just that the history of America has reimplemented white supremacy, and whether we choose to accept it or not, it will always be there. We minorities can cry foul all we want, but it's just a part of our society. Education, quite frankly, is the only way to rid our nation of this, and yet most Americans, especially those situated in the midwest are not educated; at least not about diversity and ethnic studies. Again, I am not implying that racism took place back then. I am simply implying that possessive investment in whiteness is the reason behind the double standard. That is that and we must accept it.

However, I will stand by my opinion that the William Sisters have made ball bashing more acceptable. What they have done for tennis is insurpassable. They have been great for this game whether tennis experts or the media wants to admit or not. It was just that they took it to such a high level that no one could catch up to them, and that frustrated the media. If you combined this with the fact that Americans cannot stand to see two black females dominate their white counterparts and you get what you get. However, no one has surpassed the Williams yet. Do not forget that, these younger players are being praised for catching up to them, not surpassing them. We'll see what happens when one or two player begin to dominate the game again with yet another higher level of play.


I read this post after I replied to your first one and this one gives much more insight. Good analysis :cool:.

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:30 PM
Oh Knizzle, I guess that if that didn't satisfy you then I will try an alternative reasoning. How about the fact that in an America where "whiteness" is marked as the standard for who should be making the money and who should be dominating, whether it be in society, politics, or the workforce, the average American just cannot stand the fact that two black athletes could be that good. America is not racist, that is not what I am trying to say. I think that often times, people confuse the posessive investment in whiteness for racism. The fact is that Americans need white people to be on top. Any minority group that gets on top would be subjected to their place. It is a matter of power in society. White people have the power and therefore must seek to maintain it. Serena and Venus Williams took the game by storm and outhit all them white kids that were previously dominating the tour. People couldn't stand that. It could have been felt subconsciously, but it was felt nontheless. I think that it's just something that will never go away in society. Asians will always be subjected as unassimilable in society and blacks will always be seen as inferior to whites. That is why you will never see an Asian governor, senator, or president. You will also never see de facto racism dissapear from our society. It is just that the history of America has reimplemented white supremacy, and whether we choose to accept it or not, it will always be there. We minorities can cry foul all we want, but it's just a part of our society. Education, quite frankly, is the only way to rid our nation of this, and yet most Americans, especially those situated in the midwest are not educated; at least not about diversity and ethnic studies. Again, I am not implying that racism took place back then. I am simply implying that possessive investment in whiteness is the reason behind the double standard. That is that and we must accept it.

However, I will stand by my opinion that the William Sisters have made ball bashing more acceptable. What they have done for tennis is insurpassable. They have been great for this game whether tennis experts or the media wants to admit or not. It was just that they took it to such a high level that no one could catch up to them, and that frustrated the media. If you combined this with the fact that Americans cannot stand to see two black females dominate their white counterparts and you get what you get. However, no one has surpassed the Williams yet. Do not forget that, these younger players are being praised for catching up to them, not surpassing them. We'll see what happens when one or two player begin to dominate the game again with yet another higher level of play.

Great post and I'm glad you said it. Kudos :worship: :worship: :worship:

But, no way am I ever accepting that. I will cry foul until my lungs whither and then I'll write about it until I'm dead. It doesn't have to be this way and if we accept that type of behavior, it will only get worse and revert. So let's keep crying and fighting.

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:33 PM
Yeah, I've got this thing to say about Serena's variety (and in particular, her dropshot): Good effort. :tape:

She tries it relentlessly even though it clearly does not work. I still remember several of her dropshots becoming lowbs (i.e. semi-lobs that bounce on the service line). However the rest of her game allows her the freedom to play around in the match. :shrug:
:lol: You haters just don't stop.

Kornelija
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:42 PM
As in real life and hailing for cabs; a pretty face can get you a little
bit further than others.

I agree!!! that is basically why she is so much popular now!!! And what she has for now is just a power. At the moment all the girls hit hard today and she got so famous just because the Williamses and the Belgians were absent.
But I believe the real strenght of her will be seen only maybe 4-6 years later. Only then she will show if she managed to develop her game in any/many aspects, but she is just pure (blond/beauty:rolleyes: ) power for now.
But I am hoping that she would prove me wrong!!!:cool:

RVD
Apr 4th, 2005, 08:07 PM
Oh Knizzle, I guess that if that didn't satisfy you then I will try an alternative reasoning. How about the fact that in an America where "whiteness" is marked as the standard for who should be making the money and who should be dominating, whether it be in society, politics, or the workforce, the average American just cannot stand the fact that two black athletes could be that good. America is not racist, that is not what I am trying to say. I think that often times, people confuse the posessive investment in whiteness for racism. The fact is that Americans need white people to be on top. Any minority group that gets on top would be subjected to their place. It is a matter of power in society. White people have the power and therefore must seek to maintain it. Serena and Venus Williams took the game by storm and outhit all them white kids that were previously dominating the tour. People couldn't stand that. It could have been felt subconsciously, but it was felt nontheless. I think that it's just something that will never go away in society. Asians will always be subjected as unassimilable in society and blacks will always be seen as inferior to whites. That is why you will never see an Asian governor, senator, or president. You will also never see de facto racism dissapear from our society. It is just that the history of America has reimplemented white supremacy, and whether we choose to accept it or not, it will always be there. We minorities can cry foul all we want, but it's just a part of our society. Education, quite frankly, is the only way to rid our nation of this, and yet most Americans, especially those situated in the midwest are not educated; at least not about diversity and ethnic studies. Again, I am not implying that racism took place back then. I am simply implying that possessive investment in whiteness is the reason behind the double standard. That is that and we must accept it.

However, I will stand by my opinion that the William Sisters have made ball bashing more acceptable. What they have done for tennis is insurpassable. They have been great for this game whether tennis experts or the media wants to admit or not. It was just that they took it to such a high level that no one could catch up to them, and that frustrated the media. If you combined this with the fact that Americans cannot stand to see two black females dominate their white counterparts and you get what you get. However, no one has surpassed the Williams yet. Do not forget that, these younger players are being praised for catching up to them, not surpassing them. We'll see what happens when one or two player begin to dominate the game again with yet another higher level of play.On my best day, I couldn't have said this any better. :worship: :worship:
You found the 'bottom line' and gift-wrapped it to us. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/biggringift.gif
You're my new hero franny! :cool:

Note:Accept for one small disagreement...."That is that and we must accept it."I've taught my children what they can do about it. No one ever has to accept such conditions. ;)

LiliaLee-Frazier
Apr 4th, 2005, 08:40 PM
Because she wins and looks fabulous doing it. point blank . :wavey:

Lolo8
Apr 4th, 2005, 08:49 PM
Because she wins and looks fabulous doing it. point blank . :wavey:
No because she's tall ,blonde, white, attractive and she beat a Williams. :p

Dominic
Apr 4th, 2005, 08:54 PM
:lol: You haters just don't stop.

Denise please just quit it will ya? You can say whatever you want and think whatever you want and be delusional thinking the Williams are the goddesses of the world, Serena's dropshots still SUCK and everyone who isnt a biased williams fan knows it. And no she is not succesful with it 95% of the time. Yes serena is a good player, yes she has power and she uses topspin and slices to a certain degree but PLEASE dont come and say she has a good drop shot. And will the black ppl please stop paranoying. I actually hear a lot of commentators be very complementary of them and say they took women's tennis to another level.

LDVTennis
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:02 PM
It's really funny how these commentators keep bashing the game of the WS and praise Davenport, Sharapova and Capriati for it. Venus and Serena have more variety in their games then the last three mentioned and are also more talented, but they will never get the credit they deserve from the commentators not that they need any, but it goes to show how the double standard is established. Oh well, anybody who knows a thing or two about tennis knows that they are the best of their generation, they might not like or admit it, and they can try to hide it from the general public, but it doesn't make it any less true :yeah:.

When they first appeared on the scene, the Williams' sisters were praised for their athleticism, power, speed, pace on the first serve, ability to hit an offensive shot from a defensive position, and their preparation to hit groundstrokes. Neither Venus nor Serena were initially associated with the "big babes of tennis" (e.g., Mary Pierce). They only became associated with that group when it became apparent that like the "big babes" before them Venus and Serena were tall, big girls, who did not so much construct points as depend on the power of their groundstrokes alone to overcome an opponent.

When Davenport first appeared on the scene, she was praised for being a pure striker of the ball, for her ability to change the direction of the ball, and for her hands. She was also criticized for being fat and out of shape. She wasn't immediately associated with the "big babes of tennis" because practically speaking the term hadn't been coined yet. After the term was coined by Mary Carillo, she wasn't immediately associated with the group because Davenport's game had evolved to the point where she was finishing points at the net, serving and volleying. As Davenport devolved more and more into a pure baseliner, she found herself being associated with the group.

When Capriati first appeared on the scene, she was praised for the mechanics of her shots, for her power and precision, and for her precocity. She was also criticized (by BJK in particular) for her inability to move quickly to her right. She was not associated with the "big babes of tennis" because the concept or term had not been coined yet. There was no reason to create the term just for Capriati at the time because Capriati, though quite athletic in her teens, was not a particulary big girl. Capriati's baseline game also did not rely back then on power alone; it relied mainly on precision and placement. In her early years, Capriati was pretty much a more powerful version of Chris Evert. As Capriati's game in the early 2000's became more about power than placement and precision, she found herself being associated with the "big babes" group.

When Sharapova first emerged, she was praised for her tenacity, intensity, appearance, the mechanics of her backhand, her height, and to some extent her serve. She was not immediately associated with the "big babes of tennis," a group that now included both William's sisters, Davenport, and Capriati. As her game continues to evolve, I suspect she will find herself being identified from time to time with the group because like most in the group she may end up relying more and more on her power to overcome her opponents. Currently, she is getting the benefit of the doubt because she seems to vary the placement of her serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

Mind you the Williams' sisters, Davenport, and Capriati also got the benefit of the doubt for a period because they too showed the ability to vary the placement of their serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

I'll refrain from saying which player or players are more talented than the others. All I will say is that if Capriati's, Davenport's, or the William's sisters games had evolved in the way that most tennis analysts hoped none of them would have become identified with the "big babes" group. As I said with respect to each one, they only became identified with the group when the lack of variety in all of their games and their inability to construct points became apparent. Of the four, Capriati, Davenport, and the William's sisters, it is my personal opinion that Davenport is the one that sometimes deserve the moniker less than the others. From time to time, Davenport does try to construct a point by opening the court with her forehand. That may not make her the most talented of the group, but it does show that unlike most "big babes" her game is based on some awareness of the court.

RVD
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:04 PM
Denise please just quit it will ya? You can say whatever you want and think whatever you want and be delusional thinking the Williams are the goddesses of the world, Serena's dropshots still SUCK and everyone who isnt a biased williams fan knows it. And no she is not succesful with it 95% of the time. Yes serena is a good player, yes she has power and she uses topspin and slices to a certain degree but PLEASE dont come and say she has a good drop shot. And will the black ppl please stop paranoying. I actually hear a lot of commentators be very complementary of them and say they took women's tennis to another level.Hmm...? How old are you? Are you an Elementary or Middle schooler? Just curious. :confused:

Knizzle
Apr 4th, 2005, 09:22 PM
LDV, you honestly believe that the WS, Capriati, and Davenport lack in being able to construct a point?? You don't win multiple slams without being able to construct points.

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Denise please just quit it will ya? You can say whatever you want and think whatever you want and be delusional thinking the Williams are the goddesses of the world, Serena's dropshots still SUCK and everyone who isnt a biased williams fan knows it. And no she is not succesful with it 95% of the time. Yes serena is a good player, yes she has power and she uses topspin and slices to a certain degree but PLEASE dont come and say she has a good drop shot. And will the black ppl please stop paranoying. I actually hear a lot of commentators be very complementary of them and say they took women's tennis to another level.
Why don't you just quit it, will ya? :rolleyes: The hating, that is. I disagree. I think she has a pretty good drop shot. You didn't answer my question as to whether you've watched 100% of her matches to determine what her percentage of success is on this particular shot. I never said it was successful 95% of the time. But, I guess you need something for your hating to fall back on.

Will the non-black people like GoDokic please stop telling black people how and what to feel? :confused: We are not children, and certainly don't need to be led by the hand by the likes of you. :rolleyes:

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:39 PM
When they first appeared on the scene, the Williams' sisters were praised for their athleticism, power, speed, pace on the first serve, ability to hit an offensive shot from a defensive position, and their preparation to hit groundstrokes. Neither Venus nor Serena were initially associated with the "big babes of tennis" (e.g., Mary Pierce). They only became associated with that group when it became apparent that like the "big babes" before them Venus and Serena were tall, big girls, who did not so much construct points as depend on the power of their groundstrokes alone to overcome an opponent.

When Davenport first appeared on the scene, she was praised for being a pure striker of the ball, for her ability to change the direction of the ball, and for her hands. She was also criticized for being fat and out of shape. She wasn't immediately associated with the "big babes of tennis" because practically speaking the term hadn't been coined yet. After the term was coined by Mary Carillo, she wasn't immediately associated with the group because Davenport's game had evolved to the point where she was finishing points at the net, serving and volleying. As Davenport devolved more and more into a pure baseliner, she found herself being associated with the group.

When Capriati first appeared on the scene, she was praised for the mechanics of her shots, for her power and precision, and for her precocity. She was also criticized (by BJK in particular) for her inability to move quickly to her right. She was not associated with the "big babes of tennis" because the concept or term had not been coined yet. There was no reason to create the term just for Capriati at the time because Capriati, though quite athletic in her teens, was not a particulary big girl. Capriati's baseline game also did not rely back then on power alone; it relied mainly on precision and placement. In her early years, Capriati was pretty much a more powerful version of Chris Evert. As Capriati's game in the early 2000's became more about power than placement and precision, she found herself being associated with the "big babes" group.

When Sharapova first emerged, she was praised for her tenacity, intensity, appearance, the mechanics of her backhand, her height, and to some extent her serve. She was not immediately associated with the "big babes of tennis," a group that now included both William's sisters, Davenport, and Capriati. As her game continues to evolve, I suspect she will find herself being identified from time to time with the group because like most in the group she may end up relying more and more on her power to overcome her opponents. Currently, she is getting the benefit of the doubt because she seems to vary the placement of her serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

Mind you the Williams' sisters, Davenport, and Capriati also got the benefit of the doubt for a period because they too showed the ability to vary the placement of their serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

I'll refrain from saying which player or players are more talented than the others. All I will say is that if Capriati's, Davenport's, or the William's sisters games had evolved in the way that most tennis analysts hoped none of them would have become identified with the "big babes" group. As I said with respect to each one, they only became identified with the group when the lack of variety in all of their games and their inability to construct points became apparent. Of the four, Capriati, Davenport, and the William's sisters, it is my personal opinion that Davenport is the one that sometimes deserve the moniker less than the others. From time to time, Davenport does try to construct a point by opening the court with her forehand. That may not make her the most talented of the group, but it does show that unlike most "big babes" her game is based on some awareness of the court.

seems like Graf would' ve been monicked a big-babe in some period of her career by this discription.

