PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon's Top 5 Stars/Top 5 Flops (BBC Sport)


sartrista7
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:43 PM
TOP FIVE STARS
Venus Williams
Maybe only Venus believed she could regain the form of 2001
Maria Sharapova
Made a valiant defence and gave up title with dignity
Anastasia Myskina
For three epic three-set wins
Sania Mirza
For putting Indian women's tennis on the SW19 map in just two matches
Jane O'Donoghue
Saved British women's pride with a lone victory

TOP FIVE FLOPS
Serena Williams
Arrived unfit and made an early exit
Amelie Mauresmo
Made another Grand Slam semi, took the lead again, lost in three again...
Justine Henin-Hardenne
Left a huge void with her first-round defeat
British women
Seven wild cards required, one win delivered
Martina Navratilova
Harsh... but the search for Wimbledon title 21 goes on

Longer article here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4646023.stm

Putting Sharapova in the 'star' category is slightly odd. Nice to see Nastya and Sania getting their props though.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:45 PM
I don't think Momo should be on the flop list. Lindsay really took it to her, and at least she made the SF. I thought Amelie did the best she could and was playing beautifully.

SJW
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:47 PM
Lindsay Davenport should be a hit for staring in 2 of the matches of the tournament

DelMonte
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:48 PM
To put Amelie on the flop list is way too harsh.

sadsmiley
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:48 PM
Lindsay Davenport should be a hit for staring in 2 of the matches of the tournament


Definitely. And classing Momo and Martina as flops is harsh at best.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:49 PM
Lindsay Davenport should be a hit for staring in 2 of the matches of the tournament

I agree, Sania should be taken off.

selking
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:49 PM
wow there are alot of crappy people in the top five and some betters in the flops

sartrista7
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:50 PM
I'd put Amelie on the flop list, actually. She was in stunning form all the way to the semi and played very well in it, but she's got to the stage of her career where that is simply not satisfactory any more. No more props for being the nearly woman, especially when it's the same old story of taking a lead and losing it. I say this as someone who'd LOVE Amelie to break through.

manu
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:51 PM
Jane O'Donoghue a star but Lindsay out? In fact, I would even put her ahead of Maria, after all Maria lost her title, Lindsay did better than her, also better than last year, was a lot more competitive against the eventual Champion and played in 2 of the tournament's best matches. I agree that Amélie shouldn't even be on the flop list. But what can we do? A list is a list :)

Declan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:52 PM
Mary Pierce should definitely be in the 'Top 5 Stars' list. Equalling her best-ever finish by reaching the Quarter-Finals before losing to the eventual Champion Venus Williams (with that memorable 12-10 tie-break!) and winning her first Wimbledon title, the Mixed Doubles with Mahesh Bhupathi -unseeded, without dropping a set, beating three (4?) seeded pairs en-route to the title, including the defending champions!

rightous
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:53 PM
Sania I think deserved it, I think she was added b/c there is a big Indian population in the UK (and obviously there is close colonial ties) and she made alot of people interested. I would replace Maria with Lindz, and take Amilie out and put in Elena Bally (sorry but she should have delivered more)

Pamela Shriver
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:55 PM
Pam Shriver is the real star of Wimbledon 2005. Not only have her vowels entertained the masses yet again, but the announcement of the pending arrival of two more Ickle Lazenby-Shrivers is indeed the best set of doubles anyone could hope to win

...

SjuTjuD
Jul 3rd, 2005, 10:56 PM
Take Maria out and put Lindsay in.

xan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:04 PM
Good list.

Maria was evidently star of the show for most of the event. Her play was of a high standard. Her pictures were in all the media. Her interviews were witty. Her confident and classy defence were an object-lesson from an 18 year-old. Highest props to Masha!

Myskina's houdini-antics were notable.

Mirza and O'Donoghugh didn't really make much impact.

Justine arrived in a blaze of publicity and hype - and departed very quickly.

Amelie did her usual thing of winning easily in the early rounds, then losing a long tussle in the 2nd week.

Martina was just a publicity-hound, doing rent-a-quotes for all the papers.

I'd add in Cara Black and Mary Pierce as stars of the Womens events, performing well and providing exciting play.

Maybe also ..... Craybas?

Pengwin
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:06 PM
I think all are fair.

Virginia Wade
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:06 PM
Wimbledon 2005 has been far too exciting for me. I need a cold shower and a lie down.

flyingmachine
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:06 PM
To put Amelie on the flop list is way too harsh.
I know must be a Momo hater who wrote that.

xan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:11 PM
Take Maria out and put Lindsay in.

Why - because Lindsay was dull, lumpen, and threw the final away yet again?

When the Director of Wimbledon told the Centre Court crowd on Thursday that one of the Semis was being moved across to No 1 Court. The crowd rose up in boos - until they heard it was Lindsay's match being moved to the other court. Then they cheered.

SjuTjuD
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:16 PM
Why - because Lindsay was dull, lumpen, and threw the final away yet again?


Lindsay made it to the final, Maria did not. The so called defence was soundly beaten into submission in the semi and her game shown for the fraud that it is. It can be summed up in her pathetic attempt at a drop shot and her needing guidance in the skys when her game wasn't enough. Maria gave away the aura that she was a force to be reckoned with :lol: . Lindsay in, Maria out.

Xavier_Malisse
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:19 PM
Wow! I didn't make the list of flops? That's a first.

Lapin
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:22 PM
Ridiculous! Amélie makes the semis in singles and final in doubles and ends up on the 'flops' list, whilst Maria loses in the semis, is congratulated for it and put on the 'stars' list? :confused: And if we're going to take 'dignity in defeat' into account, Amélie was most definitely equally 'dignified'. What a joke! :rolleyes:

SjuTjuD
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:24 PM
Ridiculous! Amélie makes the semis in singles and final in doubles and ends up on the 'flops' list, whilst Maria loses in the semis, is congratulated for it and put on the 'stars' list? :confused: And if we're going to take 'dignity in defeat' into account, Amélie was most definitely equally 'dignified'. What a joke! :rolleyes:

It really makes you wonder about the standards for this list.

xan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:25 PM
Lindsay made it to the final, Maria did not. The so called defence was soundly beaten into submission in the semi and her game shown for the fraud that it is. It can be summed up in her pathetic attempt at a drop shot and her needing guidance in the skys when her game wasn't enough. Maria gave away the aura that she was a force to be reckoned with :lol: . Lindsay in, Maria out.

"Soundly beaten into submission?" :rolleyes:
Some haters live in a world of their own delusion! As the article said: Williams against Maria Sharapova was frightening both in terms of intensity and quality. If Venus had played like she did against Davenport, in that semi, she'd have been destroyed.

Maria went through her first five rounds only losing serve once. Venus had to play one of the matches of her life to get through.

Mon.
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:28 PM
Amélie in the Top Five Flops is just not right.

xan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:28 PM
Ridiculous! Amélie makes the semis in singles and final in doubles and ends up on the 'flops' list, whilst Maria loses in the semis, is congratulated for it and put on the 'stars' list? :confused: And if we're going to take 'dignity in defeat' into account, Amélie was most definitely equally 'dignified'. What a joke! :rolleyes:

Amelie went out, tamely surrendering a lead to Davenport. Maria went out in what was one of the best matches of the championships ever.

SjuTjuD
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:28 PM
"Soundly beaten into submission?" :rolleyes:
Some haters live in a world of their own delusion! As the article said: Williams against Maria Sharapova was frightening both in terms of intensity and quality. If Venus had played like she did against Davenport, in that semi, she'd have been destroyed.

Maria went through her first five rounds only losing serve once. Venus had to play one of the matches of her life to get through.

Wait :scratch: Maria was beaten soundly but you give her a slap on the back but Lindsay actually made it to a final that is being celebrated and you call her dull and accuse her of giving the match away :confused: I understand the shock you must feel over your fave not living up to the hype but why drag other players through your own delusion? After the final between LINDSAY and Venus, Maria's match with Venus is only a sidenote into the glorious journey Venus had to the final. Nothing more but an afterthought. The final is what everyone is remembering aside from Maria and her golden shoes not being so golden :lol: Because Maria failed you is no reason to direct your anger at Lindsay who did what Maria couldn't do. Deal with your Maria angst and anger in a better way :wavey:

Dava
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:30 PM
I think Momo being on the list is a little harsh...!!!

Lapin
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:34 PM
Amelie went out, tamely surrendering a lead to Davenport. Maria went out in what was one of the best matches of the championships ever.

'tamely' :confused: the match went to 6/4 in the third set and was extremely hard fought! Maria lost in straight sets to Venus, although both were later described as 'classic matches' by commentators....

blumaroo
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:37 PM
Sania should not be placed on that list AT ALL. Amelie shouldn't be mentioned either. Lindsay deserved to be in the first list for not choking and reaching a Wimbledon final since 1999 where she fought until the better end.

sartrista7
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:38 PM
If 7-6 6-1 isn't a tame scoreline to lose by, then 6-7 7-6 6-4 certainly isn't :tape:

As I said, I do feel that Amelie disappointed enough to be on the flop list - but I don't think Maria had the results or the storylines to make the star list. Davenport seems more deserving, and I say this as someone who likes Maria a lot more than Davenport.

sartrista7
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:40 PM
Sania should not be placed on that list AT ALL.

The list isn't about results, it's about impact and storylines, and Sania made a HUGE impact. And the path she's forging is very, very newsworthy.

Also, she's there for much the same reasons as O'Donoghue - this is from a British perspective.

xan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:44 PM
Wait :scratch: Maria was beaten soundly but you give her a slap on the back
You don't seem to understand the concept of a quality match. perhaps you could study it sometime. You can lose a high-quality match with a player having a rare in-the-zone day, and be an infintely better player than someone who comes through a low quality match. Understand?

but Lindsay actually made it to a final that is being celebrated and you call her dull and accuse her of giving the match away :confused:
A final celebrated as a chokefest perhaps.
Read some of the match reports - better still, watch the match and you will see it was 80% poor quality.
I understand the shock you must feel over your fave not living up to the hype but why drag other players through your own delusion?[/;quote]

You are the one who suggested eradicating Maria from the list and replacing her with your fave. No-one asked you to attack Maria - who was self-evidently a major star of the tournament this year. Centre Court crowds booed when they feared they were getting a Lindsay match instead of hers.

[quote]After the final between LINDSAY and Venus, Maria's match with Venus is only a sidenote into the glorious journey Venus had to the final.
Quick! Call a doctor! This man is hallucinating badly!

"Glorious journey?" All of Venus's major opposition was luckily eliminated from her draw before she got there. Serena, Justine, Elenii, all eliminated. Instead there was the glorious victory over Jill Craybas and the like.

Because Maria failed you is no reason to direct your anger at Lindsay who did what Maria couldn't do. Deal with your Maria angst and anger in a better way :wavey:

I'm not the one who started directing my "anger" at other players. YOU were the one who decided to direct your insecurity on Maria in this thread. There was no need to attack Maria, but you couldn't stop yourself, could you? You fear her so much.

SjuTjuD
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:46 PM
Xan you do not seem to be able to understand much in your red haze of anger and discontentment. Being reasonable with you is impossible. Dealing with the likes of you in your emotional state is never worth it. You obviously need to hold onto something and are clinging to anything you can Maria wise. I'll leave to it :lol: I hope she performs better for your own sanity or else I can look forward to you disparaging other players in order to make yourself feel better, sleeping with that sour loser thumb at night dreaming of what could have been. Ta-ta :wavey:

xan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:47 PM
'tamely' :confused: the match went to 6/4 in the third set and was extremely hard fought! Maria lost in straight sets to Venus, although both were later described as 'classic matches' by commentators....

Again. You need to learn to consider the concept of quality. Commentators recognised the Maria-Venus match as one of the most intense, high-quality encounters ever - of either sex. This is what makes star quality. A match full of errors ending 6-4 in the third isn't comparable.

hablo
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:50 PM
Amelie went out, tamely surrendering a lead to Davenport. Maria went out in what was one of the best matches of the championships ever.

:lol:

one was in straights sets, the other a tight three setters :haha: :rolls:

hablo
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:52 PM
If 7-6 6-1 isn't a tame scoreline to lose by, then 6-7 7-6 6-4 certainly isn't :tape:

As I said, I do feel that Amelie disappointed enough to be on the flop list - but I don't think Maria had the results or the storylines to make the star list. Davenport seems more deserving, and I say this as someone who likes Maria a lot more than Davenport.

:bowdown:

xan
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:52 PM
Xan you do not seem to be able to understand much in your red haze of anger and discontentment.
Don't accuse me of your own failins. YOU were the one who decided to use this thread as an opportunity to attack Maria - and the BBc presumably for picking her.

Being reasonable with you is impossible. Dealing with the likes of you in your emotional state is never worth it.
Your sort always start in with personal insults when logic fails.

You obviously need to hold onto something and are clinging to anything you can Maria wise. I'll leave to it :lol: I hope she performs better for your own sanity or else I can look forward to you disparaging other players in order to make yourself feel better, sleeping with that sour loser thumb at night dreaming of what could have been. Ta-ta :wavey:

Is this some pathetic attempt to avoid the facts. I. The BBC, the Crowds at Wimbledon the Media, say maria was one of the Top Stars at Wimbledon. You don't like it, and start hurling abuse. Give up. End of story.

SjuTjuD
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:55 PM
If 7-6 6-1 isn't a tame scoreline to lose by, then 6-7 7-6 6-4 certainly isn't :tape:

As I said, I do feel that Amelie disappointed enough to be on the flop list - but I don't think Maria had the results or the storylines to make the star list. Davenport seems more deserving, and I say this as someone who likes Maria a lot more than Davenport.

Right on point.

Oneofakind0490
Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:58 PM
I don't understand how you think Venus-Maria was better than Venus-Lindsay. The semifinal was high quality but the final was just more. It was also no choke fest either.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:00 AM
If 7-6 6-1 isn't a tame scoreline to lose by, then 6-7 7-6 6-4 certainly isn't :tape:
Again, you are just looking at numbers. You do not consider the effect of QUALITY OF MATCH. A three set match with poor play swinging either way can easily get to 6-7 7-6 6-4. That does not make it a qualty match. The longest match is not the best match.

As I said, I do feel that Amelie disappointed enough to be on the flop list - but I don't think Maria had the results or the storylines to make the star list.
Excuse me? Did you read any newspapers? See any of the match reports? I would say Maria made about as many stories as all the other female players combined. Of course maria not only made the Star List. She topped it, both by consistent level of play and her personality.

Davenport seems more deserving, and I say this as someone who likes Maria a lot more than Davenport.

So why when given the opportunity of seeing Davenport or Maria did the crowd on centre court boo the idea of watching Davenport and cheer when told they were going to get Maria?

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:02 AM
I don't understand how you think Venus-Maria was better than Venus-Lindsay. The semifinal was high quality but the final was just more. It was also no choke fest either.

venus Lindsay had a poorer quality of play. Even venus admitted that! read some of the reports of each match.

SjuTjuD
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:02 AM
Xan, I didn't attack Maria. My lone statement was Maria should be replaced by Lindsay. You took it upon yourself to wage a crusade that makes no sense except you emotionally aren't all there. Aren't there some Venus Nazi fans you and your cronies should be avoiding :lol: you Maria fans are younger than Maria mentally how sad. Now if I went by your logic and seeing the world in such a hateful way then I could understand where you are coming from. Nazi Venus fans, you Maria fans :tape: You did put a copyright on that moniker right?

sartrista7
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:11 AM
Again, you are just looking at numbers. You do not consider the effect of QUALITY OF MATCH. A three set match with poor play swinging either way can easily get to 6-7 7-6 6-4. That does not make it a qualty match. The longest match is not the best match.

I watched them both, I'm well aware of their respective quality. First set of Venus v Maria was the best set of the tournament, but Lindsay v Amelie was excellent as well (and a lot more varied) - and they kept it up for three sets, ie a whole match, rather than going away after one set.