LDVTennis
Apr 4th, 2005, 10:56 PM
LDV, you honestly believe that the WS, Capriati, and Davenport lack in being able to construct a point?? You don't win multiple slams without being able to construct points.

Winning multiple majors is not proof of anything.

It is possible, after all, to win a major by just overpowering a string of opponents. In that hypothetical case, all one would have to do is hit a combination of unreturnable serves and unreturnable groundstrokes. There is obviously a strategy in this game plan, hit with enough power so that your opponent can not get the ball back. It is a very basic game plan and it stands a chance at succeeding if your opponent cannot handle power.

Is it the basis for constructing points? Hardly. Because beyond hitting the ball very hard, what else is involved? Not much. If you can hit the ball that hard, why bother with angles, movement of the ball, or spin? Just hit it up the middle of the court or in the vicinity of the middle of the court consistently enough to wear down your opponent or to make them miss. (That is the basics of "big babe" tennis.)

So, what is meant by "constructing a point"? Clearly, something more than just getting the ball over the net consistently with power or not.

Here is an example of a well-constructed point from the men's semifinal (Federer/Agassi) at the NasDaq100. Regardless of who started the point, here is what happened. The point was not won on the serve. The serve was returned. A rally began. Agassi hit to Federer's backhand. Federer hit to Agassi's backhand. Agassi goes crosscourt again to Federer's backhand. At this juncture, nothing more than a typical rally. Things chance quickly in the next shot. Federer slices his backhand short crosscourt. Was it a mishit? Hardly. Agassi moves up to return the short and low ball with his two-hander. Stop the action. Look at the court. By hitting that short, slice backhand, Federer has opened up the court to his left and forced Agassi to hit a defensive shot that most likely will be hit crosscourt to his forehand, the forehand being Federer's better shot. Start the action. Agassi scoops the ball up, but it lands in the middle of the court. Federer wins the point with his forehand.

This was a pretty neutral rally until Federer hit the short slice backhand. It would have remained a neutral rally had Federer continued driving the ball or slicing it deep to Agassi's backhand. To the extent that neither Federer or Agassi play in the "big babe" style, both were waiting for an opportunity to construct the point to their advantage. Agassi was waiting for a ball to his backhand that he could hit down the line. Federer was waiting on this particular point for a shot he could hit deep and then one he could slice short in succession.

There are, of course, more ways than this to construct a point. All of them involve shot combinations much more advanced than hitting a series of balls hard across the net. All of them involve actions more advanced than just hitting an ace or hitting a winner on a single shot.

All points that are not won with an ace/unreturnable serve or outright winner lend themselves to being constructed. In all such points play begins with an exchange of groundstrokes. Without doing anything more, the point could be won here with an unforced error by one's opponent or a forced error (e.g., inability to handle power). Everything else being equal, and without doing anything more than getting the ball back, consistency is what wins most points at this level of play.

But, as we know, not everything else is always equal. Some players move better, have more variety in their game (e.g., spin, array of shots, net play), and/or have a shot they can hit for winners if given the best court positioning. The better players will, therefore, attempt to change a neutral rally which can only be won through consistency into one that puts them into a position to hit their best shot. They will do that often by hitting a set-up shot (e.g., a slice backhand, a dropshot, an approach shot, a series of shots to one spot on the court). The set-up shot is always meant to elicit a specific response from the opponent that is conducive to hitting the better player's winning shot. In the abstract, then, there is a formula for constructing a point. In the context of a neutral rally, hit a set-up shot(s) that is conducive to opening up the court so that you can hit your best shot to the open court.

In all the matches of Venus, Serena, and Capriati I've seen, I've never seen them develop a set-up shot that they can use to construct points with any consistency. Having said that, they do not completely lack the ability to construct points at a very rudimentary level. Indeed, that is what they are doing when they use rolling angle shots or slice serves to the Deuce Court to pull their opponents wide so that she can hit to the open court. This is a way of constructing points, a very rudimentary one. Are they consistent doing this? No. Is it there only way of constructing points? Mainly, yes. Is it the best way of consructing a point, given the challenges other players pose? Not at all.

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:08 PM
So only when you hit a slice, you construct a point....interesting.

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:23 PM
When Sharapova first emerged, she was praised for her tenacity, intensity, appearance, the mechanics of her backhand, her height, and to some extent her serve. She was not immediately associated with the "big babes of tennis," a group that now included both William's sisters, Davenport, and Capriati. As her game continues to evolve, I suspect she will find herself being identified from time to time with the group because like most in the group she may end up relying more and more on her power to overcome her opponents. Currently, she is getting the benefit of the doubt because she seems to vary the placement of her serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

She already relies on her power to overcome her opponent. That's her game. Secondly, when does she venture to the net? Only if there's a short ball for an overhead smash or swinging volley. That's it. :shrug:

Mind you the Williams' sisters, Davenport, and Capriati also got the benefit of the doubt for a period because they too showed the ability to vary the placement of their serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

They still do all of these things.

I'll refrain from saying which player or players are more talented than the others. All I will say is that if Capriati's, Davenport's, or the William's sisters games had evolved in the way that most tennis analysts hoped none of them would have become identified with the "big babes" group. As I said with respect to each one, they only became identified with the group when the lack of variety in all of their games and their inability to construct points became apparent. Of the four, Capriati, Davenport, and the William's sisters, it is my personal opinion that Davenport is the one that sometimes deserve the moniker less than the others. From time to time, Davenport does try to construct a point by opening the court with her forehand. That may not make her the most talented of the group, but it does show that unlike most "big babes" her game is based on some awareness of the court.

:confused: They all do this as well. :lol: Are you making this up in your head as you go along?

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Winning multiple majors is not proof of anything.

It is possible, after all, to win a major by just overpowering a string of opponents. In that hypothetical case, all one would have to do is hit a combination of unreturnable serves and unreturnable groundstrokes. There is obviously a strategy in this game plan, hit with enough power so that your opponent can not get the ball back. It is a very basic game plan and it stands a chance at succeeding if your opponent cannot handle power.

Is it the basis for constructing points? Hardly. Because beyond hitting the ball very hard, what else is involved? Not much. If you can hit the ball that hard, why bother with angles, movement of the ball, or spin? Just hit it up the middle of the court or in the vicinity of the middle of the court consistently enough to wear down your opponent or to make them miss. (That is the basics of "big babe" tennis.)

So, what is meant by "constructing a point"? Clearly, something more than just getting the ball over the net consistently with power or not.


But, as we know, not everything else is always equal. Some players move better, have more variety in their game (e.g., spin, array of shots, net play), and/or have a shot they can hit for winners if given the best court positioning. The better players will, therefore, attempt to change a neutral rally which can only be won through consistency into one that puts them into a position to hit their best shot. They will do that often by hitting a set-up shot (e.g., a slice backhand, a dropshot, an approach shot, a series of shots to one spot on the court). The set-up shot is always meant to elicit a specific response from the opponent that is conducive to hitting the better player's winning shot. In the abstract, then, there is a formula for constructing a point. In the context of a neutral rally, hit a set-up shot(s) that is conducive to opening up the court so that you can hit your best shot to the open court.

In all the matches of Venus, Serena, and Capriati I've seen, I've never seen them develop a set-up shot that they can use to construct points with any consistency. Having said that, they do not completely lack the ability to construct points at a very rudimentary level. Indeed, that is what they are doing when they use rolling angle shots or slice serves to the Deuce Court to pull their opponents wide so that she can hit to the open court. This is a way of constructing points, a very rudimentary one. Are they consistent doing this? No. Is it there only way of constructing points? Mainly, yes. Is it the best way of consructing a point, given the challenges other players pose? Not at all.
:speakles:

I don't even have the energy to respond to this. All I can say LDV is I disagree with you.

Tennisaddict
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:34 PM
When they first appeared on the scene, the Williams' sisters were praised for their athleticism, power, speed, pace on the first serve, ability to hit an offensive shot from a defensive position, and their preparation to hit groundstrokes. Neither Venus nor Serena were initially associated with the "big babes of tennis" (e.g., Mary Pierce). They only became associated with that group when it became apparent that like the "big babes" before them Venus and Serena were tall, big girls, who did not so much construct points as depend on the power of their groundstrokes alone to overcome an opponent.

When Davenport first appeared on the scene, she was praised for being a pure striker of the ball, for her ability to change the direction of the ball, and for her hands. She was also criticized for being fat and out of shape. She wasn't immediately associated with the "big babes of tennis" because practically speaking the term hadn't been coined yet. After the term was
coined by Mary Carillo, she wasn't immediately associated with the group because Davenport's game had evolved to the point where she was finishing points at the net, serving and volleying. As Davenport devolved more and more into a pure baseliner, she found herself being associated with the group.

When Capriati first appeared on the scene, she was praised for the mechanics of her shots, for her power and precision, and for her precocity. She was also criticized (by BJK in particular) for her inability to move quickly to her right. She was not associated with the "big babes of tennis" because the concept or term had not been coined yet. There was no reason to create the term just for Capriati at the time because Capriati, though quite athletic in her teens, was not a particulary big girl. Capriati's baseline game also did not rely back then on power alone; it relied mainly on precision and placement. In her early years, Capriati was pretty much a more powerful version of Chris Evert. As Capriati's game in the early 2000's became more about power than placement and precision, she found herself being associated with the "big babes" group.

When Sharapova first emerged, she was praised for her tenacity, intensity, appearance, the mechanics of her backhand, her height, and to some extent her serve. She was not immediately associated with the "big babes of tennis," a group that now included both William's sisters, Davenport, and Capriati. As her game continues to evolve, I suspect she will find herself being identified from time to time with the group because like most in the group she may end up relying more and more on her power to overcome her opponents. Currently, she is getting the benefit of the doubt because she seems to vary the placement of her serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

Mind you the Williams' sisters, Davenport, and Capriati also got the benefit of the doubt for a period because they too showed the ability to vary the placement of their serves, to move the ball from side to side in baseline rallies, to play points differently based on the situation, to hit more lines than wild unforced errors, and to venture to the net.

I'll refrain from saying which player or players are more talented than the others. All I will say is that if Capriati's, Davenport's, or the William's sisters games had evolved in the way that most tennis analysts hoped none of them would have become identified with the "big babes" group. As I said with respect to each one, they only became identified with the group when the lack of variety in all of their games and their inability to construct points became apparent. Of the four, Capriati, Davenport, and the William's sisters, it is my personal opinion that Davenport is the one that sometimes deserve the moniker less than the others. From time to time, Davenport does try to construct a point by opening the court with her forehand. That may not make her the most talented of the group, but it does show that unlike most "big babes" her game is based on some awareness of the court.


Sharapova's rise to the top has only reinforced the double standard as it is becoming very clear now that the commentators are truly biased because they worship the ground she walks on for playing the same game the WS have played for years now, but never got as much credit for.
Davenport and Capriati were also praised by the commentators before Sharapova and still are.

If there's one thing that I'm sure about in the games of Davenport and the WS is that they do construct points. I mean do you really believe they won and win all those titles because they just blast the ball back as hard as they can?

Davenport and Serena are known for their supreme placement on serve why do you think they have so many aces when their serve is on? It's difficult to read for most opponents.
Venus' serve is also deadly when it's on and her second serve is improving also. In rallies they wrongfoot their opponents so many times I stop counting when I watch their matches. All three have games that involve big groundies and have great anticipation, but that's where the comparison ends.
Venus has her famous backhand down the line and is a very skilled volleyer she almost wins every point when she approaches the net. Serena uses every possible angle in the court and has a very effective slice, she also has a good dropshot. Davenport is a strategic and knows how to place her groundies to put her opponent off balance. All of them use their serves, power and finesse to set up the point in a way that disrupts the rythm of their opponent so they can finish it off the best way possible. If that's not constructing points I don't know what is. I suggest you look at some more matches of them and look more closely cause I honestly don't get your point, if there is any :confused:.

It doesn't matter if the WS are criticized now because they didn't live up to the expectations of commentators who are inferior to the WS when it comes to achievements tennis wise. I mean, what do they have to show for, all they got after their tennis career is a job in the commentators booth :lol:.
The WS must be doing something right on the court to have 11 slams between them (I'm not even counting all the other titles), defeating quality opponents on the way who were praised all the time but still got their behinds kicked. Venus and Serena are already tennis greats with more years to add to that and they're involved in many prosperous endeavors.
See, they are even constructing their lives after tennis :p.

I won't comment on Capriati's game because I don't follow her.

Tennisaddict
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:35 PM
:speakles:

I don't even have the energy to respond to this. All I can say LDV is I disagree with you.

I do :cool: ;).

LDVTennis
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:40 PM
seems like Graf would' ve been monicked a big-babe in some period of her career by this discription.

Wrong.

In my most recent post, I outlined one of the ways that Federer constructs points. Now, I wonder, Who else in the history of the game might have used a slice backhand to set up a remarkable forehand? Any guesses?

Graf never lacked for variety in her game. Even BJK admitted as much when as a tennis analyst for HBO in 1999 she was asked by Barry MacKay what she thought about Graf's variety and touch. BJK said something to the effect - "On the backhand side, she's always had the slice. So, of course, she's always had the ability do lots of things with the ball."

Graf would never have won her first Wimbledon title had she not been able to chip her backhand low to a net-rushing Martina. She wasn't relying on the short chip to win the point. All she wanted it to do was elicit a pop-up volley that she could chase down and hit with her forehand for a winner.

Even against baseliners in '88 and '89, the slice backhand was used to change the court positioning of her opponents so that she could have room to hit her forehand for a winner. She may not have been hitting hit it short and at a wide angle quite yet (like Federer does in the point I described above), but hitting it long, with lots of underspin still set up her forehand quite nicely. Of course, by '95, she was able to do both.

Then there is this to consider. Graf's forehand was not just powerful, it had loads of variety. She could hit it dtl, crosscourt, and inside-out from the conventional positions on the court. But, she could also run around her backhand and hit it inside-out and dtl from the backhand corner. When she hit it crosscourt, she could strike the outside edge of the ball to produce a sharp wide angle shot or to curve the ball back into the court from a trajectory outside of it. She could hit half-volleys from the baseline. There was even a slice forehand return of serve. She could hit lobs, both chip and topspin. And, she could even hit a shot with her forehand that Federer admits he can't quite hit with his, a forehand dropshot.

Add that to all the things she could do with her backhand, and there is no question that Graf had variety.

But to get the discussion back on topic, if Graf's forehand can be used as an example of how much variety a single shot can have, how much variety by comparison do any of Sharapova's or Serena's groundstrokes (forehand/backhand) have?

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:43 PM
I do :cool: ;).
I see. More power to ya. :lol: And, good job. ;)

Tennisaddict
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:50 PM
Winning multiple majors is not proof of anything.

It is possible, after all, to win a major by just overpowering a string of opponents. In that hypothetical case, all one would have to do is hit a combination of unreturnable serves and unreturnable groundstrokes. There is obviously a strategy in this game plan, hit with enough power so that your opponent can not get the ball back. It is a very basic game plan and it stands a chance at succeeding if your opponent cannot handle power.

Is it the basis for constructing points? Hardly. Because beyond hitting the ball very hard, what else is involved? Not much. If you can hit the ball that hard, why bother with angles, movement of the ball, or spin? Just hit it up the middle of the court or in the vicinity of the middle of the court consistently enough to wear down your opponent or to make them miss. (That is the basics of "big babe" tennis.)