Excuse me? Did you read any newspapers? See any of the match reports? I would say Maria made about as many stories as all the other female players combined. Of course maria not only made the Star List. She topped it, both by consistent level of play and her personality.

Storylines, not stories. Narratives. Maria's win last year was a terrific narrative, because she was a new face and had that fairytale back story. This year...there's no narrative there apart from "defending champion is playing rather well and is still pretty". (If she'd defended successfully, that would have been a terrific narrative.) Sania had the narrative of being the first prominent Indian woman to make a mark at Wimbledon, of the huge hype which surrounds her at home, of the huge interest which she attracted here due to Indian immigrants. Nastya had the multiple Houdini/battling personal tragedy narrative.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:13 AM
I love that there's an argument and I'm not invovled. *Grabs popcorn*

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:15 AM
Xan, I didn't attack Maria. My lone statement was Maria should be replaced by Lindsay.
So. Your position was that Maria wasn't one of the Stars of Wimbledon and that Davenport was. You could of course have simply said that Davenport was also a star. You didn't. You chose - out of a list that included Jane O'Donoghue and Mirza, - the best-known player at Wimbledon as the "non-star"!! Either your grasp on reality is rather warped. Or you have an axe to grind, trying to demean Maria - as many Lindsay/Williams fans are obsessed with doing.

You took it upon yourself to wage a crusade that makes no sense except you emotionally aren't all there.
I think your constant reverting to personal abuse say more about your mental state than mine. I note that trolls, when their views are challenged, always fall back on personal abuse and name-calling.

You are the one who hasn't answered the facts put forward. If Maria isn't a star, how come she got the vast majority of media coverage and was the player the fans wanted to see? It is so obvious to anyone of reasonable mind that Maria is undoubtedly one of the biggest stars of the tournament. Why even try to deny it?

It's a fact - whether you like it or not. abusing those who disagree with you won't change it.

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:17 AM
here we go, Lindsay/Williams fans have to be jealous of Maria :yawn:

SjuTjuD
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:19 AM
So. Your position was that Maria wasn't one of the Stars of Wimbledon and that Davenport was.

The sad but amusing part of this is my opinion hurt your very sensitive feelings. How dare I say Lindsay should be in the top five over Maria. This is quite scary :eek: Lessons should be learned here, never state your own opinion or disagree with a Maria fan on Maria, they take things where they need not to, calling you a Nazi, not giving credit where it is due and attacking you because anger is all they have :rolleyes: Talk about obsession. Logic is never used there.

Oneofakind0490
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:22 AM
as many Lindsay/Williams fans are obsessed with doing.How do you know the people that are fighting with you Williams/Davenport fans?

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:31 AM
I watched them both, I'm well aware of their respective quality. First set of Venus v Maria was the best set of the tournament, but Lindsay v Amelie was excellent as well (and a lot more varied) - and they kept it up for three sets, ie a whole match, rather than going away after one set.

Storylines, not stories. Narratives. Maria's win last year was a terrific narrative, because she was a new face and had that fairytale back story. This year...there's no narrative there apart from "defending champion is playing rather well and is still pretty". (If she'd defended successfully, that would have been a terrific narrative.) Sania had the narrative of being the first prominent Indian woman to make a mark at Wimbledon, of the huge hype which surrounds her at home, of the huge interest which she attracted here due to Indian immigrants. Nastya had the multiple Houdini/battling personal tragedy narrative.

Again. It depends what you call a "narrative" . The article was called "Wimbledon's Top 5 Stars/Flops". On that basis we're talking about stories and their impact.

Maria had a good number that caught the public imagination
* Surprise Russian champion returns to defend title. Bookies 2nd favourite.
* Tennis Star after No 1 ranking.
* Rags to riches storyline.
* Tennis beauty who is also a good player.
* Marias fashion choices - costume, shoes.
* Feud with Sesil Karatantcheva
* Maria's dad. Maria's stalkers. Maria's grunting.
* Maria's business sidelines - Navratilova criticism
* Maria the on-court assassin - killing off opponents.
* Maria's match with venus.

Compare this with Lindsay
* Number One seed not expected to win.
* known for avoiding publicity and homely looks
* Wins matches she's supposed to win, but with difficulty.
* Loses final from winning position.

Doesn't really compare does it?

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:33 AM
here we go, Lindsay/Williams fans have to be jealous of Maria :yawn:

80% of sniping at Maria on this board comes from those sources.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:41 AM
The sad but amusing part of this is my opinion hurt your very sensitive feelings. How dare I say Lindsay should be in the top five over Maria. This is quite scary
No. This is a debate board. I am allowed to challenge your claim that Maria is not one of the Top Stars at Wimbledon - especially if it seems irrational.

Lessons should be learned here, never state your own opinion or disagree with a Maria fan on Maria, they take things where they need not to, calling you a Nazi, not giving credit where it is due and attacking you because anger is all they have :rolleyes: Talk about obsession. Logic is never used there.

You seem to be going off into another illogical rant. Did I call you a Nazi? :confused: I don't think so.

You made an assertion. I made a counter assertion. Then you started in with abuse.

And you still haven't answered the points I made.

SjuTjuD
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:43 AM
And you still haven't answered the points I made.

Sorry dear, I don't answer lunatic type rantings of a rabid and highly illogical personality. Wrap the delusion around you like a warm security blanket. It can help you when you are figuring out your statistical probabilities. Ah you guys are so amusing it should be criminal :) Lindsay in and Maria out :wavey:

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:46 AM
80% of sniping at Maria on this board comes from those sources.

im not sure that the two people you're arguing with in this thread are either. in fact, i know for certain one of them hates both Serena AND Davenport :lol:

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:55 AM
Sorry dear, I don't answer lunatic type rantings of a rabid and highly illogical personality. Wrap the delusion around you like a warm security blanket. It can help you when you are figuring out your statistical probabilities. Ah you guys are so amusing it should be criminal :) Lindsay in and Maria out :wavey:

Can't make your case? Okay. :tape:

SjuTjuD
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:56 AM
Can't make your case? Okay. :tape:

Lindsay made her case for me about why she should be in and Maria certainly validated why she should be OUT. Now about you, you really made my case with your rabid nature :haha: The more you post the more you prove it with exhibits a-z (although it concerns me how it takes you so long to read and reply. Is there a problem there too :confused: ) Thank you :kiss:

Hey Xan:

How many Venus fans total are there at this message site?

How many of them commented on the Maria?

What percentage does that come out to?

:lol:

Louis Cyphre
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:59 AM
Lindsay made her case for me about why she should be in and Maria certainly validated why she should be OUT. Now about you, you really made my case with your rabid nature :haha: The more you post the more you prove it with exhibits a-z (although it concerns me how it takes you so long to read and reply. Is there a problem there too :confused: ) Thank you :kiss:
It seems that you have Mariafobia :lol:

volta
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:00 AM
i don´t think that it´s fair for Momo to be in the flop list at least in this tournament she wasn´t beaten because she chocked but because Lindsay was better

SjuTjuD
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:01 AM
It seems that you have Mariafobia :lol:

What is that :scratch: Is it something new?

volta
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:02 AM
I love that there's an argument and I'm not invovled. *Grabs popcorn*
:lol: :lol: i was thinking the same thing but about me :lol: :lol:

*grabs a chair and some Doritos* yummy :drool:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:07 AM
80% of sniping at Maria on this board comes from those sources.

I don't think that's fair of you to say. I'm a Williams/Davenport fan and I don't hate on Maria, and there's many others that don't as well.

tenn_ace
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:12 AM
Amelie on the flop list is totally :retard:

I feel like Maria is more deserving it... as much as I hate it, I have to admit she really didn't play like a future (2005) Wimbledon champion IMO.

-Sonic-
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:22 AM
Why - because Lindsay was dull, lumpen, and threw the final away yet again?

When the Director of Wimbledon told the Centre Court crowd on Thursday that one of the Semis was being moved across to No 1 Court. The crowd rose up in boos - until they heard it was Lindsay's match being moved to the other court. Then they cheered.

I was in the Court 1 crowd on the thursday and we were all fucking cheering our arses off when we heard we were gonna be seeing Linds-Amelie.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:22 AM
I don't think that's fair of you to say. I'm a Williams/Davenport fan and I don't hate on Maria, and there's many others that don't as well.

Sorry. I didn't say ALL williams-davenport fans hate Maria. I was saying that most of the sniping at Maria here comes from certain followers of those camps. The main person i was arguing with here seems from his name to be a JuJu fan - though I suspect he's a sock-puppet. (New member. Rep closed down)

SjuTjuD
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:24 AM
I'll open up my rep for you xan, you just keep posting and proving me right :lol:

Thanks a bunch :)

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:26 AM
Xan you seem really bitter, why is that?

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:26 AM
I was in the Court 1 crowd on the thursday and we were all fucking cheering our arses off when we heard we were gonna be seeing Linds-Amelie.

Yes. But you were not expecting to see any womens semi-finals. I would cheer if I was going to see Linds Amelie instead of mens doubles. On centre Court things were different.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:28 AM
I'll open up my rep for you xan, you just keep posting and proving me right :lol:

Thanks a bunch :)

I know you're a hater from your posts on another thread. just try to escape your obsession with Maria and find a fave you can support positively.

Kart
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Amelie went out, tamely surrendering a lead to Davenport. Maria went out in what was one of the best matches of the championships ever.

Amelie has more right to be on the star list than Maria.

Maria got so much attention at the tournament this year yet didn't deliver what was promised.

Most people didn't even give Amelie a chance against Lindsay yet she came closer to reaching the final than Sharapova.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:30 AM
Xan you seem really bitter, why is that?

Probably reading idiots on the board always sniping at Maria rather than posting positively on tennis or their own faves.

SjuTjuD
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:33 AM
I know you're a hater from your posts on another thread. just try to escape your obsession with Maria and find a fave you can support positively.

Before you attacked me I wasn't a hater but you helped me form an opinion in that direction. So take a bow and be proud of yourself because you suceeded :worship: You have stalked me through this whole thread and have concocted up an illusional reality of your own that is something I do not even want to touch. You attacked someone who only wrote Take Maria out and put Lindsay in. And you want to say I am obsessed? You are without a doubt insane :tape: Let me not stop you bashing Lindsay. I know it is your way of positively supporting Maria :rolleyes:

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:35 AM
Probably reading idiots on the board always sniping at Maria rather than posting positively on tennis or their own faves.

well you've been sniping on Davenport and Amelie to prove your point so its not surprising you're getting so worked up.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:38 AM
Probably reading idiots on the board always sniping at Maria rather than posting positively on tennis or their own faves.

Other people's favorites get attack all the time, but it doesn't make them so bitter.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:42 AM
Amelie has more right to be on the star list than Maria.
Sorry, but Amelie could walk down my High Street in neon knickers and nobody would recognise her. That's how much impact she's made.

Maria got so much attention at the tournament this year yet didn't deliver what was promised.What was promised? Guaranteed victory? No. No-one (except federer perhaps) can deliver that. Ask Serena - or Momo.

Most people didn't even give Amelie a chance against Lindsay yet she came closer to reaching the final than Sharapova. :confused: She lost. She had a lead but blew it. Is that commendable? it's another "if". If Maria had won that tie-break she might be holding the dish now. Who knows?

The point is Amelie made almost no impact on the public consciousness - so she can hardly be a star. Everyone said she wasn't going to win - and she didn't.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:50 AM
Other people's favorites get attack all the time, but it doesn't make them so bitter.

Bitter? Okay. I let it pass the first time, but since you are insisting....

I am not "bitter", which seems to be the current term of the haters for anyone who objects to their Maria-bashing on this board.

However I am fed up of posters - some of them obvious sock-puppets - who go into every Maria thread - or even non-Maria threads just to post disparaging comments about Maria.

Maria gets this about ten times worse than any other player on this board, and it is getting fairly tiresome. it is time that some people here grew up and started to act a little more like intelligent adults.

DomenicDemaria
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:51 AM
I think Mary should be in the top 5. She equaled her best result of the quarters (the last time she made the quarters was nine years ago) and she won the mixed doubles title. I don't agree with Amelie being on the flop list. She made the semi's and thats still a great result!

RVD
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:52 AM
Xan you seem really bitter, why is that?I was thinking the VERY SAME thing. :lol:
It's like he/she is on a mission to discredit player AND their fans in an effort to elivate Maria.
Truly pathethic really. :shrug:

Topic...
Why Momo is on the 'Flop' category, I'll never know.
Lindsay SHOULD be in the 'TOP FIVE STARS' category, simply because she play her ass off and never gave up. Not to mention the fact that she led the entire match to the point where she suffered back spasm. How can ANYONE not admire her persistence?! She should be on the list. This slight alone discredits the credibility of the list, IMHO.

It's obvious that the list was created by someone with a jones for Maria. But this just follows what I've seen since Wimbledon 2004. :rolleyes:

Kart
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:56 AM
What was promised? Guaranteed victory? No. No-one (except federer perhaps) can deliver that. Ask Serena - or Momo.

The point is Amelie made almost no impact on the public consciousness - so she can hardly be a star. Everyone said she wasn't going to win - and she didn't.

Sharapova was the no.2 seed and plenty of people picked her to win here.

All the media picked her to beat Venus as well.

Her picture has been plastered all over Wimbledon town centre and all over the papers day in day out as Wimbledon champion.

So she did fail to deliver what was promised.

She has done nothing to make herself stand out here this year in tennis terms apart from playing a good match in the semis.

If that makes her a star then it makes Amelie one as well.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:59 AM
I was thinking the VERY SAME thing. :lol:
It's like he/she is on a mission to discredit player AND their fans in an effort to elivate Maria.
Truly pathethic really. :shrug:

What is actually pathetic is someone like you - who is one of the chief Maria obsessive haters, going round the board looking for opportunities to make ugly posts about Maria. The fact that you can't just concentrate on supporting your own faves, to me shows your insecurity in their abilities.

It's obvious that the list was created by someone with a jones for Maria. But this just follows what I've seen since Wimbledon 2004. :rolleyes:

Yes. it's all a conspiracy. The BBC. The World media. The tennis fans. They're all involved in a gigantic plot to falsely claim maria is a star... :tape:

Kart
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:59 AM
I should add though that I don't consider Maria a flop here either but if you're going to describe Amelie's loss to Davenport as 'tame' then you're not being reasonable.

The woman tried and yes she lost but she produced some wonderful variety and entertainment in a match she was clearly desperate to win.

She deserves praise for her efforts, not dismissal.

RVD
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:08 AM
What is actually pathetic is someone like you - who is one of the chief Maria obsessive haters, going round the board looking for opportunities to make ugly posts about Maria. The fact that you can't just concentrate on supporting your own faves, to me shows your insecurity in their abilities.



Yes. it's all a conspiracy. The BBC. The World media. The tennis fans. They're all involved in a gigantic plot to falsely claim maria is a star... :tape:Dude, you are truly losing it. :rolleyes:
I go around bashing Maria? If anything, I've given Maria more props than she deserves because of her high-powered game. But xan, this is exactly what posters here are talking about. You've suddenly become a drama queen with all the silliness in this thread. You make completely unfounded statements about people Hating Maria when the truth is you're the premier hater of ALL OTHER PLAYERS AND THEIR FANS. Get a clue holmes. And get some sleep. Maria is still alive; still healthy; and still formidable. You need a vacation from her for a while to regain your perspective. Try the Bahamas. I hear it's rather pleasant this time of year. :yeah:

vettipooh
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:08 AM
Xan you seem really bitter, why is that?
http://www.wtatour.com/global/photogallery/wimbledonfinals/f_16.jpgDoes that answer your question, Knizzle?:lol:

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:12 AM
Sharapova was the no.2 seed and plenty of people picked her to win here.
Indeed. Her odds were 3-1 against though.