So, what is meant by "constructing a point"? Clearly, something more than just getting the ball over the net consistently with power or not.

Here is an example of a well-constructed point from the men's semifinal (Federer/Agassi) at the NasDaq100. Regardless of who started the point, here is what happened. The point was not won on the serve. The serve was returned. A rally began. Agassi hit to Federer's backhand. Federer hit to Agassi's backhand. Agassi goes crosscourt again to Federer's backhand. At this juncture, nothing more than a typical rally. Things chance quickly in the next shot. Federer slices his backhand short crosscourt. Was it a mishit? Hardly. Agassi moves up to return the short and low ball with his two-hander. Stop the action. Look at the court. By hitting that short, slice backhand, Federer has opened up the court to his left and forced Agassi to hit a defensive shot that most likely will be hit crosscourt to his forehand, the forehand being Federer's better shot. Start the action. Agassi scoops the ball up, but it lands in the middle of the court. Federer wins the point with his forehand.

This was a pretty neutral rally until Federer hit the short slice backhand. It would have remained a neutral rally had Federer continued driving the ball or slicing it deep to Agassi's backhand. To the extent that neither Federer or Agassi play in the "big babe" style, both were waiting for an opportunity to construct the point to their advantage. Agassi was waiting for a ball to his backhand that he could hit down the line. Federer was waiting on this particular point for a shot he could hit deep and then one he could slice short in succession.

There are, of course, more ways than this to construct a point. All of them involve shot combinations much more advanced than hitting a series of balls hard across the net. All of them involve actions more advanced than just hitting an ace or hitting a winner on a single shot.

All points that are not won with an ace/unreturnable serve or outright winner lend themselves to being constructed. In all such points play begins with an exchange of groundstrokes. Without doing anything more, the point could be won here with an unforced error by one's opponent or a forced error (e.g., inability to handle power). Everything else being equal, and without doing anything more than getting the ball back, consistency is what wins most points at this level of play.

But, as we know, not everything else is always equal. Some players move better, have more variety in their game (e.g., spin, array of shots, net play), and/or have a shot they can hit for winners if given the best court positioning. The better players will, therefore, attempt to change a neutral rally which can only be won through consistency into one that puts them into a position to hit their best shot. They will do that often by hitting a set-up shot (e.g., a slice backhand, a dropshot, an approach shot, a series of shots to one spot on the court). The set-up shot is always meant to elicit a specific response from the opponent that is conducive to hitting the better player's winning shot. In the abstract, then, there is a formula for constructing a point. In the context of a neutral rally, hit a set-up shot(s) that is conducive to opening up the court so that you can hit your best shot to the open court.

In all the matches of Venus, Serena, and Capriati I've seen, I've never seen them develop a set-up shot that they can use to construct points with any consistency. Having said that, they do not completely lack the ability to construct points at a very rudimentary level. Indeed, that is what they are doing when they use rolling angle shots or slice serves to the Deuce Court to pull their opponents wide so that she can hit to the open court. This is a way of constructing points, a very rudimentary one. Are they consistent doing this? No. Is it there only way of constructing points? Mainly, yes. Is it the best way of consructing a point, given the challenges other players pose? Not at all.

Wow, you are so wrong you don't even know it. WS, Davenport and Capriati can overpower easy opponents and they do so at times and even then it's controlled power. But do you really think they can get away with that game style against Hingis, Henin, Mauresmo and all the other players with great technique and touch?
Of course not, they will have to come up with a shot arsenal that enables them to construct the points in their favor. Guess what they can and have showed that numerous times against above mentioned opponents. If you can't see that you are either in denial or you need glasses so you can see better.

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2005, 11:52 PM
Wrong.

In my most recent post, I outlined one of the ways that Federer constructs points. Now, I wonder, Who else in the history of the game might have used a slice backhand to set up a remarkable forehand? Any guesses?

Graf never lacked for variety in her game. Even BJK admitted as much when as a tennis analyst for HBO in 1999 she was asked by Barry MacKay what she thought about Graf's variety and touch. BJK said something to the effect - "On the backhand side, she's always had the slice. So, of course, she's always had the ability do lots of things with the ball."

Graf would never have won her first Wimbledon title had she not been able to chip her backhand low to a net-rushing Martina. She wasn't relying on the short chip to win the point. All she wanted it to do was elicit a pop-up volley that she could chase down and hit with her forehand for a winner.

Even against baseliners in '88 and '89, the slice backhand was used to change the court positioning of her opponents so that she could have room to hit her forehand for a winner. She may not have been hitting hit it short and at a wide angle quite yet (like Federer does in the point I described above), but hitting it long, with lots of underspin still set up her forehand quite nicely. Of course, by '95, she was able to do both.

Then there is this to consider. Graf's forehand was not just powerful, it had loads of variety. She could hit it dtl, crosscourt, and inside-out from the conventional positions on the court. But, she could also run around her backhand and hit it inside-out and dtl from the backhand corner. When she hit it crosscourt, she could strike the outside edge of the ball to produce a sharp wide angle shot or to curve the ball back into the court from a trajectory outside of it. She could hit half-volleys from the baseline. There was even a slice forehand return of serve. She could hit lobs, both chip and topspin. And, she could even hit a shot with her forehand that Federer admits he can't quite hit with his, a forehand dropshot.

Add that to all the things she could do with her backhand, and there is no question that Graf had variety.

But to get the discussion back on topic, if Graf's forehand can be used as an example of how much variety a single shot can have, how much variety by comparison do any of Sharapova's or Serena's groundstrokes (forehand/backhand) have?

I see...ok....I wasn't discussing with you....it was just that yourself admitted that Graf' game became predictable or tired after sometime.

Serena;s shot with the most variety is her serve...

Knizzle
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:00 AM
Winning multiple majors is not proof of anything.

It is possible, after all, to win a major by just overpowering a string of opponents. In that hypothetical case, all one would have to do is hit a combination of unreturnable serves and unreturnable groundstrokes. There is obviously a strategy in this game plan, hit with enough power so that your opponent can not get the ball back. It is a very basic game plan and it stands a chance at succeeding if your opponent cannot handle power.

Is it the basis for constructing points? Hardly. Because beyond hitting the ball very hard, what else is involved? Not much. If you can hit the ball that hard, why bother with angles, movement of the ball, or spin? Just hit it up the middle of the court or in the vicinity of the middle of the court consistently enough to wear down your opponent or to make them miss. (That is the basics of "big babe" tennis.)

So, what is meant by "constructing a point"? Clearly, something more than just getting the ball over the net consistently with power or not.

Here is an example of a well-constructed point from the men's semifinal (Federer/Agassi) at the NasDaq100. Regardless of who started the point, here is what happened. The point was not won on the serve. The serve was returned. A rally began. Agassi hit to Federer's backhand. Federer hit to Agassi's backhand. Agassi goes crosscourt again to Federer's backhand. At this juncture, nothing more than a typical rally. Things chance quickly in the next shot. Federer slices his backhand short crosscourt. Was it a mishit? Hardly. Agassi moves up to return the short and low ball with his two-hander. Stop the action. Look at the court. By hitting that short, slice backhand, Federer has opened up the court to his left and forced Agassi to hit a defensive shot that most likely will be hit crosscourt to his forehand, the forehand being Federer's better shot. Start the action. Agassi scoops the ball up, but it lands in the middle of the court. Federer wins the point with his forehand.

Maybe you made a mistake, but last time I checked if Andre hits the ball crosscourt it will go into Federer's backhand side. Fed of course can run around, but you didn't mention that. OK, Fed used the slice to open the court up for himself. How is that any different from Venus getting in that same crosscourt BH rally, then firing a BH DTL that Venus knows will give her a short ball so she moves in and either volleys it aways for a winner or waits for the ball to bounce and hits it crosscourt for the winner. What's the difference, you seem to think Roger's is some how tactically better just because he used a slice. :shrug:

This was a pretty neutral rally until Federer hit the short slice backhand. It would have remained a neutral rally had Federer continued driving the ball or slicing it deep to Agassi's backhand. To the extent that neither Federer or Agassi play in the "big babe" style, both were waiting for an opportunity to construct the point to their advantage. Agassi was waiting for a ball to his backhand that he could hit down the line. Federer was waiting on this particular point for a shot he could hit deep and then one he could slice short in succession.

There are, of course, more ways than this to construct a point. All of them involve shot combinations much more advanced than hitting a series of balls hard across the net. All of them involve actions more advanced than just hitting an ace or hitting a winner on a single shot.

All points that are not won with an ace/unreturnable serve or outright winner lend themselves to being constructed. In all such points play begins with an exchange of groundstrokes. Without doing anything more, the point could be won here with an unforced error by one's opponent or a forced error (e.g., inability to handle power). Everything else being equal, and without doing anything more than getting the ball back, consistency is what wins most points at this level of play.

But, as we know, not everything else is always equal. Some players move better, have more variety in their game (e.g., spin, array of shots, net play), and/or have a shot they can hit for winners if given the best court positioning. The better players will, therefore, attempt to change a neutral rally which can only be won through consistency into one that puts them into a position to hit their best shot. They will do that often by hitting a set-up shot (e.g., a slice backhand, a dropshot, an approach shot, a series of shots to one spot on the court). The set-up shot is always meant to elicit a specific response from the opponent that is conducive to hitting the better player's winning shot. In the abstract, then, there is a formula for constructing a point. In the context of a neutral rally, hit a set-up shot(s) that is conducive to opening up the court so that you can hit your best shot to the open court.

In all the matches of Venus, Serena, and Capriati I've seen, I've never seen them develop a set-up shot that they can use to construct points with any consistency. Having said that, they do not completely lack the ability to construct points at a very rudimentary level. Indeed, that is what they are doing when they use rolling angle shots or slice serves to the Deuce Court to pull their opponents wide so that she can hit to the open court. This is a way of constructing points, a very rudimentary one. Are they consistent doing this? No. Is it there only way of constructing points? Mainly, yes. Is it the best way of consructing a point, given the challenges other players pose? Not at all.

Venus' 2 best setup shots both involve her BH, first one is her BH DTL. She can use it as an approach to net, she often wrongfoots her opponents with it. Of course sometimes the BH's she tries to use to set up the point become winners.

Next her BH crosscourt, she uses it to pin her opponent in their BH corners or force them to slice the ball to stay in the point and comes in and pounces on that slice. Also she uses the mid angled BH crosscourt to approach the net or as a changeup in powerful BH rallies. After the midangled BH she approaches and is ready for either a volley or to hit a short BH DTL for a winner. Then there is her patented move the powerful backhand to the opp. backhand corner which the opponent hits back crosscourt only to helplessly watch Venus fire it DTL for the winner. If you really watch Venus you would see this all the time.

Serena has such a variety of shots to use, she has the angled FH and BH. The FH approach DTL. It's harder to pinpoint her setup shots cause she has so many. Serena's game is based more around the center of the court which she likes to control and move her opponents side to side by moving the ball. Her FH from the middle of the court is deadly and she can go either way with it. I can understand how you don't see Serena's setup shots in particular because she uses different ones almost every point. Serena has such great ball placement, she can hit the short angles the long angles, the DTL's. Serena will blast away from the baseline, causing her opp to move back then all off a sudden hit a sharp angle that throws her opp out of control giving Serena an easy putaway on the next shot. Her opponents really don't have a great idea of what shot Serena will hit next. I could go on and on. Really you just need to watch these players.

Tennisaddict
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:01 AM
I see. More power to ya. :lol: And, good job. ;)

Merci, :yeah:.

LDVTennis
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:16 AM
She already relies on her power to overcome her opponent. That's her game. Secondly, when does she venture to the net? Only if there's a short ball for an overhead smash or swinging volley. That's it. :shrug:


They still do all of these things.

:confused: They all do this as well. :lol: Are you making this up in your head as you go along?

So, she arlready does. Still, she's getting the same benefit of the doubt as Venus and Serena received when they emerged. That benefit of the doubt will last only as long as the image makers at IMG can keep up the illusion.

They still do all those things? So, what? You are missing the point. Doing all that stuff only earns you the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't lead people to call you the "female Federer." In short, doing all that still doesn't mean you can construct a point. It only gives off the illusion that you can. There is much more involved as I tried to show in my description of one of the ways that Federer constructs a point.

Denise, you've obviously convinced yourself that Venus' and Serena's forehands are as good as Davenport's. They are not. Davenport has a greater ability to chance directions (dtl/crosscourt). Even Robert Landsdorp (sp?), one of Sharapova's coaches, said as much before the IW Final. This is true. And, because it is true, Davenport can use her forehand to open up the court for her forehand or backhand.

(Perhaps in another thread I will try to explain why it is easier to open up the court with a good forehand. In a thread on the greatness of Steffi's forehand, I gave a partial explanation.)

In general, let me put this question out there: If the William's sisters had proven to have games with as much variety and flair as Federer and with at least one dominating shot, like Federer's forehand, do you not think that the analysts would still be largely on their bandwagon? Sure, Sharapova would still have come along, but the emphasis would still have remained on the William's sisters since like Federer the quality of their play would be undeniable. So, why isn't it?

bandabou
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:23 AM
So, she arlready does. Still, she's getting the same benefit of the doubt as Venus and Serena received when they emerged. That benefit of the doubt will last only as long as the image makers at IMG can keep up the illusion.

They still do all those things? So, what? You are missing the point. Doing all that stuff only earns you the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't lead people to call you the "female Federer." In short, doing all that still doesn't mean you can construct a point. It only gives off the illusion that you can. There is much more involved as I tried to show in my description of one of the ways that Federer constructs a point.

Denise, you've obviously convinced yourself that Venus' and Serena's forehands are as good as Davenport's. They are not. Davenport has a greater ability to chance directions (dtl/crosscourt). Even Robert Landsdorp (sp?), one of Sharapova's coaches, said as much before the IW Final. This is true. And, because it is true, Davenport can use her forehand to open up the court for her forehand or backhand.

(Perhaps in another thread I will try to explain why it is easier to open up the court with a good forehand. In a thread on the greatness of Steffi's forehand, I gave a partial explanation.)

In general, let me put this question out there: If the William's sisters had proven to have games with as much variety and flair as Federer and with at least one dominating shot, like Federer's forehand, do you not think that the analysts would still be largely on their bandwagon? Sure, Sharapova would still have come along, but the emphasis would still have remained on the William's sisters since like Federer the quality of their play would be undeniable. So, why isn't it?

It's no use.....because you and they seem to think that if you don't use the slice to set up a forehand that your game is no good.....too much bias.

vettipooh
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:57 AM
Sharapova's rise to the top has only reinforced the double standard as it is becoming very clear now that the commentators are truly biased because they worship the ground she walks on for playing the same game the WS have played for years now, but never got as much credit for.
Davenport and Capriati were also praised by the commentators before Sharapova and still are.

If there's one thing that I'm sure about in the games of Davenport and the WS is that they do construct points. I mean do you really believe they won and win all those titles because they just blast the ball back as hard as they can?