All the media picked her to beat Venus as well.
Not the media I read. Maria was favourite - but a 60-40 favourite.

Her picture has been plastered all over Wimbledon town centre and all over the papers day in day out as Wimbledon champion.
She is a Wimbledon Champion.

So she did fail to deliver what was promised.
No. No-one promised she would defend her title. She said she would have a good try - which she did. Serena didn't defend her title last year - with far more hype about her doing a "threepeat" etc. She failed, but she was still a star of the tournament.

She has done nothing to make herself stand out here this year in tennis terms apart from playing a good match in the semis.

If that makes her a star then it makes Amelie one as well.

No. A star is someone who who is one of the outstanding figures of any event. Sometimes stardom is unfair and a good hard worker in the background remains un-noticed. A star has to do something outstanding. Amelie had a good match with Lindsay, but it was overshadowed by other matches. Amelie was actually more noticed last year against Serena.

Calling her a flop is harsh, but is not just a result of this year's progress. They called her a flop because she has a history of not achieving in slams. The same happened this year. People discount her.

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:17 AM
Serena managed to defend her title once though. that was a good effort :)

ali
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:39 AM
What you've got to remember is that the Wimbledon crowds and UK media take the Wimbledon champions to their hearts. Maybe its because we've had so little success (especially on the ladies side), but former/present Wimbledon champs do receive a lot of support in this country. I think the UK public kind of felt that we helped "discover" Maria when she won last year. For those 2 week a year tennis supporters, most wouldn't have ever heard of Sharapova until she won - and now she's the biggest tennis star in the world. People want to see her doing well, they see her as almost one of "ours" - and she did do well this year.

Amelie hasn't had the same impact on the (British) public consciousness as other players. If she had reached the final a couple of times and lost, I guarantee she would be a public fave over here - like Goran, Novotna, Arantxa and I can see Roddick achieving this status. The thing with Amelie is she hasn't had a big win here. She wins the matches she's supposed to win and loses against the higher ranked players. Unfortunately she will be considered a "flop" (harsh) because as the no.3 ranked player more is expected of her.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:50 AM
Dude, you are truly losing it.
Surpeise. More abuse from the Williams eloquent fans. :rolleyes: When you can't attack the argument, attack the person with ad-hominems. I suppose I should expect no better.
I go around bashing Maria? If anything, I've given Maria more props than she deserves because of her high-powered game.
Oh. Are you not the same ReeVeeDynasty who was bragging that Serena has Maria's number? Running down her history, And saying she'll have a tough time against the "elite" players?

But xan, this is exactly what posters here are talking about. You've suddenly become a drama queen with all the silliness in this thread.
The silliness on this thread is people trying to argue that Maria was not a star of the Wimbledon tournament. Since you have leapt in with both feet to support your friends in this piece of illogic you are placing yourself in the same hole is them.

You make completely unfounded statements about people Hating Maria when the truth is you're the premier hater of ALL OTHER PLAYERS AND THEIR FANS.

No. If you believe there are no haters of Maria on these boards you are living on fantasy island. Unlike your friends in this and other threads, I do not go into threads just to disparage other players or insult the posters. However I will not be bullied by you or anyone else into keeping quiet when unjustified attacks are made on Maria.

Black Mamba.
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:52 AM
The reason Momo is on the list of flops has little to do with her performance this year, but has everything to do with her history and propensity to fold in high pressure situations.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:57 AM
Bitter? Okay. I let it pass the first time, but since you are insisting....

I am not "bitter", which seems to be the current term of the haters for anyone who objects to their Maria-bashing on this board.

I'm a hater who Maria bashes??

However I am fed up of posters - some of them obvious sock-puppets - who go into every Maria thread - or even non-Maria threads just to post disparaging comments about Maria.

Good, but this doesn't describe the majority of Williams and Lindsay fans. Sure there are Maria haters who happen to be Williams fans or Lindsay fans, but you can't just say they hate Maria because they are a Williams fan or Lindsay fan cause that doesn't apply to the majority.

Maria gets this about ten times worse than any other player on this board, and it is getting fairly tiresome. it is time that some people here grew up and started to act a little more like intelligent adults.

This is WTAWORLD, half the posters aren't adults and alot of the adults won't act like intelligent adults so we shouldn't hold our breath. I don't think Maria gets it worse than Serena or Venus. Your profile says you've been here since 2001 so you should know the history of this board better than me.

RVD
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Surpeise. More abuse from the Williams eloquent fans. :rolleyes: When you can't attack the argument, attack the person with ad-hominems. I suppose I should expect no better.Do you mean 'surprise'. Anyway, yes we are very eloquent--- or haven't you realized that yet? We can also string together cogent sentences without misspelling words. You know... words like 'surprise'. :lol:

Oh. Are you not the same ReeVeeDynasty who was bragging that Serena has Maria's number? Running down her history, And saying she'll have a tough time against the "elite" players?In that case, I guess I'm just as guilty as Serena and Venus. For wasn't it Venus who stated to the media (when asked, I might add) that Serena informed her on how to defeat Maria, prior to the Venus/Maria match? And didn't Venus win? Or was I dreaming? Also, for the record, I made the statement ONE time, and it apparently was a FACT! So deny all you want, but I and everyone else witnessed her AO defeat AND her Wimbledon defeat. Sorry if the facts and the truth hurt. :shrug:

The silliness on this thread is people trying to argue that Maria was not a star of the Wimbledon tournament. Since you have leapt in with both feet to support your friends in this piece of illogic you are placing yourself in the same hole is them.Why tell me? I personally didn't say nor suggest that Maria wasn't. For your sake, I hope Maria does well from here on, because you are taking this loss rather hard.


No. If you believe there are no haters of Maria on these boards you are living on fantasy island. Unlike your friends in this and other threads, I do not go into threads just to disparage other players or insult the posters. However I will not be bullied by you or anyone else into keeping quiet when unjustified attacks are made on Maria.Jeez-Lueez man! Where are you getting this stuff?!?! I NEVER said that there weren't any Maria Haters on this board. But here's another fact. There are FAR MORE Williams Haters on this board. But do you see me foaming at the mouth and trying to fight the masses? It's not worth it. People will like who they like, and hate who they hate. So my suggestion to you is to simply let it go.

Xan, your anger has obviously blinded your sense of reason, and I'm done with you. Why don't you get some rest like I suggested earlier. You'll feel much better.
Peace out xan. :wavey:

CooCooCachoo
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:05 PM
Lindsay should be there and not Myskina.

stenen
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:13 PM
Try the Bahamas. I hear it's rather pleasant this time of year. :yeah:
Bahamas is definitely nice this time of the year. Officially the hurricane season starts in June or July and lasts until November. :tape:

RVD
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:15 PM
Bahamas is definitely nice this time of the year. Officially the hurricane season starts in June or July and lasts until November. :tape:I just KNEW someone would get it. :lol: :yeah:

~ The Leopard ~
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:27 PM
I rather like Masha, but there is no way she should be a star after getting a breadstick from Venus.

The stars of the tournament were (in order): Venus (winner), Lindsay (finalist), and Momo (semifinalist in a very close three set match, and also doubles finalist). No one else came near those three. The flops list is someone's idea of a joke.

Martian Willow
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:28 PM
Stretching it to five of each was always going to cause arguments.

Stars: Venus, Nastya, Sania.

Flops: The Brits, Serena, Justine.

:)

~ The Leopard ~
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Amelie has more right to be on the star list than Maria.

Maria got so much attention at the tournament this year yet didn't deliver what was promised.

Most people didn't even give Amelie a chance against Lindsay yet she came closer to reaching the final than Sharapova.

Truth!

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 12:56 PM
Do you mean 'surprise'. Anyway, yes we are very eloquent--- or haven't you realized that yet? We can also string together cogent sentences without misspelling words. You know... words like 'surprise'. :lol:
Was that it?

Your best shot was I hit the wrong key typing "surprise"? Okay.

In that case, I guess I'm just as guilty as Serena and Venus. For wasn't it Venus who stated to the media (when asked, I might add) that Serena informed her on how to defeat Maria, prior to the Venus/Maria match? And didn't Venus win? Or was I dreaming? Also, for the record, I made the statement ONE time, and it apparently was a FACT! So deny all you want, but I and everyone else witnessed her AO defeat AND her Wimbledon defeat. Sorry if the facts and the truth hurt. :shrug:
If arrogance is the standard, unfortunately you may be right. But a 2-2 record gainst someone is not "having someone's number". The trouble with some Williams fan is they get one win and then start getting arrogant, cocky and dissing their opponents. No class. :rolleyes:

Why tell me? I personally didn't say nor suggest that Maria wasn't. For your sake, I hope Maria does well from here on, because you are taking this loss rather hard.

Well you've jumped in here railing and slamming accusations on the side of those who have obviously come to this thread to troll, have a history of anti-Maria trolling, andd are trying to "argue" - against all logic that Maria was not a star of this year's Wimbledon. This is incredibly disrespectful to Maria - and is done precisely for that purpose.


Jeez-Lueez man! Where are you getting this stuff?!?! I NEVER said that there weren't any Maria Haters on this board. But here's another fact. There are FAR MORE Williams Haters on this board. But do you see me foaming at the mouth and trying to fight the masses? It's not worth it. People will like who they like, and hate who they hate. So my suggestion to you is to simply let it go.

What crock. If I posted stuff half as bad about venus on a Williams thread as has been posted here and elsewhere about Maria, I'd have a dozen people jumping down my throat and calling me every name under the sun. If trolls want to come and insult Maria rather than supporting their own faves, they are going to get a response.
Xan, your anger has obviously blinded your sense of reason, and I'm done with you. Why don't you get some rest like I suggested earlier. You'll feel much better.


Why don't you stop jumping in with ad-hominems and other personal abuse in support of your fellow trolls? Perhaps if you used a little reason, you would realise it is wiser to have respect for players and the sport than to try and diminish both by childish trolling.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:03 PM
I rather like Masha, but there is no way she should be a star after getting a breadstick from Venus.
The stars of the tournament were (in order): Venus (winner), Lindsay (finalist), and Momo (semifinalist in a very close three set match, and also doubles finalist). No one else came near those three. The flops list is someone's idea of a joke. :lol:

Obviously your definition of "star" is someone who plays below par, makes no impact and then chokes away their opportunities.

If you don't realise what a star is, I can see the source of your confusion. Anyone who doesn't admit that Maria was a leading star of this tournament with her attitude, astonishingly play, demeanour and her popularity and achievements at the tournament is obviously so blinkered by their outlook, as to be blinded by prejudice.

Kart
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:39 PM
:lol:

Obviously your definition of "star" is someone who plays below par, makes no impact and then chokes away their opportunities.

If you don't realise what a star is, I can see the source of your confusion. Anyone who doesn't admit that Maria was a leading star of this tournament with her attitude, astonishingly play, demeanour and her popularity and achievements at the tournament is obviously so blinkered by their outlook, as to be blinded by prejudice.

Xan what is wrong with you today ? :confused: Normally I enjoy reading you because you talk sense.

How can you talk about being blinded by prejudice after describing Amelie as someone who 'plays below par, makes no impact and then chokes away their opportunities ?' :scratch:

Amelie matched Maria for all the qualities you've listed - I don't know why you're intent on not seeing that :shrug:.

Andy T
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:44 PM
TOP FIVE STARS
Venus Williams
Maybe only Venus believed she could regain the form of 2001
Maria Sharapova
Made a valiant defence and gave up title with dignity
Anastasia Myskina
For three epic three-set wins
Sania Mirza
For putting Indian women's tennis on the SW19 map in just two matches
Jane O'Donoghue
Saved British women's pride with a lone victory

TOP FIVE FLOPS
Serena Williams
Arrived unfit and made an early exit
Amelie Mauresmo
Made another Grand Slam semi, took the lead again, lost in three again...
Justine Henin-Hardenne
Left a huge void with her first-round defeat
British women
Seven wild cards required, one win delivered
Martina Navratilova
Harsh... but the search for Wimbledon title 21 goes on

Longer article here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4646023.stm

Putting Sharapova in the 'star' category is slightly odd. Nice to see Nastya and Sania getting their props though.

Lindsay deserves to be in the star category for a great run to the final and a valiant effort even after having sustained an injury, even if she did come up short .

Quite how O'Donoghue merits star-status when she achieved far less than Mauresmo, Serena - even Navratilova ( a SF in the doubs and a QF in the mixed is hardly a flop for a 48 year old)- is beyond me.

The mention of Mirza and O'Don smacks of political correctness to me....

~ The Leopard ~
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:45 PM
Xan, I am coming to the conclusion that you are an idiot. Your tone toward me was totally uncalled me. Just watch yourself, little boy (or girl, if that's what you are). You should choose your enemies more carefully.

For the record, I like Masha. I praised her to the sky last year and criticised people who made excuses for Serena. I never say anything bad against her, and I think it's like a breath of fresh air to have her on the tour. She is obviously one of the stars of the WTA.

But the fact is that she was disappointing at Wimbledon this year. She didn't play that well against Petrova and was soundly beaten in the second set by Venus. The second-set score was, indeed, 6-1: a breadstick. Maria performed below what the public expected of her, though very creditably in my view, since it was too much to expect her to defend her title in such a field. I have said nothing bad about her in this post or my earlier one, just stated the facts.

You, on the other hand, have spent this thread whining about people who diss players instead of sticking with supporting their faves. Then you have the nerve to diss Amelie, saying she made no impact, played below par, etc. Obviously you are hypocrite as well as an idiot.

Well excuse me, but Amelie played superbly at Wimbledon, lost only to the world number one player, and had a huge impact in so far as she made the semi-final and lost it only narrowly. She performed above the public expectation, so she was far from being a flop. Indeed, everyone here thought she would be beaten by Lindsay easily. As it turned out, the only players who made a bigger impact on the tournament were Venus and Lindsay.

cynicole
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:48 PM
The most amusing bit of this thread is xan:
1. gets incredibly worked up over something so little (the opinion of a BBC stat box person)
2. is so paranoid and obsessed about everyone feels about Maria that can't acknoledge achievements by Lindsay and Amelie nor could he recognize a Justine hater from a Justine fan

*grabs some popcorn*

mykarma
Jul 4th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Amelie went out, tamely surrendering a lead to Davenport. Maria went out in what was one of the best matches of the championships ever.One of the best matches for Venus.

CooCooCachoo
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:05 PM
To be honest, I don't think Navratilova should be on the "Flop list" either, but I quite enjoy seeing her there :shrug:

mykarma
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Bitter? Okay. I let it pass the first time, but since you are insisting....

[QUOTE]
I am not "bitter", which seems to be the current term of the haters for anyone who objects to their Maria-bashing on this board.
:lol:
However I am fed up of posters - some of them obvious sock-puppets - who go into every Maria thread - or even non-Maria threads just to post disparaging comments about Maria.
This is not a Maria board.


it is time that some people here grew up and started to act a little more like intelligent adults.
:tape: :tape: :tape:

ali
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:27 PM
I rather like Masha, but there is no way she should be a star after getting a breadstick from Venus.

The stars of the tournament were (in order): Venus (winner), Lindsay (finalist), and Momo (semifinalist in a very close three set match, and also doubles finalist). No one else came near those three. The flops list is someone's idea of a joke.

Maria was the star of the tournament in the UK media before a ball was even hit! Like I said above, the British media and 2 weeks a year tennis fans have rather taken her to their hearts. I'm not sure whether she deserves to be in the top 5 stars, but I can see why she is. Same with Sania Mirza, she had everyone talking about her for a few days and seemed to capture the public's imagination. This isn't a "top 5 players" list, its a "top 5 stars" list - hence some of the strange selections.