Davenport and Serena are known for their supreme placement on serve why do you think they have so many aces when their serve is on? It's difficult to read for most opponents.
Venus' serve is also deadly when it's on and her second serve is improving also. In rallies they wrongfoot their opponents so many times I stop counting when I watch their matches. All three have games that involve big groundies and have great anticipation, but that's where the comparison ends.
Venus has her famous backhand down the line and is a very skilled volleyer she almost wins every point when she approaches the net. Serena uses every possible angle in the court and has a very effective slice, she also has a good dropshot. Davenport is a strategic and knows how to place her groundies to put her opponent off balance. All of them use their serves, power and finesse to set up the point in a way that disrupts the rythm of their opponent so they can finish it off the best way possible. If that's not constructing points I don't know what is. I suggest you look at some more matches of them and look more closely cause I honestly don't get your point, if there is any :confused:.

It doesn't matter if the WS are criticized now because they didn't live up to the expectations of commentators who are inferior to the WS when it comes to achievements tennis wise. I mean, what do they have to show for, all they got after their tennis career is a job in the commentators booth :lol:.
The WS must be doing something right on the court to have 11 slams between them (I'm not even counting all the other titles), defeating quality opponents on the way who were praised all the time but still got their behinds kicked. Venus and Serena are already tennis greats with more years to add to that and they're involved in many prosperous endeavors.
See, they are even constructing their lives after tennis :p.

I won't comment on Capriati's game because I don't follow her.Great insight..totally agree!! :worship: :worship: :worship:

LDVTennis
Apr 5th, 2005, 01:49 AM
Maybe you made a mistake, but last time I checked if Andre hits the ball crosscourt it will go into Federer's backhand side. Fed of course can run around, but you didn't mention that. OK, Fed used the slice to open the court up for himself. How is that any different from Venus getting in that same crosscourt BH rally, then firing a BH DTL that Venus knows will give her a short ball so she moves in and either volleys it aways for a winner or waits for the ball to bounce and hits it crosscourt for the winner. What's the difference, you seem to think Roger's is some how tactically better just because he used a slice.

Venus' 2 best setup shots both involve her BH, first one is her BH DTL. She can use it as an approach to net, she often wrongfoots her opponents with it. Of course sometimes the BH's she tries to use to set up the point become winners.

Next her BH crosscourt, she uses it to pin her opponent in their BH corners or force them to slice the ball to stay in the point and comes in and pounces on that slice. Also she uses the mid angled BH crosscourt to approach the net or as a changeup in powerful BH rallies. After the midangled BH she approaches and is ready for either a volley or to hit a short BH DTL for a winner. Then there is her patented move the powerful backhand to the opp. backhand corner which the opponent hits back crosscourt only to helplessly watch Venus fire it DTL for the winner. If you really watch Venus you would see this all the time.

Serena has such a variety of shots to use, she has the angled FH and BH. The FH approach DTL. It's harder to pinpoint her setup shots cause she has so many. Serena's game is based more around the center of the court which she likes to control and move her opponents side to side by moving the ball. Her FH from the middle of the court is deadly and she can go either way with it. I can understand how you don't see Serena's setup shots in particular because she uses different ones almost every point. Serena has such great ball placement, she can hit the short angles the long angles, the DTL's. Serena will blast away from the baseline, causing her opp to move back then all off a sudden hit a sharp angle that throws her opp out of control giving Serena an easy putaway on the next shot. Her opponents really don't have a great idea of what shot Serena will hit next. I could go on and on. Really you just need to watch these players.

Why does it matter that he had more than one option? Federer could have run around the backhand and hit a forehand dtl. But, believe it or not, the option he took was easier to execute and left him in the end with an easier forehand to hit. Of course, if you think run-around forehands dtl from the backhand corner are so easy to execute, why is it that only one woman (not named Serena or Venus) has ever been able to do it just like Roger?

How to slice it? The critical factor in the construction of the point I described is not that the set-up shot was a slice backhand. What is important is the risk involved, and thus the ease of execution. The set-up shot (the slice backhand) goes with the percentages, crosscourt. Furthermore, against an opponent who hits a two-handed backhand, it is not very likely that the next shot will go up the line with much depth or pace. The percentages, in fact, dictate that the shot will come back crosscourt at a medium to high trajectory, thus leaving Federer with a relatively easy forehand to hit for the point, definitely much easier than the run-around forehand dtl. So, out of very little risk, there is much to gain.

Now, let's look at the risk involved in how Venus tries to set up a point. In the context of a backhand crosscourt rally, Venus hits a backhand dtl in order to set up a wining volley or crosscourt winner. Just how easy is that backhand dtl to execute. The shot travels over the highest part of the net. Close to perfect timing is required to change the direction of the ball from crosscourt to dtl. Should Venus overcome those risks, there is still the risks involved with hitting a volley (not the best part of her game), or hitting a forehand since the defensive shot will most likely go crosscourt. The forehand isn't her best shot.

Now, she could still overcome all these risks and construct points this way, but what proof do we have that she can do so with much frequency or on command? How many times, that is, has Mary Carillo asked for a replay to show just how Venus set up the point in the way you described? In other words, if it were as predictable as you make it seem, the pattern would have already become apparent. Venus may be able to do this from time to time, but she can't rely on hitting the backhand dtl with as much regularity as Federer can hit his short slice crosscourt. So, she can't consistently construct points starting with that backhand dtl.

That brings me to what tennis experts really admire about Federer's game. He isn't just hitting forehands for winners time and time again. He is using low-risk and proven shot combinations to set up that forehand for a winner. He'll hit the run-around forehand dtl from the backhand corner if he has no other options, but he is going to probe his opponents game first for the easier option.

To those who really understand the tactics of the game, you can play right along with Federer as he hits his shots, knowing full well that as soon as he sets up the point the way he wants he is going to hit that forehand to the open court.

Nothing that Venus or Serena have ever done on the court has elicited that kind of admiration because aside from the power there has been very little else of probative value.

As for Serena, a few points:

You seem to think that hitting a shot (forehand/backhand) crosscourt or dtl from a coventional position on the court, even the middle of the court, constitutes variety. It does not. From the middle of the court, Graf and Federer could/can run around their backhands and hit inside-outside forehands or curl the forehand crosscourt. That is variety.

Your decription of Serena's patterns leaves me with the impression that she is a typical baseliner with limited variety. What in your description of her game suggests in any way that she isn't just aimlessly hitting the ball or just doing what seems like the obvious thing to do? If your opponent goes crosscourt, hit the ball dtl. If they go dtl, hit crosscourt. That is not a strategy for opening up the court. And, when executed from the middle of the court with conventional forehands and backhands, this tactic is not indefensible.

I wish I could get you to see the difference between a tatically advanced player like Federer and less developed players like Serena and Venus. I am just going to have to put the burden back on you to figure out why Venus' and Serena's games don't elicit the same admiration that Federer's does.

Jennifer North
Apr 5th, 2005, 02:47 AM
LDVtennis you know so much about tennis :hearts: ! I wish we had more knowledgeable posters like you instead of those cyber-terrorists that claimed over GM...:mad: :fiery:

Brooks.
Apr 5th, 2005, 03:03 AM
Serena and Venus are better than Sharapova............end of debate!!!!

DA FOREHAND
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:40 AM
I didn't say anything about needing perfect conditions. You should read my posts with more care. What I said was that the extreme windy conditions favoured Kim's type of game (loopy shots, hitting well inside the lines) over Maria's ( pinpoint accurate shots to the lines, low over the net.) Maria doesn't need perfect conditions to win, but it doesn't take a genius to see how a game based on accurate shotmaking is at a disadvantage in extreme blustery wind conditions.


Chris Evert's game was based on accurate shotmaking...she did pretty good for herself, and had legions of girls...and boys mimmicing her strokes.

wta whore 79
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:49 AM
I honestly don't understand this thread. I am a huge fan of Serena, obviously. Not so much Sharapova, and I'll tell you why. I have been following the sport since 1991 via TV (not so much internet interviews and newspaper articles and the like cause it wasn't ready accessible because I was so young). One of the reasons I never really liked Venus was because of the way she was PIMPED as soon as she came on the scene! The commentators raved and raved about her. They loved her! It got really old and tiresome. I just felt like they were telling me, "YOU'D BETTER LOVE VENUS!" I've found that Sharapova is treated in much the same way.

However, I don't feel there is any ulterior motive here. The commentators always seem to gravitate to who is new and fresh to the scene. I really don't see any bias, honestly. Some are better than others, but all the commentators are very fair IMO. They are pretty complimentary to all the top girls, I think. If any commentator was overly harsh on Serena, believe me I would remember it and be very irate over it. This is how I feel when that jerk Brad Gilbert said LenaD had the worst serve of any woman in top 100. Now that was just uncalled for.

In other words, I feel that all the power players have been praised. From Seles and Capriati to Pierce to Davenport to the Sisters Williams and now Sharapova. Maybe it's just me, though.

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:50 AM
They still do all those things? So, what? You are missing the point. Doing all that stuff only earns you the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't lead people to call you the "female Federer." In short, doing all that still doesn't mean you can construct a point. It only gives off the illusion that you can. There is much more involved as I tried to show in my description of one of the ways that Federer constructs a point.

I never mentioned anyone being called the female Federer, you brought Federer up. I play tennis, so I know how to construct a point and I know what it looks like. LOL, if what they do gives off the illusion that they can construct a point, then they must be constructing points. :confused: What else could it be, luck?

Denise, you've obviously convinced yourself that Venus' and Serena's forehands are as good as Davenport's. They are not. Davenport has a greater ability to chance directions (dtl/crosscourt). Even Robert Landsdorp (sp?), one of Sharapova's coaches, said as much before the IW Final. This is true. And, because it is true, Davenport can use her forehand to open up the court for her forehand or backhand.

What are you talking about? I never compared Venus and Serena's forehand to Davenport's. However, Venus has a backhand that rivals Lindsay's forehand, if it's not better and Serena does have a forehand that rivals Lindsays. I suggest you see the example given by Knizzle in the post above. Because there's no need for me to reiterate it.

You accuse Davenport of not being able to construct a point, but you come back and say how she uses her forehand to open up the court. Which is it? Or is this forehand opening up the court just an illusion of a constructed point or rudimentary construction of a point? BTW, regarding Venus' backhand and Serena off both sides, the same can be said of their shots opening up the court.

(Perhaps in another thread I will try to explain why it is easier to open up the court with a good forehand. In a thread on the greatness of Steffi's forehand, I gave a partial explanation.)

No need, I've read it ad nauseum from you and Calimero and don't care to be bored.

In general, let me put this question out there: If the William's sisters had proven to have games with as much variety and flair as Federer and with at least one dominating shot, like Federer's forehand, do you not think that the analysts would still be largely on their bandwagon? Sure, Sharapova would still have come along, but the emphasis would still have remained on the William's sisters since like Federer the quality of their play would be undeniable. So, why isn't it?

It's not about Federer or Graf. The emphasis is still on the WS if you have not noticed. The only difference being that instead of complaining about their power game, which everyone has on the tour now, especially Maria, they complain that they are not what they used to be, regardless of what they've been through in the last two years with injuries and what not, and most especially regardless of the slam win Serena just captured in January.

Stamp Paid
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:59 AM
Hitting a slice and running around a forehand sounds pretty rudimentary to me. :scratch: Am I mistaken?

It is a geater testament to superior footwork and footspeed as a result of a weaker backhand side than point constructiin, right?

Volcana
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:01 AM
Players who the ball hard are ALWAYS praised. Navratilova, Mandlikova, Graf, Seles, Davenport. The question is why were some players criticized for playing virtually the same style as players who were praised for that style.

And IF that's the question, the answer is skin color.

Of course, you may see a great difference between Serena Williams' game in 1999 and Maria Sharpaova's game now. I don't. Serena served better, and made a few more errors, but the basics of the game are identical. Whack the hell out of the ball til you hit a winner, or your opponent misses.

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:14 AM
Why does it matter that he had more than one option? Federer could have run around the backhand and hit a forehand dtl. But, believe it or not, the option he took was easier to execute and left him in the end with an easier forehand to hit. Of course, if you think run-around forehands dtl from the backhand corner are so easy to execute, why is it that only one woman (not named Serena or Venus) has ever been able to do it just like Roger?

How to slice it? The critical factor in the construction of the point I described is not that the set-up shot was a slice backhand. What is important is the risk involved, and thus the ease of execution. The set-up shot (the slice backhand) goes with the percentages, crosscourt. Furthermore, against an opponent who hits a two-handed backhand, it is not very likely that the next shot will go up the line with much depth or pace. The percentages, in fact, dictate that the shot will come back crosscourt at a medium to high trajectory, thus leaving Federer with a relatively easy forehand to hit for the point, definitely much easier than the run-around forehand dtl. So, out of very little risk, there is much to gain.

Now, let's look at the risk involved in how Venus tries to set up a point. In the context of a backhand crosscourt rally, Venus hits a backhand dtl in order to set up a wining volley or crosscourt winner. Just how easy is that backhand dtl to execute. The shot travels over the highest part of the net. Close to perfect timing is required to change the direction of the ball from crosscourt to dtl. Should Venus overcome those risks, there is still the risks involved with hitting a volley (not the best part of her game), or hitting a forehand since the defensive shot will most likely go crosscourt. The forehand isn't her best shot.

Now, she could still overcome all these risks and construct points this way, but what proof do we have that she can do so with much frequency or on command? How many times, that is, has Mary Carillo asked for a replay to show just how Venus set up the point in the way you described? In other words, if it were as predictable as you make it seem, the pattern would have already become apparent. Venus may be able to do this from time to time, but she can't rely on hitting the backhand dtl with as much regularity as Federer can hit his short slice crosscourt. So, she can't consistently construct points starting with that backhand dtl.

That brings me to what tennis experts really admire about Federer's game. He isn't just hitting forehands for winners time and time again. He is using low-risk and proven shot combinations to set up that forehand for a winner. He'll hit the run-around forehand dtl from the backhand corner if he has no other options, but he is going to probe his opponents game first for the easier option.

To those who really understand the tactics of the game, you can play right along with Federer as he hits his shots, knowing full well that as soon as he sets up the point the way he wants he is going to hit that forehand to the open court.

Nothing that Venus or Serena have ever done on the court has elicited that kind of admiration because aside from the power there has been very little else of probative value.

As for Serena, a few points:

You seem to think that hitting a shot (forehand/backhand) crosscourt or dtl from a coventional position on the court, even the middle of the court, constitutes variety. It does not. From the middle of the court, Graf and Federer could/can run around their backhands and hit inside-outside forehands or curl the forehand crosscourt. That is variety.

Your decription of Serena's patterns leaves me with the impression that she is a typical baseliner with limited variety. What in your description of her game suggests in any way that she isn't just aimlessly hitting the ball or just doing what seems like the obvious thing to do? If your opponent goes crosscourt, hit the ball dtl. If they go dtl, hit crosscourt. That is not a strategy for opening up the court. And, when executed from the middle of the court with conventional forehands and backhands, this tactic is not indefensible.