Amelie did well, but she's now reached 3 semi finals in a row and not progressed. Unfortunately, she won't be considered one of the top stars at Wimbledon until she at least reaches the final. Its not like she's an outsider who has a good run and exceeds expectations. She's the no.3 player in the world and expected to get into the last 4. Compare her to Grosjean for example, someone with a similar record. He's probably seen as a greater "star" over here because his ranking is lower, he beats some players he's not expected to and plays exciting tennis. If Amelie had reached the semis as a player ranked no.10 or so and had beaten one of the higher seeds, she would be more likely to be given star status.

dansnewbeg
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:38 PM
I'm surprised Davenport didn't make the top 5. Ridiculous... she starred in some great matches. Clijsters, round 4 was terrific. Mauresmo in the semis was entertaining as heck, and the final needs no explanation.

Frankly, I'm very proud of the way most of the final 8 or 16 played and competed.

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:40 PM
If Maria made the stars list, then so should Lindsay and Momo--making Wimby's semis is no small feat. I can accept seeing the British woman on the list. After all, it's the BBC.

jonny84
Jul 4th, 2005, 02:41 PM
I agree that Cara Black should be on the Star list as she did so well in the doubles and basically won it for her and Liezel Huber

Gerri
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:09 PM
I rather like Masha, but there is no way she should be a star after getting a breadstick from Venus.

The stars of the tournament were (in order): Venus (winner), Lindsay (finalist), and Momo (semifinalist in a very close three set match, and also doubles finalist). No one else came near those three. The flops list is someone's idea of a joke.

Agreed. Venus was the standout player, but Lindsay and Amelie were great too, and their semi was far better quality than Venus v Maria.

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:16 PM
Xan what is wrong with you today ? :confused: Normally I enjoy reading you because you talk sense.

How can you talk about being blinded by prejudice after describing Amelie as someone who 'plays below par, makes no impact and then chokes away their opportunities ?' :scratch:

Amelie matched Maria for all the qualities you've listed - I don't know why you're intent on not seeing that :shrug:.

Bravo.

I just read this thread in its entirety and xan, although I also normally enjoy reading your posts, I'm baffled by your reaction. I don't want you to get an undeserved reputation because I respect your posts.

Maybe you're reacting in this way because you're getting flustered by being in a debate with so many posters you know yourself to be very reasonable and respectable.

At any rate, from what I've read in this thread, part of the confusion is driven by lack of a clear definition of "star". Some posters define "star" as Hollywood-like, i.e., who's grabbing headlines, getting everyone's attention, drawing fans, etc. In that case, then you are right. Maria is without question a star, and arguable at the top of the list. Other posters, including myself, define "star" as having lived up to expectations in terms of performance. One of the better indications of expectations is seedings. Under this definition, Maria has failed as she went out before the finals and was definitely the favorite going in. Momo and Lindsay delivered, and Venus Williams over-exceeded expectations to such an extent as to set a Wimbledon record.

xan, like I say, I can see your point under Definition 1 above, and this IMO is the source of the confusion. Relax and read my post, and you'll see.

Doc
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Xan, I am coming to the conclusion that you are an idiot. Your tone toward me was totally uncalled me. Just watch yourself, little boy (or girl, if that's what you are). You should choose your enemies more carefully.
So touchy. :o


For the record, I like Masha. I praised her to the sky last year and criticised people who made excuses for Serena. I never say anything bad against her, and I think it's like a breath of fresh air to have her on the tour. She is obviously one of the stars of the WTA.

So your problem is...?

But the fact is that she was disappointing at Wimbledon this year. She didn't play that well against Petrova and was soundly beaten in the second set by Venus. The second-set score was, indeed, 6-1: a breadstick. Maria performed below what the public expected of her, though very creditably in my view, since it was too much to expect her to defend her title in such a field. I have said nothing bad about her in this post or my earlier one, just stated the facts.
This is silly. You say she disappointed at Wimbledon when commentators have involved in the most high-quality match of the tournament, losing to the Champion playing her best for many years. As far as your criticisms of the rest of her tournament go, she never lost a set and had her serve broken only once in five matches leading to the Semis. Petrova is a top ten player, and Maria beat her straightforwardly. All this while under the pressure of having to defend her first GS title in the media spotlight.

You, on the other hand, have spent this thread whining about people who diss players instead of sticking with supporting their faves. Then you have the nerve to diss Amelie, saying she made no impact, played below par, etc. Obviously you are hypocrite as well as an idiot.

Tch. Tch! Such anger and bitterness. :angel: You have a go at xan for defending his fave then lose it completely when Amelie gets criticised.

Well excuse me, but Amelie played superbly at Wimbledon, lost only to the world number one player, and had a huge impact in so far as she made the semi-final and lost it only narrowly. She performed above the public expectation, so she was far from being a flop. Indeed, everyone here thought she would be beaten by Lindsay easily.
I don't think it can be said that Amelie performed above public expectation. She's got to this stage before, and lost from a winning position before, and did it again this year. That was the exact public expectation of what she would do.
As it turned out, the only players who made a bigger impact on the tournament were Venus and Lindsay. And Maria. :)

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Doc,

The Leopard is right. Maria disappointed at Wimbledon. She was number 2 seed, i.e., was expected to reach the final. What's more, she was favored to win by odds and the media. That she disappointed does not mean she didn't play well (she obviously had to in order to reach the semis), it simply means she didn't play as well as everyone expected her to.

Doc
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:38 PM
.
At any rate, from what I've read in this thread, part of the confusion is driven by lack of a clear definition of "star". Some posters define "star" as Hollywood-like, i.e., who's grabbing headlines, getting everyone's attention, drawing fans, etc. In that case, then you are right. Maria is without question a star, and arguable at the top of the list. Other posters, including myself, define "star" as having lived up to expectations in terms of performance. One of the better indications of expectations is seedings. Under this definition, Maria has failed as she went out before the finals and was definitely the favorite going in. Momo and Lindsay delivered, and Venus Williams over-exceeded expectations to such an extent as to set a Wimbledon record.

Your definition of "star" is rather strange. But let's go with it.

What is "living up to expectations in terms of performance"?

So if you are expected to go out in Round One - and you do, that would make you a "star" by this criteria.

In the same vein, Lindsay was Number one seed, therefore she was expected to win. So by your definition, she isn't a star either. And the biggest flop of all would be Justine. I don't think it works like that.

Going by what round you reached as sole criteria is rather silly. If you lose to the eventual champion in the match of the tournament, with the Champion putting in her best AAA performance for years, one she didn't match in the final, you can't say the loser underperformed!

Doc
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:41 PM
Doc,

The Leopard is right. Maria disappointed at Wimbledon. She was number 2 seed, i.e., was expected to reach the final. What's more, she was favored to win by odds and the media. That she disappointed does not mean she didn't play well (she obviously had to in order to reach the semis), it simply means she didn't play as well as everyone expected her to.

Unfortunately you fail to take into account the opposition. Maria did not disappoint, because she faced the two-time champion in extraordinary form. Its like saying Arsenal "disappointed" by losing to MU on one of their most sparkling days. There are some days on which a player is "in the zone" and performs out of their zone. That's what happened to Maria on Thursday evening.

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 03:50 PM
Your definition of "star" is rather strange. But let's go with it.

What is "living up to expectations in terms of performance"?

So if you are expected to go out in Round One - and you do, that would make you a "star" by this criteria.

To even play Wimbledon is a major accomplishment, so yes I would call all 128 women a star. However, the author of the article limited the count to 5 so I had to prioritize.

And your point about Lindsay not winning as the #1 seed only underscores my point and what a lot of other posters have been trying to say along: if Maria can be called a star even though she didn't even reach the level of the draw she was expected to reach, then Lindsay and Momo should have made the list.

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:01 PM
i would say how maria fans seem to be so defensive and paranoid, but that would be a sweeping generalisation based on 2 numb nuts. :)

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:03 PM
Unfortunately you fail to take into account the opposition. Maria did not disappoint, because she faced the two-time champion in extraordinary form. Its like saying Arsenal "disappointed" by losing to MU on one of their most sparkling days. There are some days on which a player is "in the zone" and performs out of their zone. That's what happened to Maria on Thursday evening.