I wish I could get you to see the difference between a tatically advanced player like Federer and less developed players like Serena and Venus. I am just going to have to put the burden back on you to figure out why Venus' and Serena's games don't elicit the same admiration that Federer's does.
Again, only you are comparing Federer and Graf to Venus and Serena. Not once have you mentioned Maria, which is the subject of this thread. Secondly, you are blind if you can't see that the volley is one of the best parts of Venus' game. :rolleyes: It's all about Williams hate and Federer & Graf obsession for you. What you have stated here is merely your opinion, based on the type of game you like to see played. Federer is a great player and Steffi was a great player, but that's why we all have favorites because of the different types of games we like to watch. But, just because V&S don't play exactly the same type of tennis that Federer and Steffi play, doesn't mean that they don't construct points and it certainly doesn't mean that they aimlessly hit the ball with as much power as they possibly can. That's a stupid and arrogant assumption on your part. Also, the reason that Graf could run around her backhand was because the women she was playing against didn't hit the ball with as much pace as the women hit now. Why would they run around to hit a forehand, when their backhand is their strongest weapon, especially in Venus' case.

Again, no one is comparing the admiration Federer gets to what Venus and Serena gets. That is not the issue in this thread. Please try and stick to the topic without going on a long diatribe describing the wonder of Federer and Graf. There are other factors involved in answering the question put in this thread. :rolleyes:

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:19 AM
Hitting a slice and running around a forehand sounds pretty rudimentary to me. :scratch: Am I mistaken?

It is a geater testament to superior footwork and footspeed as a result of a weaker backhand side than point constructiin, right?
:worship: :worship: :worship: He thinks it's a more calculated shot because it's easier for them to do and be more successful on the winner. But, the same can be said of Venus, Serena and Lindsay's shots.

Dominic
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:03 AM
Hmm...? How old are you? Are you an Elementary or Middle schooler? Just curious. :confused:

Oh ok now because I think serena's drop shot is bad I must be very young, is that it?! Great logic you moron. Im 18 by the way and I think that at 30 Im still gonna think serena's dropshot sucks. If you cant admit that she has flaws in her game then you're the one whos got issues.

Dominic
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:12 AM
Why don't you just quit it, will ya? :rolleyes: The hating, that is. I disagree. I think she has a pretty good drop shot. You didn't answer my question as to whether you've watched 100% of her matches to determine what her percentage of success is on this particular shot. I never said it was successful 95% of the time. But, I guess you need something for your hating to fall back on.

Will the non-black people like GoDokic please stop telling black people how and what to feel? :confused: We are not children, and certainly don't need to be led by the hand by the likes of you. :rolleyes:

What hating?! Im actually a fan of the Williams but Im definatly not a fan of their fans. They can never ever admit their flaws and and always try to find excuses for their losses and most of all, they love putting down the williams' rivals, and that is just something I cannot stand. As for the dropshot, Ive not seen all of serena's match but Ive seen quite a few and of all the dropshots Ive seen her hit, there was about 2 or 3 that were decent. Anyway just ask any non-williams fan what they think about her dropshots, youll get the same answer. As for the telling what to do, ok fine if you wanna keep paranoying and inventing stupid crap about other players, then go ahead, I just think youre wasting alot of energy doing this.

LDVTennis
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:59 AM
I never mentioned anyone being called the female Federer, you brought Federer up. I play tennis, so I know how to construct a point and I know what it looks like. LOL, if what they do gives off the illusion that they can construct a point, then they must be constructing points. :confused: What else could it be, luck?

What are you talking about? I never compared Venus and Serena's forehand to Davenport's. However, Venus has a backhand that rivals Lindsay's forehand, if it's not better and Serena does have a forehand that rivals Lindsays. I suggest you see the example given by Knizzle in the post above. Because there's no need for me to reiterate it.

You accuse Davenport of not being able to construct a point, but you come back and say how she uses her forehand to open up the court. Which is it? Or is this forehand opening up the court just an illusion of a constructed point or rudimentary construction of a point? BTW, regarding Venus' backhand and Serena off both sides, the same can be said of their shots opening up the court.

No need, I've read it ad nauseum from you and Calimero and don't care to be bored.

It's not about Federer or Graf. The emphasis is still on the WS if you have not noticed. The only difference being that instead of complaining about their power game, which everyone has on the tour now, especially Maria, they complain that they are not what they used to be, regardless of what they've been through in the last two years with injuries and what not, and most especially regardless of the slam win Serena just captured in January.

On constructing points:
I gave a primer on how points can be constructed above. I stand by my claim that minus the unreturnable serve/ace or occasional winner Venus and Serena show no advanced ability to construct points.

On forehands:
You can't be serious. Serena's forehand a rival to Lindsay's?

Have you even considered the following?

Serena swipes at the the ball with a racquet face that is almost as big as a butterfly net (oversize frame). Lindsay hits a relatively flat ball with a racquet that has a mid-sized face. Serena creates direction by moving the whole racquet in the direction of her target. Lindsay creates direction by pronating her wrist.

Lindsay uses a grip which is more or less eastern. With this kind of grip, it is not the grip that creates topspin for her, but the rotation of her wrist and shoulder as she hits the ball. Only those players who do not need an assist from the grip to defend against topspin or to hit topspin can utilize the eastern grip with any proficiency.

Serena uses a grip which is more or less western. The grip makes it easier to hit topspin and to defend against topspin. It also makes it easier to hit the forehand because it reduces the action of the arm to a quick brushing action. Some would argue that this grip came into wide use in response to the dual necessity to hit topspin and to defend against topspin. I would argue that this grip came into wide use because of a dual reality: (1) the inability of coaches to teach the kind of racquet face control, wrist rotation, and timing that is required to hit topspin and to defend against topspin with a more flexible grip; and (2), the scarcity of talent with the kind of feel and timing to use a more flexible grip, such as an Eastern grip. Serena obviously ended up using a more Western grip because she lacks the talent to hit an Eastern forehand.

On Davenport's ability to construct points:

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? In the post above, where I discussed when and why certain players became associated with "big babe tennis," I declared that Davenport deserved this association less than the others because she has demonstrated the advanced ability from time to time to construct points with her forehand.

By the way, the same thing can't be said about Venus and Serena even when we take into account how they typically use their backhands. For reasons that are obviously not apparent to you, the backhand does not lend itself so readily to the goal of opening up the court, and thus constructing a point.

On where the emphasis is now:
You may think that the emphasis is still on Venus and Serena. But, on an international scale, Federer is a much bigger star than either one of them. As I pointed out in the thread about IW's financial troubles and as reported in the LA Times coverage of the event, there is only one player that any network (national or international) is willing to pay for. And, that is Federer. ESPN doesn't even pay for broadcast rights, let alone just for the right to show matches featuring the Williams' sisters.

On the timeliness of the criticism:
When they first emerged as I tried to explain above, there was much to praise. There was still much to praise while Serena was winning all four majors consecutively.

There may have been some, myself included, who thought back then that they were all about brute power, but the party line was that they had great potential to grow their games.

It has only been in the last year or so that analysts like Patrick McEnroe have departed from the party line to state what some of us were thinking all along.

While they were winning with this type of game, it was hard to criticize. Now that they aren't and now that some of the flaws in their games are more apparent, it has become easier.

What is obviously hard for you to accept is that Sharapova is getting the same benefit of the doubt now that Venus and Serena got when they emerged. Some of us may think that her game is all about brute power, but for now the party line is that she has great potential to grow her game.

Trust me, should she fail to grow her game as everyone expects, should she come to a point where one small injury after another renders her ineffective, and should power end up being the only way she can win a point, she'll be criticized as badly as the William's sisters. This has been the fate of every former phenom. The only ones who have escaped this fate are the ones that developed new ways of winning/dominating after they had supposedly been overtaken by other players.

bandabou
Apr 5th, 2005, 10:40 AM
So again, ldv insists that only when you use the slice-forehand combo you're constructing points and are talented.....well, Federer....with all his talent he better win more than Lendl, Becker, et al.....because what's talented without results?

moby
Apr 5th, 2005, 11:06 AM
Why does it matter that he had more than one option? Federer could have run around the backhand and hit a forehand dtl. But, believe it or not, the option he took was easier to execute and left him in the end with an easier forehand to hit. Of course, if you think run-around forehands dtl from the backhand corner are so easy to execute, why is it that only one woman (not named Serena or Venus) has ever been able to do it just like Roger?

You seem to think that hitting a shot (forehand/backhand) crosscourt or dtl from a coventional position on the court, even the middle of the court, constitutes variety. It does not. From the middle of the court, Graf and Federer could/can run around their backhands and hit inside-outside forehands or curl the forehand crosscourt. That is variety.

I think Steffi is a God, but have you actually considered that it might be due to her lack of confidence to rifle the ball DTL with her topspin backhand. Which is why she HAS to run around the ball to hit a forehand so she can hit a winner? If V&S have better backhands than forehands (Venus is particular), why the hell would she run around her backhand to hit her forehand? BTW I've seen Venus run around her forehand to hit a backhand, but I've not seen Steffi done that.

Also, that's one of the reasons I use the slice-forehand combo all the time. :o

Tennisaddict
Apr 5th, 2005, 02:02 PM
LDVTennis, you are intentionally trying to discredit the games of Venus and Serena by comparing them to Federer and Steffi who have nothing in common with the WS games and are not the topic of this thread. It's about the fact that Sharapova is being praised for the same game the WS brought to the scene and didn't get the same or more credit for. Is reading that difficult for you?

The WS games are different that's why they took the tennis circuit by storm and were unchallenged for a couple of years. Now you seem to not like their games and that is fine but don't try to fool people by saying they don't construct their points. They do and that's why they have come out on top many times in every tournament they entered. By the way you definitely have not seen Venus play if you think that volleying is one of the weaker parts of her game :rolleyes:.
Billie Jean King herself has said that Venus is one of the best volleyers in todays game.
Venus does open up the court with her backhand dtl or cross it doesn't matter so many times her backhand strokes are that good that they turn into a winner, if not she's ready at the net to volley it away or she stays back and wrongfoots her opponent. Her forehand when on is also deadly especially cross court.
Serena is one of the most unpredictable players on court you never know which shot she's going to hit next, she can hit all the shots in any position and that's what makes her so dangerous.
Serena's forehand definitely rivals Davenport's, she has outslugged Davenport so many times in forehand exchanges that it is ridiculous for you to even suggest that Serena's forehand is inferior to Davenport's. You can come with all kinds of tennis knowledge to overshadow the facts but it won't work. You just can't stand the fact that the WS are one of the best things that happened to tennis. Nobody is asking you to like the WS or their games but by trying to belittle their supreme games you're only showing your inadequacy to be objective because you are obviously blinded by your disdain for them.

Have a nice time in fantasy land :wavey:.

LDVTennis
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:18 PM
I think Steffi is a God, but have you actually considered that it might be due to her lack of confidence to rifle the ball DTL with her topspin backhand. Which is why she HAS to run around the ball to hit a forehand so she can hit a winner? If V&S have better backhands than forehands (Venus is particular), why the hell would she run around her backhand to hit her forehand? BTW I've seen Venus run around her forehand to hit a backhand, but I've not seen Steffi done that.

Also, that's one of the reasons I use the slice-forehand combo all the time. :o

But, couldn't one say the same about Federer? Compared to his other shots, his topspin backhand would seem to be his weaker shot.

In any case, what you should consider is this: As Federer and Steffi have proven, it is possible to build a dominating game with three elements: a forehand that can operate from any corner of the court, a slice backhand, and a well-placed serve to the extremes (flat down the T, slice to the Deuce court, and Twist to the Ad Court).

Now, Federer and Steffi could only have arrived at this conclusion if very early in their development they had shown the ability to hit that remarkable forehand. This probably happened very early since the forehand is the shot one learns first. After that, everything kind of fell into place. If they could command most of the court with their forehand and if the forehand by design is a better shot for opening up the court, then they really didn't need much more than a slice backhand to complete their ground game.

Meanwhile, the other kids on the playground had to proceed to learn backhands. Most of them didn't have the natural timing and racquet face control to hit one-handers. So, they learned two-handers. The ones who could hit one-handers drew the admiration of the coaches and of those kids with the great forehands. Still, it was becoming clear to most of the kids by now that the couple of kids with the great forehands would have a definite edge.

That brings us back to what kids like Federer and Steffi were doing while everyone else was learning to hit western forehands and two-handed backhands. They were figuring out how to set-up their forehands for the put-away shot.

On the other end of the playground, players like Venus, Serena, and Sharapova were being praised for having power on both sides. In a way, that was empty praise because if their coaches could have had it any other way Venus and Serena would have had only one great shot, the forehand. And, why is that? Because as I have said time and time again, it is easier to construct points with the forehand as the put-away shot. There are more ways of constructing points for the forehand. To the extent that the shot can operate freely in all areas of the court, it makes opening up the court much, much easier. In general, it also leads to a more efficient way of winning points since a player with a great forehand insists on winning most points with the shot. And, they can because as I have said before the forehand has the range and flexibility to operate from all areas of the court.

When your best shot, however, isn't the forehand and when even with a big serve the chances are that you are not going to win every point with an ace/unreturnable serve, you've got to work the points more. If you have amazing volley skills like Martina N,, it quickly becomes apparent what you have do to, serve and volley or chip and charge. But, if you don't, what are you going to do?

Like ASV, you could rely on your consistency and variety with the proviso, of course, that patience for long rallies is a prerequisite for playing like this. Like Seles, you could rely on consistency, more power than ASV, precision, and some sharply angled shots, with the proviso again that patience and a high level of concentration is a prerequisite to playing this way. Or, lacking that patience and most of Seles' precision, but with lots more power than ASV on both sides, you could just decide to hit the ball as hard as you can into safe spots on the court with the hope that your opponent misses before your concentration or consistency come up short. That is "big babe" power tennis.

There is nothing special about it. The William's sisters didn't invent it. Indeed, it is not really an invention at all. It is a way of compensating for the inability do develop one of the more elegant ways of playing the sport.

LDVTennis
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:53 PM
LDVTennis, you are intentionally trying to discredit the games of Venus and Serena by comparing them to Federer and Steffi who have nothing in common with the WS games and are not the topic of this thread. It's about the fact that Sharapova is being praised for the same game the WS brought to the scene and didn't get the same or more credit for. Is reading that difficult for you?

The WS games are different that's why they took the tennis circuit by storm and were unchallenged for a couple of years. Now you seem to not like their games and that is fine but don't try to fool people by saying they don't construct their points. They do and that's why they have come out on top many times in every tournament they entered. By the way you definitely have not seen Venus play if you think that volleying is one of the weaker parts of her game :rolleyes:.
Billie Jean King herself has said that Venus is one of the best volleyers in todays game.
Venus does open up the court with her backhand dtl or cross it doesn't matter so many times her backhand strokes are that good that they turn into a winner, if not she's ready at the net to volley it away or she stays back and wrongfoots her opponent. Her forehand when on is also deadly especially cross court.
Serena is one of the most unpredictable players on court you never know which shot she's going to hit next, she can hit all the shots in any position and that's what makes her so dangerous.
Serena's forehand definitely rivals Davenport's, she has outslugged Davenport so many times in forehand exchanges that it is ridiculous for you to even suggest that Serena's forehand is inferior to Davenport's. You can come with all kinds of tennis knowledge to overshadow the facts but it won't work. You just can't stand the fact that the WS are one of the best things that happened to tennis. Nobody is asking you to like the WS or their games but by trying to belittle their supreme games you're only showing your inadequacy to be objective because you are obviously blinded by your disdain for them.

Have a nice time in fantasy land :wavey:.

No, I am not. I am trying to be truthful.

First's thing first. You are wrong to state that the Willliams' sisters were criticized for playing the way they do from the beginning. They were not. As I argued above, there was a time when certain aspects of their game received ample praise. The criticism of their style of play only began when it became apparent that much of their game relied on brute power to win points.

Does Sharapova play the same way? I said in my first post on the topic that it's beginning to look that way. So, what is she being praised for? Not for the fact that she relies on brute power, but for the other aspects of her game, the superior serve placement, her intensity, her precision. These aspects of her game are getting more attention now because most people are still giving her game as a whole the benefit of the doubt. In that sense, she is not being treated any differently than Venus or Serena were when they first emerged.

Should it end up being the case, as it seems likely to some of us now, that Sharapova is all about commanding the middle of the court with brute power, who deserves to be vindicated for that? The Williams' sisers? Hardly. The Willliams' sisters didn't invent this style of play. Long before they showed up on the court, Mary Pierce was playing like this. So, did she invent it? No, no one invented this style of play because quite frankly there isn't anything unique about playing this way. It is like saying you invented "toilet paper" or something equally banal. The point being this, as I tried to explain in my last post, the kind of tennis that the Williams' sisters play is very basic. It is how anyone without a really great shot like a forehand/backhand or package of shots like a net game would play. So, they play this basic kind of tennis with more power than anyone else before them? What's the big deal? In pattern and execution, it is no different. So, why should they receive credit for something that is fundamental at different scales of relativity to the game of tennis? They shouldn't. And, indeed, they are aren't.

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:55 PM
LDVTennis, you are intentionally trying to discredit the games of Venus and Serena by comparing them to Federer and Steffi who have nothing in common with the WS games and are not the topic of this thread. It's about the fact that Sharapova is being praised for the same game the WS brought to the scene and didn't get the same or more credit for. Is reading that difficult for you?

The WS games are different that's why they took the tennis circuit by storm and were unchallenged for a couple of years. Now you seem to not like their games and that is fine but don't try to fool people by saying they don't construct their points. They do and that's why they have come out on top many times in every tournament they entered. By the way you definitely have not seen Venus play if you think that volleying is one of the weaker parts of her game :rolleyes:.
Billie Jean King herself has said that Venus is one of the best volleyers in todays game.
Venus does open up the court with her backhand dtl or cross it doesn't matter so many times her backhand strokes are that good that they turn into a winner, if not she's ready at the net to volley it away or she stays back and wrongfoots her opponent. Her forehand when on is also deadly especially cross court.
Serena is one of the most unpredictable players on court you never know which shot she's going to hit next, she can hit all the shots in any position and that's what makes her so dangerous.
Serena's forehand definitely rivals Davenport's, she has outslugged Davenport so many times in forehand exchanges that it is ridiculous for you to even suggest that Serena's forehand is inferior to Davenport's. You can come with all kinds of tennis knowledge to overshadow the facts but it won't work. You just can't stand the fact that the WS are one of the best things that happened to tennis. Nobody is asking you to like the WS or their games but by trying to belittle their supreme games you're only showing your inadequacy to be objective because you are obviously blinded by your disdain for them.

Have a nice time in fantasy land :wavey:.
:worship: :worship: :worship:

Tennisaddict
Apr 5th, 2005, 06:50 PM
No, I am not. I am trying to be truthful.

First's thing first. You are wrong to state that the Willliams' sisters were criticized for playing the way they do from the beginning. They were not. As I argued above, there was a time when certain aspects of their game received ample praise. The criticism of their style of play only began when it became apparent that much of their game relied on brute power to win points.

Does Sharapova play the same way? I said in my first post on the topic that it's beginning to look that way. So, what is she being praised for? Not for the fact that she relies on brute power, but for the other aspects of her game, the superior serve placement, her intensity, her precision. These aspects of her game are getting more attention now because most people are still giving her game as a whole the benefit of the doubt. In that sense, she is not being treated any differently than Venus or Serena were when they first emerged.

Should it end up being the case, as it seems likely to some of us now, that Sharapova is all about commanding the middle of the court with brute power, who deserves to be vindicated for that? The Williams' sisers? Hardly. The Willliams' sisters didn't invent this style of play. Long before they showed up on the court, Mary Pierce was playing like this. So, did she invent it? No, no one invented this style of play because quite frankly there isn't anything unique about playing this way. It is like saying you invented "toilet paper" or something equally banal. The point being this, as I tried to explain in my last post, the kind of tennis that the Williams' sisters play is very basic. It is how anyone without a really great shot like a forehand/backhand or package of shots like a net game would play. So, they play this basic kind of tennis with more power than anyone else before them? What's the big deal? In pattern and execution, it is no different. So, why should they receive credit for something that is fundamental at different scales of relativity to the game of tennis? They shouldn't. And, indeed, they are aren't.

Where did I state that the WS didn't get credit for their games from the beginning :confused:. You are wrong as usual concerning this topic, because I said that the WS have not gotten the same or more credit for their games while Sharapova has.

You're trying to be truthful :lol: :lol: That must be a joke right?
Why don't you just come out and say I don't like the WS and I'm just an ordinary spiteful person who is filled with envy towards them and is subdued to a subjective opinion which blinds my perception. I think you're close to the truth then :devil:.

You seem to have tennis knowledge but you are only insulting your own intelligence by stating that the WS games consist mainly of blasting the ball back until it doesn't come back :rolleyes:. Even the rookies can tell you that you can't win with that game style, let alone dominate. This is excactly what I don't get about people like you. The sole purpose of your posts is to discredit and belittle the games of the "powerhitters". Why enter a thread about them if you don't respect/like their games and have nothing but bullshit to add to this conversation?

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:15 PM
No, I am not. I am trying to be truthful.

First's thing first. You are wrong to state that the Willliams' sisters were criticized for playing the way they do from the beginning. They were not. As I argued above, there was a time when certain aspects of their game received ample praise. The criticism of their style of play only began when it became apparent that much of their game relied on brute power to win points.

Does Sharapova play the same way? I said in my first post on the topic that it's beginning to look that way. So, what is she being praised for? Not for the fact that she relies on brute power, but for the other aspects of her game, the superior serve placement, her intensity, her precision. These aspects of her game are getting more attention now because most people are still giving her game as a whole the benefit of the doubt. In that sense, she is not being treated any differently than Venus or Serena were when they first emerged.

Should it end up being the case, as it seems likely to some of us now, that Sharapova is all about commanding the middle of the court with brute power, who deserves to be vindicated for that? The Williams' sisers? Hardly. The Willliams' sisters didn't invent this style of play. Long before they showed up on the court, Mary Pierce was playing like this. So, did she invent it? No, no one invented this style of play because quite frankly there isn't anything unique about playing this way. It is like saying you invented "toilet paper" or something equally banal. The point being this, as I tried to explain in my last post, the kind of tennis that the Williams' sisters play is very basic. It is how anyone without a really great shot like a forehand/backhand or package of shots like a net game would play. So, they play this basic kind of tennis with more power than anyone else before them? What's the big deal? In pattern and execution, it is no different. So, why should they receive credit for something that is fundamental at different scales of relativity to the game of tennis? They shouldn't. And, indeed, they are aren't.
If their tennis is so basic, why don't more power hitters, say Lindsay (the pure ball striker who is the only one who constructs points according to you), Capriati, Pierce, etc. or even say Justine (the so-called finesse player who slices and dices) have as many slam titles as they do? Serena alone? You can't add two plus two and get five. :confused:

Serendy Willick
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:35 PM
I did say I was being general........

maybe a little too general, but I was only trying to put the point across....
I just think Sharapova has better pinpoint accuracy.


When Serena is on, she is more accurate than anybody, FO 02, Wimb 02, US Open 02 are just examples. Even in the semi against Sharapova in AO 05 she won the match on a very nice angled forehand winner, another example is the YEC. Serena doesnt just close her eyes and hopes that the ball goes in :rolleyes: You dont win seven slams and get to number one in the world by hoping the ball goes in:rolleyes: Sharapovas accuracy is no different than Serenas

Serendy Willick
Apr 5th, 2005, 07:46 PM
Yeah, I've got this thing to say about Serena's variety (and in particular, her dropshot): Good effort. :tape:

She tries it relentlessly even though it clearly does not work. I still remember several of her dropshots becoming lowbs (i.e. semi-lobs that bounce on the service line). However the rest of her game allows her the freedom to play around in the match. :shrug:


Those drop shots in the FO 03 Semi against Justine were:fiery:

RVD
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:26 PM
I SWEAR TO GOD!! This thread just won't DIE!!! AAAARRRGGGGHHHH!! http://deephousepage.com/smilies/fkr.gif

Guess I'm back to disagreeing with LDVTennis. :lol:
Seriously though...
LDVTennis has so much tennis knowledge, that I too am surprised at his/her disdain for Venus and Serena's game. :confused: Venus and Serena ...from day one... were not (I repeat) NOT ever embraced by the tennis community. I can't count how many tennis coaches, so-called experts, commentators and fans derided their game.
First off, it was obvious to any observant and honest person(s) that V & S were originally seen as novelty players. It was constantly stated by commentators and fans alike that these young, Black, brash, sisters, and a vocal father would never become successful tennis players. And how many times were they chastised for skipping the junior circuit?! Please tell me where and when were these girls ever accepted and considered GOD-LIKE as Maria is now?!! :mad:
What posters are say with the Maria / Williams comparison is true. Just deal with it and move on. It's not worth 6 damn pages!! SOON TO BE 7!! :eek:

LDVTennis, your knowledge and analysis is appreciated. But you are flat out wrong concerning Venus and Serena. The bottom line is you can't win slams by simply BASHING the ball! If you could, what does that say about all of the supposedly GREAT thinkers that both of these ladies destroyed over their careers in the WTA!! Please, just let it go.

uNIVERSEmAN
Apr 5th, 2005, 09:39 PM
The difference between Davenport and Shaparova is movement.

bandabou
Apr 5th, 2005, 11:05 PM
Hmmm......but of course we really shouldn't be taking LDV seriously....I mean, this is the same guy, who quickly departed from supporting Hana Mandiklova, when it became clearly apparent that she wasn't gonna win flick, to support Graf who was winning more at the time, sooo.....

Denise4925
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:12 AM
Hmmm......but of course we really shouldn't be taking LDV seriously....I mean, this is the same guy, who quickly departed from supporting Hana Mandiklova, when it became clearly apparent that she wasn't gonna win flick, to support Graf who was winning more at the time, sooo.....
Wow bandy, you've been here a long time. :lol: He's on the Sharapova bandwagon now, that's why he won't comment on her as harshly as he lies about Venus and Serena. Just that she will get the benefit of the doubt until she evolves her game, and he thinks she will. :rolleyes:

serenafan08
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:51 AM
Wow. I really don't know where to start. As usual, anytime there is a thread that's started by Maria, people come in and try to compare her to Serena and Venus, as well as Lindsay. The original topic of this thread is ball-bashing, so I'll give my opinion on it first.

I think the reason Maria is praised for "ball-bashing" is because she's given the game a freshness it hasn't had in a while. It was like, Serena and Venus were playing for Slam finals all the time (and I loved every one of them!), then Justine starting to dominate. When Maria burst onto the scene, she turned heads because her raw power was something that hasn't been seen in a while. People will argue that Serena and Venus have raw power, which they do, but somehow it was different with Maria. When you see her play, it's just like she wacks the covering off the ball everytime she hits it. I think the fans enjoy watching a female player hit the ball like that; it really shows the development and advancement of the women's game.

Now - do I think she has much variety in her game??? Well, that remains to be seen. Right now, it seems like her gameplan is to hit the ball as hard as she can until she hits a winner or until her opponent misses. The reason she won Wimbledon is because grass rewards aggressive play like that. But, as we all know, she hasn't won a major since then, and it's because you need more strategy to win at the other majors. For Maria, ball-bashing wins her sets easily, but when those sets get close, that's when she struggles. Notice this year that at the Aussie open, she didn't win any of the close sets in her matches. Even since then, all the sets she's lost are either 6-4, 7-5, or 7-6. That's because ball-bashing doesn't give you a plan B. If she's going to win more majors, she needs to add variety to her game. Maria needs to learn how to use the whole court; she should start hitting angled shots and follow them into the net. Wrong-footing your opponents and pouncing on the short replies is also a good mix-up play. When she can start doing different things besides hitting the crap out of the ball, then she'll start winning big titles more often.

Since it was brought up, I'll address Serena and Venus, since many considered them the queens of ball-bashing. Sure, when they first came onto the tour, that's what they were known for. Like Maria, they gave the game a freshness that hadn't been seen in a while. Their athleticism and sheer pace captivated fans everywhere. But, like Patrick McEnroe said during this year's Aussie Open, it's become much more about tennis and not about power. When Serena was dominating in '02-'03, she used these topspin angles that were just ridiculous. She would use them to take her opponents off the court, and then hit the winner into the open court. She also improved her net play by at least 100%, especially her backhand volley. Her match against Mauresmo at the YEC last year was perfect proof of her added variety. She came to net 54 times and won 38 points - which is remarkable. Not only that, but she hit winners everywhere - forehand, backhand, crosscourt, inside-out, down the line. Being able to mix up your shots like that is a great weapon to have. Serena learned that it's better to hit balls BY your opponents instead of THROUGH them. With Venus, it was much more about power when she dominated. She learned how to control her power and wait until the right opportunity to use it. Combine that with her athleticism and speed - it's easy to see why she was so tough to beat during those years. Lately, her net game has been her best weapon in my opinion. I think her volleys are better than Serena's - when she comes forward, she wins a majority of the points. To sum it up - Serena added the spins and volleys, while Venus had the volleys but started to control the power.

I hope this post will bring things back on topic, though. I think Maria is a great player, but I think she should add some variety in her game. You can only outhit your opponents for so long before they begin to start hitting with you. Then what do you do? She'll learn that tennis is more about tennis than power.

Denise4925
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:59 AM
Wow. I really don't know where to start. As usual, anytime there is a thread that's started by Maria, people come in and try to compare her to Serena and Venus, as well as Lindsay. The original topic of this thread is ball-bashing, so I'll give my opinion on it first.

I think the reason Maria is praised for "ball-bashing" is because she's given the game a freshness it hasn't had in a while. It was like, Serena and Venus were playing for Slam finals all the time (and I loved every one of them!), then Justine starting to dominate. When Maria burst onto the scene, she turned heads because her raw power was something that hasn't been seen in a while. People will argue that Serena and Venus have raw power, which they do, but somehow it was different with Maria. When you see her play, it's just like she wacks the covering off the ball everytime she hits it. I think the fans enjoy watching a female player hit the ball like that; it really shows the development and advancement of the women's game.