To disappoint has nothing to do with the reality of Venus' form. To disappoint has everything to do with expectations. Venus was the 14th seed and NO ONE expected her to win. But she did, and now the crow is an endangered species.

Can you honestly say you expected Venus to beat Sharapova at the start of the tournament? Can you show me a single article that puts Venus as the favorite? The bookies placed their bets on Maria, and so did you. That's how she disappointed.

Doc
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:04 PM
i would say how maria fans seem to be so defensive and paranoid, but that would be a sweeping generalisation based on 2 numb nuts. :)

I would say Williams fans are arrogant, classless and foul-mouthed, but that too would be a generalisation... based on a gaggle of dickheads!

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:06 PM
I would say Williams fans are arrogant, classless and foul-mouthed, but that too would be a generalisation... based on a gaggle of dickheads!

of course. with a post like that, you display none of the above, right? :lol:

:)

you're all a bit touchy recently. and i don't understand why :)

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:12 PM
of course. with a post like that, you display none of the above, right? :lol:

:)

you're all a bit touchy recently. and i don't understand why :)

I'm basically cutting all die-hard Sharapova fans a little slack. Maria lost this year and it's very hard to deal with. I know firsthand how it feels when your fave(s) does not defend (see last year's final).

What I hope is they realize that it's not the end of the world for Sharapova. She's obviously talented and is the real deal. Serena bounced back to win the AO this year. Venus bounced back to win Wimby this year. The good news is that there's always next year.:bounce:

Doc
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:16 PM
To disappoint has nothing to do with the reality of Venus' form. To disappoint has everything to do with expectations. Venus was the 14th seed and NO ONE expected her to win. But she did, and now the crow is an endangered species.

Can you honestly say you expected Venus to beat Sharapova at the start of the tournament? Can you show me a single article that puts Venus as the favorite? The bookies placed their bets on Maria, and so did you. That's how she disappointed.

Not at the start of the tournament. But once Venus got into form after Serena was knocked out, everyone recognised her as a danger. Maria was one of two early favourites for the tournament. One dropped out in the first round. The other went on to the semis where she lucked out in meeting the eventual champion in the best form she's been in since she dominated the sport.

Trying to argue that Maria disappointed by losing to a world-class player on top form in a match that awed spectators and commentators alike, is to twist reality too far.

sartrista7
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:22 PM
Lindsay deserves to be in the star category for a great run to the final and a valiant effort even after having sustained an injury, even if she did come up short .

Quite how O'Donoghue merits star-status when she achieved far less than Mauresmo, Serena - even Navratilova ( a SF in the doubs and a QF in the mixed is hardly a flop for a 48 year old)- is beyond me.

The mention of Mirza and O'Don smacks of political correctness to me....

1) British perspective - O'Donoghue is British and Mirza is an honorary Brit given the huge Indian emigré population here.
2) The list isn't solely based on results, otherwise the stars would just be the semi-finalists and the best quarter-finalist. Myskina, Mirza and O'Donoghue all achieved something quite special in addition to just the matches they won and lost. It's not only about the quality of tennis they showed.

Cara Black definitely deserves consideration for the stars list - another doubles title with some superb performances, she's on her way to becoming one of those beloved Wimbledon doubles legends. Davenport definitely wasn't a flop, and she did awaken a lot of sentimental feeling towards a former champion - I think without doubt either of those is preferable to Sharapova.

xan and doc :retard:

alexusjonesfan
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:23 PM
great thread guys :haha:

Doc
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:26 PM
.

xan and doc :retard:

Another schoolboy dickhead. :tape:

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:29 PM
Not at the start of the tournament. But once Venus got into form after Serena was knocked out, everyone recognised her as a danger. Maria was one of two early favourites for the tournament. One dropped out in the first round. The other went on to the semis where she lucked out in meeting the eventual champion in the best form she's been in since she dominated the sport.

Trying to argue that Maria disappointed by losing to a world-class player on top form in a match that awed spectators and commentators alike, is to twist reality too far.

But she did disappoint. She was favored to win, but she didn't for whatever reason. That's the very definition of disappoint. Don't argue with me over it, I didn't make the word up.

But like I say above, I'm not saying she didn't play well or that it wasn't a good match. And yes, Venus played well. But you can't use hindsight to erase disappointment. It doesn't work that way. People can't run up to bookies and ask for their money back because of Venus. If that were the case, lotteries and casinos would shut down, and crows would take over the earth.

Doc
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:32 PM
The bookies had Masha at 3-1 AGAINST

hablo
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:36 PM
I should add though that I don't consider Maria a flop here either but if you're going to describe Amelie's loss to Davenport as 'tame' then you're not being reasonable.

The woman tried and yes she lost but she produced some wonderful variety and entertainment in a match she was clearly desperate to win.

She deserves praise for her efforts, not dismissal.

:bowdown: couldn't have said it any better :yeah:

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:36 PM
The bookies had Masha at 3-1 AGAINST

Here I am talking about odds, but please translate this for me, Doc. What does this mean in simple terms?

Are you saying that the odds were Maria would LOSE?

Ceze
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:43 PM
Ridiculous! Amélie makes the semis in singles and final in doubles and ends up on the 'flops' list, whilst Maria loses in the semis, is congratulated for it and put on the 'stars' list? :confused: And if we're going to take 'dignity in defeat' into account, Amélie was most definitely equally 'dignified'. What a joke! :rolleyes:
:worship: I agree with you :wavey:

Ceze
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:53 PM
well you've been sniping on Davenport and Amelie to prove your point so its not surprising you're getting so worked up.
:yeah: good one!

ali
Jul 4th, 2005, 05:29 PM
But she did disappoint. She was favored to win, but she didn't for whatever reason. That's the very definition of disappoint. Don't argue with me over it, I didn't make the word up.


Can I argue with you over it instead? ;)

I honestly don't think Maria did disappoint in this tournament. If she had gone out in the early rounds, then yes. If she had played an awful match in the semis against a poor opponent then yes. But not for reaching the semis and losing to the eventual champion. It was a disappointing result for her and her supporters, but she didn't "disappoint" in the championship imo. There's a difference between the two.

Bright Red
Jul 4th, 2005, 05:44 PM
Can I argue with you over it instead? ;)

I honestly don't think Maria did disappoint in this tournament. If she had gone out in the early rounds, then yes. If she had played an awful match in the semis against a poor opponent then yes. But not for reaching the semis and losing to the eventual champion. It was a disappointing result for her and her supporters, but she didn't "disappoint" in the championship imo. There's a difference between the two.

You make a fair point. But the result is precisely what I'm referring to when I say she disappointed. She only reached the semis when her seeding expected her to see the final.

When I look at the quality of her play, then no, she did not disappoint. Her interviews, both before and after her loss, did not disappoint. She drew the crowds as was to be expected. She handled the pressure as well as anyone before her. So yes, the tournament was overall a success for her (although she may not feel that way).

ali
Jul 4th, 2005, 05:49 PM
You make a fair point. But the result is precisely what I'm referring to when I say she disappointed. She only reached the semis when her seeding expected her to see the final.

When I look at the quality of her play, then no, she did not disappoint. Her interviews, both before and after her loss, did not disappoint. She drew the crowds as was to be expected. She handled the pressure as well as anyone before her. So yes, the tournament was overall a success for her (although she may not feel that way).
I agree :)

Golinds
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:40 PM
So why when given the opportunity of seeing Davenport or Maria did the crowd on centre court boo the idea of watching Davenport and cheer when told they were going to get Maria?

Because everyone loves Maria i am the golden girl of tennis cos i won wimbledon at the tender age of 17 Screamapova...

Infiniti2001
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Why - because Lindsay was dull, lumpen, and threw the final away yet again?


xan, you're usually reasonble with your commentary, but I'm afraid you've become a sadly deluded poster. Did you even watch the match?? :shrug: You must really hate Venus beyond reason to say something as patently false as this :rolleyes: Oh well, I truly understand/feel your pain :p