Now - do I think she has much variety in her game??? Well, that remains to be seen. Right now, it seems like her gameplan is to hit the ball as hard as she can until she hits a winner or until her opponent misses. The reason she won Wimbledon is because grass rewards aggressive play like that. But, as we all know, she hasn't won a major since then, and it's because you need more strategy to win at the other majors. For Maria, ball-bashing wins her sets easily, but when those sets get close, that's when she struggles. Notice this year that at the Aussie open, she didn't win any of the close sets in her matches. Even since then, all the sets she's lost are either 6-4, 7-5, or 7-6. That's because ball-bashing doesn't give you a plan B. If she's going to win more majors, she needs to add variety to her game. Maria needs to learn how to use the whole court; she should start hitting angled shots and follow them into the net. Wrong-footing your opponents and pouncing on the short replies is also a good mix-up play. When she can start doing different things besides hitting the crap out of the ball, then she'll start winning big titles more often.

Since it was brought up, I'll address Serena and Venus, since many considered them the queens of ball-bashing. Sure, when they first came onto the tour, that's what they were known for. Like Maria, they gave the game a freshness that hadn't been seen in a while. Their athleticism and sheer pace captivated fans everywhere. But, like Patrick McEnroe said during this year's Aussie Open, it's become much more about tennis and not about power. When Serena was dominating in '02-'03, she used these topspin angles that were just ridiculous. She would use them to take her opponents off the court, and then hit the winner into the open court. She also improved her net play by at least 100%, especially her backhand volley. Her match against Mauresmo at the YEC last year was perfect proof of her added variety. She came to net 54 times and won 38 points - which is remarkable. Not only that, but she hit winners everywhere - forehand, backhand, crosscourt, inside-out, down the line. Being able to mix up your shots like that is a great weapon to have. Serena learned that it's better to hit balls BY your opponents instead of THROUGH them. With Venus, it was much more about power when she dominated. She learned how to control her power and wait until the right opportunity to use it. Combine that with her athleticism and speed - it's easy to see why she was so tough to beat during those years. Lately, her net game has been her best weapon in my opinion. I think her volleys are better than Serena's - when she comes forward, she wins a majority of the points. To sum it up - Serena added the spins and volleys, while Venus had the volleys but started to control the power.

I hope this post will bring things back on topic, though. I think Maria is a great player, but I think she should add some variety in her game. You can only outhit your opponents for so long before they begin to start hitting with you. Then what do you do? She'll learn that tennis is more about tennis than power.
:worship: :worship: :worship:

serenafan08
Apr 6th, 2005, 01:14 AM
I tried to rep you but I have to spread some around first. Big ups to you Denise! :bounce:

LDVTennis
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:24 PM
Hmmm......but of course we really shouldn't be taking LDV seriously....I mean, this is the same guy, who quickly departed from supporting Hana Mandiklova, when it became clearly apparent that she wasn't gonna win flick, to support Graf who was winning more at the time, sooo.....

Bandy, do you realize (I guess not) that Hana was in the position to win majors long before Steffi ever began to make her mark.

While their careers do overlap at the end, by the time Steffi fully emerged Hana was close to retirement.

And, by the way, I never abandoned Hana. I continue to believe that she was a truly special tennis player, with more talent for the game than only a few other women have ever demonstrated. If your favorite player had half her talent, she'd certainly have more resources with which to construct points.

LDVTennis
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:27 PM
If their tennis is so basic, why don't more power hitters, say Lindsay (the pure ball striker who is the only one who constructs points according to you), Capriati, Pierce, etc. or even say Justine (the so-called finesse player who slices and dices) have as many slam titles as they do? Serena alone? You can't add two plus two and get five. :confused:

Isn't it obvious? Because everything else being equal, Capriati, Pierce, and Davenport are not as good at covering the court as Venus or Serena were in their prime.

Denise4925
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Bandy, do you realize (I guess not) that Hana was in the position to win majors long before Steffi ever began to make her mark.

While their careers do overlap at the end, by the time Steffi fully emerged Hana was close to retirement.

And, by the way, I never abandoned Hana. I continue to believe that she was a truly special tennis player, with more talent for the game than only a few other women have ever demonstrated. If your favorite player had half her talent, she'd certainly have more resources with which to construct points.
How many slams and titles did she win? Will she ever be in the Hall of Fame?

TonyP
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:44 PM
I think most people acknowledge that Sharapova is basically a power, baseline player without a lot of real variety in her game. She is also a big girl, at least six feet tall. In fact, I have at times described her as the new Venus -- Venus with a serve that generally does not go off as much as Williams' does. And Maria is less prone to deliver weak second serves.

But clearly, she is one of the power players --end of story.

Is she good for tennis? Only if you think continued domination by power players is good for tennis. I don't happen to think that way.

Is she good for the marketing of tennis? Obviously, having a very attractive girl up at the top is always good for the marketing of the sport and she is more attractive than anyone whose gotten to the top since Hingis. (And Hingis is more attractive today than she was when she was on tour.)

LDVTennis
Apr 6th, 2005, 05:36 PM
LDVTennis, your knowledge and analysis is appreciated. But you are flat out wrong concerning Venus and Serena. The bottom line is you can't win slams by simply BASHING the ball! If you could, what does that say about all of the supposedly GREAT thinkers that both of these ladies destroyed over their careers in the WTA!! Please, just let it go.

You are right, to a degree, one can't. But, that is not all Venus and Serena were doing. With their speed, there was no one better at defending the court. Indeed, they could often hit an offensive shot from a defensive position.

You also have to take into account what their competition was like during their most dominant years. The only other woman (Davenport) who could hit the ball as hard as Venus and Serena was not as good of an athlete. The women (Capriati and Clijsters) who could match some of their power and speed lacked the determination and concentration to be a consistent force against them. The women (i.e., Hingis and Henin) with the shot-making ability to outplay them lacked most of the power and some of the speed to put most of their shots into play against them. And, the only other woman (i.e., Mauresmo) that could have mounted a stiff challenge was when it counted the most a physical and mental wreck.

Against that competitive backdrop, it is not hard to see why a game based on "bashing the ball," great retrieval skills, and average to above average consistency had so much success.

Before I take your advice and let it go, let me just say this.

When the Willliam's sisters (WS), in particular Serena, were dominant at the majors, some of us may have known that it was all about brute power, but that did not stop us from being in awe of what they were doing.

The awe came from the fact that as knowledgeable as some of us thought we were about the game it had never occurred to us that players with such basic tennis skills, but superior power and speed, could be so dominant. As I have argued before, the success of the WS put a lie to the belief that superior tennis skills could still triumph against raw power and athleticism. Moreover, as I have observed before, it really rocked the status quo, constituted for the most part by skinny to chubby white girls, taught in academies or country clubs how to play the game only as instensely as their frail or misproportioned bodies would let them.

It's not like there hadn't been great athletes in the sport before. Margaret, Martina, and Steffi were certainly as athletic as the WS. And, it is not like these great athletes hadn't faced off against much less athletic players with advanced tennis skills of their own. The difference was now twofold: First, Margaret, Martina, and Steffi all possessed advanced tennis skills; the WS did not. Second, the gap between the athleticism of those with superior tennis skills (i.e., Hingis at one extreme) and the athleticism of those with basic tennis skills (i.e., the WS on the other extreme) was exponentially wider.

It was that gap that the WS took advantage of to establish themselves. And, while that gap still existed, one had to sit back and admire Richard Williams' genius for seeing it long before we did.

LDVTennis
Apr 6th, 2005, 05:40 PM
How many slams and titles did she win? Will she ever be in the Hall of Fame?

This link should tell you all you want to know:

http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees/hana_mandlikova.html

Knizzle
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:07 PM
I think most people acknowledge that Sharapova is basically a power, baseline player without a lot of real variety in her game. She is also a big girl, at least six feet tall. In fact, I have at times described her as the new Venus -- Venus with a serve that generally does not go off as much as Williams' does. And Maria is less prone to deliver weak second serves.

But clearly, she is one of the power players --end of story.

Is she good for tennis? Only if you think continued domination by power players is good for tennis. I don't happen to think that way.

Is she good for the marketing of tennis? Obviously, having a very attractive girl up at the top is always good for the marketing of the sport and she is more attractive than anyone whose gotten to the top since Hingis. (And Hingis is more attractive today than she was when she was on tour.)

Hingis wasn't that attractive, both Williams sisters looked better than her.

Sanneriet
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:39 PM
http://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gifhttp://picsrv.tennis.com/?fif=/tennis/img_25_3186.fpx&obj=iip,1.0&wid=150&hei=125&rgn=0,0,0,0&cvt=jpeghttp://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gifhttp://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gifhttp://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gif
Maria Sharapova.
http://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gifhttp://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gifhttp://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gifhttp://www.tennis.com/pix/1.gifSunday, Jan. 23, 6:30 P.M.: Sharapovamania!
Just finished watching Maria Sharapova shriek and blast her way to a three-set win over the Italian veteran Sylvia Farina Elia. Pretty mediocre stuff, I thought, and more proof that the tall blonde from Siberia is in an interesting footrace with her own hype. Of course, it’s not Sharapova’s fault that legions are swooning over her, or that so many commentators keep describing her as the hottest thing in tennis since Rebound Ace on an Australian summer day. It all puzzles me somewhat.



Start with the game. She hits a clean, heavy ball and has a terrific serve. Those virtues, while substantial, don’t lift you above the pack these days. In fact, what most stands out to me about Sharapova is the one-dimensional nature of her game. She’s a ball-banger, playing the same one-size-fits-all game as dozens of other ball-bangers--only she plays it that much better.

You could say Monica Seles was a banger too, but the harrowing efficiency of Seles’ game was unusual, and inimitable. You’d never mistake Seles' game for anyone else's. Sharapova, by contrast, has yet to create a distinct playing identity--even that toe-raise as she prepares to serve is unnervingly evocative of Pete Sampras. There is no personal stamp on Sharapova's game, stylistically or strategically. That, actually, may be the most unusual thing about her.

Then there’s the "It" girl thing. Sure, Sharapova has been lucky to come along on the heels of the Williams sisters, when the game has not only been lacking an understated, poised, essentially conservative blonde (think Chris Evert, or Steffi Graf), but when the type itself had been discredited by the provocative Anna Kournikova.

But I’m not getting much of a read on Sharapova’s personality, despite her intriguing personal story and obviously strong sense of self. What I am getting is the feeling that she’s a control freak, with a tight grip on how she’s packaged and marketed. Sure, all big celebrities do that. But most of them know you have to bring a little something else to the table, and I’m not talking about squared shoulders and pert ponytails. Sharapova is anodyne. The case is best made in her press conferences, where she is expertly unforthcoming and never, ever in danger of saying anything original, no less provocative. Here’s a good example, from when she was asked in Melbourne about her recent experiences touring and playing in Asia.

Q. Is there something which surprises you (about Asia), something very different from your experiences?
A: Well, the food is very different (laughing). You have a lot of different things on the menu that are definitely not on the menu in other places in the world, yeah. But I like food, so I don't mind. Of course, it’s easy to forget that she’s just a 17-year-old kid. But it’s going to be interesting to see how she develops.


This is from Tennis magazine.

Denise4925
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:57 PM
This link should tell you all you want to know:

http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees/hana_mandlikova.html
Good God, you write five books on why the Williams Sisters are brutal ball bashers with raw athletisism, and no tennis skills or knowledge, but you can't answer two questions with a simple sentence. :rolleyes:.

Let me ask you something, why do you think that Maria's game will evolve into a better game, with regard to constructing points and the Williams' sisters games can't, taking into account you think they do not already possess the skills of constructing a point, other than rudimentary ones?

bandabou
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Nice, nice and all LDV.....but one still has to wonder: what happened to Hana? Point-constructing skills and all...and in an era that "power" wasn't that important yet.....what do we see: only 4 majors...

rather having NO tennis skills at all as you seem to imply for the sisters yet still win big than ALL the tennis-skills: chip, dropshot, vollley, this and that....yet only be remembered as the 3rd fiddle for most of my career.

"lesser" opposition or not.....you still have to win when it counts.

bandabou
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:10 PM
great retrieval skills....is that a bad thing? I mean, isn't your own fav Steffi reknown for her speed and retrieval skills that helped her beat Martina N?

olliemyers
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:22 PM
The williams have alot more power than maria

denzuko
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:31 PM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.

Tennis is not gymnastic or figure skating.
Your style when you hit the ball doesn't count, only the point you make.
Doesn't matter if you're ball basher, as long as you can win... go for it.
If you can play with style or great variety, good for you.
And good for entertainment.
If you're good looking, even better... you can get more $$$ in endorsement.
But still... win first.

Fans/commentators/writers/journalists are all human, they all have their right to choose.
If they choose to like Maria but not Venus/Serena, even if they play exact same style of tennis... big deal.
It's just statistic, I'm sure some of them choose Venus/Serena over Maria... like you for example.

And please stop using 'cliche' like "It's not about starting another anti <someone> thread".
Most of them using that line actually do just that.

ps:
I hate to read all 200+ messages, so I just reply to #1.

AlexB
Apr 6th, 2005, 10:08 PM
i dont know about anyone else but tennis is a sport and the name of the game is to win matches and tournaments....who cares what you do to win? as long as you hit the ball and win more games than your opponents, then i dont care if you have one shot, ot 2 million shots...if you can win on power alone and hitting the ball the same way everytime, more power to you....i dont understand why the power players are called boring when they win...they are there to win not to please finesse loving fans.....and my opinion still holds even though my favorite player plays a finesse game more than a power one....OVERPOWERING YOUR OPPONENT IS A LEGITIMATE WAY TO WIN! simple, if you can kill your opponent with power only then do it and forget about constructing points

LDVTennis
Apr 6th, 2005, 10:59 PM
Good God, you write five books on why the Williams Sisters are brutal ball bashers with raw athletisism, and no tennis skills or knowledge, but you can't answer two questions with a simple sentence. :rolleyes:.

Let me ask you something, why do you think that Maria's game will evolve into a better game, with regard to constructing points and the Williams' sisters games can't, taking into account you think they do not already possess the skills of constructing a point, other than rudimentary ones?

Here you and I are in agreement. I do NOT think that Maria's game will evolve.

Her movement (speed and agility) is a big impediment to doing any of the more advanced things on the court she may want to do.

For instance, for three months now all I keep hearing is how much her forehand has improved. Ok? But, as soon as she is forced to run to her right to hit a running forehand, she resorts to a check forehand. She doesn't seem to have the speed or agility to hit her regular stroke under these circumstances.

To perform most advanced tennis skills, a player needs two things:

1) abillity to control the face of the racquet on one or more basic shots (forehand/backhand).
2) ability to move with speed and agility side to side and back and forth.

Maria just hasn't convinced me that she has either.

LDVTennis
Apr 6th, 2005, 11:17 PM
Nice, nice and all LDV.....but one still has to wonder: what happened to Hana? Point-constructing skills and all...and in an era that "power" wasn't that important yet.....what do we see: only 4 majors...

rather having NO tennis skills at all as you seem to imply for the sisters yet still win big than ALL the tennis-skills: chip, dropshot, vollley, this and that....yet only be remembered as the 3rd fiddle for most of my career.

"lesser" opposition or not.....you still have to win when it counts.

More than one Hana fan will tell you this, Hana was not a great competitor.

Venus and Serena are great competitors, great fighters. That makes a big difference.

For Hana, everything almost had to go well from the first point for her to shine. Rarely did she show the determination to dig out a match that she should have won on talent alone.

Having said that, you are wrong to suggest that she'll be "remembered as the 3rd fiddle." Anyone who ever saw her play in her prime will never forget the dynamism of her game. She had a style all her own, most of it stemming from the fluidity and lightness of her movement. Much like Steffi, she didn't so much hit shots, she moved into the ball and the rest took care of itself.

bandabou
Apr 6th, 2005, 11:34 PM
More than one Hana fan will tell you this, Hana was not a great competitor.

Venus and Serena are great competitors, great fighters. That makes a big difference.

For Hana, everything almost had to go well from the first point for her to shine. Rarely did she show the determination to dig out a match that she should have won on talent alone.

Having said that, you are wrong to suggest that she'll be "remembered as the 3rd fiddle." Anyone who ever saw her play in her prime will never forget the dynamism of her game. She had a style all her own, most of it stemming from the fluidity and lightness of her movement. Much like Steffi, she didn't so much hit shots, she moved into the ball and the rest took care of itself.

Hmmm......then again I ask: whom should be admired more: the player who had all the talent in the world, could hit all the shots, make them all look easy, this and that but who didn't do nearly enough with that talent and who only won when all was clicking and folded as soon as things became tough or the player who only had "basic" tennis skills, is limited, etc, but who still somehow already has surpassed the career of the talented player just because she was the one who DID enjoy competition, toughed up when the going got tough,etc?

An A-calibre student who throws away all the exams yet still boasts: If I only studied a bit more, I' ll have passed it or the C or even D-calibre student whom through hard work gets a B?

Rather OVERachieve than UNDERachieve...and Hana, how you want to turn it is an UNDERachiever.....period...

RVD
Apr 7th, 2005, 02:46 AM
You are right, to a degree, one can't. But, that is not all Venus and Serena were doing. With their speed, there was no one better at defending the court. Indeed, they could often hit an offensive shot from a defensive position.Much respect to you for the aforementioned comments. :) All I'm really looking for is a fair (opinionated) assessment of their game, and what you felt contributed to their success as players. ;)

You also have to take into account what their competition was like during their most dominant years. The only other woman (Davenport) who could hit the ball as hard as Venus and Serena was not as good of an athlete. The women (Capriati and Clijsters) who could match some of their power and speed lacked the determination and concentration to be a consistent force against them. The women (i.e., Hingis and Henin) with the shot-making ability to outplay them lacked most of the power and some of the speed to put most of their shots into play against them. And, the only other woman (i.e., Mauresmo) that could have mounted a stiff challenge was when it counted the most a physical and mental wreck.This was my impression of the above players at that particular era (between 1997-2003) based on sports journalists, post match write-ups, game commentary/analysts, and Inside Tennis articles---

Davenport: Was noted for her pure-of-form technique (some called technically flawless shot-making); had some success with her then nemisis, Martina Hingis, in a time when Venus and Serena were up-and-comers. It was also universally recognized that she was not a great mover, but didn't have to be to defeat much of the competition due to this great technique of hers. However, her one major flaw was her propesity to get down on herself, even at times when she clearly has the win.

Capriati:Was considered a great shot-maker as well. However, you said, and I quote, "...could match some of their power and speed lacked the determination and concentration," which was far and away different from what the other experts stated. In fact, for a time, Capriati was lauded as the only spoiler to both Venus and Serena (particularly Serena) due to the fact that she was a Thinker-Basher with infinite fight and desire. This was the reason she gave Serena so much trouble. She had good game, yes. But during her battles with Serena, she'd go for her shots more so than when playing other opponents. Her major weakness was cosidered her spotty service game, and sometimes conditioning.

Clijsters: Though a great player with great potential hadn't yet peaked. Sure she demolished her opponents (with ease, I might add), but she was fairly young with still-developing skills. It was only when both Venus and Serena were out injured did did shine. That's not to say that she didn't have wins, or couldn't win with V & S playing. The point I make here was that timing had a lot to do with her becoming #1 and peaking. Anyway, she was touted as having great volleying technique, speed, and TONS of strength and depth on her forehand side. Her weakness at the time...? Well, none that were glaring or readily apparent. So journalists attributed her lack of slam titles to 'mental' weakness, or a 'heart-like-a-lamb'.

Henin: Similar to Clijsters, but then retooled her game and added a great first and second serve, strengthened (bulked up), instituted more depth and pace....in other words, she became a 'big-babe' player, albeit in a smaller package. She too peaked at a time when V & S were out injured. And 'no', this doesn't take away fom her domination at the time. Still, writers wondered how she'd faired had both the sisters been healthy and playing. Her weaknesses were basically and vertually eliminated during the retoolong of her game. However, even at her best ('03 Wimbledon) Serena dismantled her game.

Hingis:And this one is somewhat tough because just about all of the sites on Hingis have closed. :lol: Or exist in another language. :shrug:
Anway, she was lauded as the preimminent 'Thinker'...the 'Chess Champ' of the courts. She was indowed with nearly supernatural tennis abilities at an early age. And lastly... A tennis prodigy that will dominate for years to come. :rolleyes: Though the sports writers' lovefest with Hingis was unusual, she did have a knack for taking apart a player's game with virtual ease. She waxed both V & S in the early stages of their career...mainly, because she was an already polished and well-establish pro at a time when the sisters were just turning pro. As I've stated before, this doesn't take away from the fact that Hingis defeated them time and again. However (and this is a fairly significant 'however'), when both Venus and Serena peaked, they developed several tools that worked to neutralize Hingis's game (especially Serena). And yes, the commentators commonly refer to it as 'big-babe' tennis. Even so, you could easily see that Serena, in particular, had a firm grasp on what it took to confuse and confound Hingis, and that was to keep the balls deep. Yes, sounds simple, but when you consider that Hingis wasn't a 'basher' and that she could be worn down with simple 'bashing', what else was needed? Moreover, Hingis didn't have a particularly effective serve, so against Serena and Venus, she was defenseless. Add to that the fact (as you've already stated) that both sisters were great retreivers; could turn a defensive return into an offensive one, and had crazy angles and placement, Hingis no longer dominated their meetings.

Before I take your advice and let it go, let me just say this.

When the Willliam's sisters (WS), in particular Serena, were dominant at the majors, some of us may have known that it was all about brute power, but that did not stop us from being in awe of what they were doing.

The awe came from the fact that as knowledgeable as some of us thought we were about the game it had never occurred to us that players with such basic tennis skills, but superior power and speed, could be so dominant. As I have argued before, the success of the WS put a lie to the belief that superior tennis skills could still triumph against raw power and athleticism. Moreover, as I have observed before, it really rocked the status quo, constituted for the most part by skinny to chubby white girls, taught in academies or country clubs how to play the game only as instensely as their frail or misproportioned bodies would let them.Again, I appreciate your honesty and candor, but as I already stated, much of the anomosity from the various factions, concerning Venus and Serena, was due in large part from fear. Here we had two sisters who not only shot up the rankings (against all odds) and against some of the best players on tour (Hingis, Mary Pierce, Capriati, Stefi---for a time, Iroda, Davenport, ASV, etc...), but they also did it their own 'unconventional' way. Add to that the fact that they all but skipped junior tennis, and you have yourself a good 'ol Williams Stew of trouble. So, though what you've stated I agree with in large part, I've included what my perception of what was reported (incessently) as well.

It's not like there hadn't been great athletes in the sport before. Margaret, Martina, and Steffi were certainly as athletic as the WS. And, it is not like these great athletes hadn't faced off against much less athletic players with advanced tennis skills of their own. The difference was now twofold: First, Margaret, Martina, and Steffi all possessed advanced tennis skills; the WS did not. Second, the gap between the athleticism of those with superior tennis skills (i.e., Hingis at one extreme) and the athleticism of those with basic tennis skills (i.e., the WS on the other extreme) was exponentially wider.Though in honesty it's difficult to compare past decades to the present, I must say that even had all of the above players faced Venus and Serena, they would have eventually succumbed just like the others great of the sisters' time. The fact that Venus and Serena represented a level of athlete that had never been seen before scared the tennis world. Even by your own admission ("...the success of the WS put a lie to the belief that superior tennis skills could still triumph against raw power and athleticism.") they were so far ahead of the WTA players athletically, that they didn't need that impeccable 'net game'.

It was that gap that the WS took advantage of to establish themselves. And, while that gap still existed, one had to sit back and admire Richard Williams' genius for seeing it long before we did.I wish you could have also expressed the fact that Richard was called far less than a 'genius' by the establishment, before he was finally recognized through Venus and Serena's slam results. The fact that he took them from cradle to court would've, had they been a Capriati or a Hingis. But your accolades here are well noted and received. :wavey:

Please forgive my lengthy dissertation on a topic we are all surely versed in by now. ;) And also my non-technical approach. I am not a coach or an accomplished tennis athlete. However, I can disseminate the truth and fiction with the best. ;)

uNIVERSEmAN
Apr 7th, 2005, 02:53 AM
As soon as one of these girls develops a kick serve and ability to punch volleys away (instead of swinging), introduce a lot of slice and short balls with topspin and changing speeds and angles constantly, she'll have a tremendous advantage over her peers.

The stephie graph slice backhand is very underrated.

Martian KC
Apr 7th, 2005, 03:45 AM
She is not capable of anything but.

uNIVERSEmAN
Apr 7th, 2005, 03:47 AM
two handed backhand limits options.

moby
Apr 7th, 2005, 11:00 AM
As soon as one of these girls develops a kick serve and ability to punch volleys away (instead of swinging), introduce a lot of slice and short balls with topspin and changing speeds and angles constantly, she'll have a tremendous advantage over her peers.

The stephie graph slice backhand is very underrated.

Not at all. If you follow the discussions on this board, most people agree it's actually an offensive weapon that sets up her forehand. And some people think it's the greatest stroke in tennis bar, well, her forehand.

Not that I disagree of course. ;)

andrewbroad
Apr 11th, 2005, 01:31 AM
I don't have time to read through this long thread, but I just want to add my two cents:

1. Maria's power comes from timing and natural flair, as opposed to the sheer brute force of her more muscular contemporaries.

2. Maria is an intelligent tactician, knowing instinctively which shot to select in which situation (one thinks of the two lobs she produced towards the end of the Wimbledon 2004 final), and she learns as a match unfolds what other players would only learn after the match, with the aid of their coaches.

--
Dr. Andrew Broad
http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/ (http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/)
http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/ (http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/)
http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/shara/ (http://www.geocities.com/andrewbroad/tennis/shara/)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sizzlingsharapova/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sizzlingsharapova/)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jeldani/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jeldani/)

bandabou
Apr 11th, 2005, 02:23 AM
really, andrewbroad.....I guess she wasn't paying much atention during her IW SF this year.

Volcana
Apr 11th, 2005, 03:08 AM
Somebody, for the love God, stick a stake in this thread's heart!

kabuki
Apr 11th, 2005, 03:12 AM
Somebody, for the love God, stick a stake in this thread's heart!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

alfajeffster
Jul 20th, 2005, 12:46 PM
...In any case, what you should consider is this: As Federer and Steffi have proven, it is possible to build a dominating game with three elements: a forehand that can operate from any corner of the court, a slice backhand, and a well-placed serve to the extremes (flat down the T, slice to the Deuce court, and Twist to the Ad Court).

Now, Federer and Steffi could only have arrived at this conclusion if very early in their development they had shown the ability to hit that remarkable forehand. This probably happened very early since the forehand is the shot one learns first. After that, everything kind of fell into place. If they could command most of the court with their forehand and if the forehand by design is a better shot for opening up the court, then they really didn't need much more than a slice backhand to complete their ground game.

Meanwhile, the other kids on the playground had to proceed to learn backhands. Most of them didn't have the natural timing and racquet face control to hit one-handers. So, they learned two-handers. The ones who could hit one-handers drew the admiration of the coaches and of those kids with the great forehands. Still, it was becoming clear to most of the kids by now that the couple of kids with the great forehands would have a definite edge.

That brings us back to what kids like Federer and Steffi were doing while everyone else was learning to hit western forehands and two-handed backhands. They were figuring out how to set-up their forehands for the put-away shot...

I wish I had been around to get in on this argument back in April, however, thanks to bandabou, it has been resurrected!

I agree with your assessment and comparisons between Federer and Graf, but only to a certain point. The one thing that Federer has in spaydes, that frustrates everyone who comes up against him, is some of the best variety of shotmaking from anywhere on the court. It's comical to watch a mechanical blast donkey like Andy Roddick with a confused look on his face as if he has no idea what Roger is going to do with the ball- and he doesn't.

Graf's footwork and ballet-like movement are just as good as Federer's, however, she did not use all the shots in the book on virtually every point- her game was much more structured and taut. Opponents could (and did if they were quick enough) read Steffi's patterns very easily- much more easily than anyone can with Roger. That's why he's #1 and why many people are saying he may be the best ever- you can't read him. While the goal for both Graf and Federer is to set up a winning forehand, the similarities in their games (IMO) end there.

HarkleroadFan
Jun 24th, 2007, 08:29 PM
Maria :D

Bijoux0021
Jun 24th, 2007, 09:38 PM
It's not about starting another Anti Maria thread, its a very fair question. Maria is all about POWER. It's called big babe tennis. You can put Davenport, Serena and Venus in that category. But why were the Williams cruxcified for years for their power tennis causing alot to say that the Williams are bad for tennis and that they are the downfall of womens tennis yet Maria is considered a genuis for it? It's a fair question. Maria is like Andy Roddick. Just bash the ball to death to make it impossible that your opponent can't return the ball. If Maria is down, we get to hear endlessy from the commentators how she 'fights' back, but all she does is turn up the power when she's down and out and bashes the ball real hard back to her opponent. Maria is the female Andy Roddick. :eek: I notice when they talk about Venus and Serena's game they always mention the word power. I don't hear the word power mentioned in Maria's game. Suggesting that Venus and serena are just simply to brutes just slugging it out and Maria has variety.
Why is Maria Sharapova praised for ball bashing and the Williams sisters were/are crucified? Well, the answer is very easy....Sharapova is white; the Williams sisters are black. Plain and simple!

heytennis
Jun 24th, 2007, 09:40 PM
how does harkleroad fan have a good rep??

PLEASE BAN THEM

Bijoux0021
Jun 24th, 2007, 09:43 PM
Good God, you write five books on why the Williams Sisters are brutal ball bashers with raw athletisism, and no tennis skills or knowledge, but you can't answer two questions with a simple sentence. :rolleyes:.

Let me ask you something, why do you think that Maria's game will evolve into a better game, with regard to constructing points and the Williams' sisters games can't, taking into account you think they do not already possess the skills of constructing a point, other than rudimentary ones?
And we're still waiting....

danieln1
Jun 24th, 2007, 10:35 PM
Because she is gourgeous and beautiful, and blonde, very different!

mdterp01
Jun 24th, 2007, 11:06 PM
Because she's the "beautiful blonde girl" who beat the "sista" at Wimbledon '04 who many in the "establishment" couldn't stand winning slams on the tour.

edificio
Jun 24th, 2007, 11:17 PM
...because she's blonde.