PDA

View Full Version : Venus played just about her best ever in this years final


Volcana
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:08 PM
The statistics from the final are surreal.
Williams .... 49 winners 29 UEs 10 DFs
Davenport ... 30 winners 27 UEs _5 DFs

Williams .... 23 winners 21 UEs _1 DFs
Sharapova ... 13 winners 24 UEs _2 DFs

Williams .... 22 winners 14 UEs _1 DFs
Pierce ...... 23 winners 19 UEs _5 DFs
Plus TWENTY winners to UEs!?!? Venus won matches in 2000 with minus winner to UE ratios. The Sharapova match was the old Venus. The Pierce match was the old Venus having a particularly clean day. The Davenport match might be the cleanest tennis I've ever seen Venus play. Forget the actual numbers. I've got quite a few of Venus' matches on tape. And those were some LONG rallies without Venus making errors.

Perhaps the way to say it is, Venus was the most under control I've ever seen her play. That's what really stood out the last three matches. She remained under control. So trying to ace every serve. No going for every line. She played points looking for advantage, and taking what she got. She tried to build points, or rather build advantage during points, but not by taking big risks.

I think the ten double-faults were the result of not wanting Davenport to destroy her 2nd serve. She went for VERY deep 2nd serves quite a few times. She DF'd twice against Pierce, and once vs Sharapova.


One also has to say, in retrospect, that the last three matches were a GREAT draw for Venus. I know, it the Roland Garros finalist, the defending Wimbledon champ, and then world #1, but it's also three straight versions of the same player, each just slightly better than the last. A Schnyder or Mauresmo before Davenport might have meant a loss in the final. The match was that close.

Knizzle
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:10 PM
She hit alot of those winners in short spurts, but didn't sustain a high level all the way through the match.

Nimi
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:12 PM
The stats lie. Frankly, neither girl played a good match untill the 3rd set, and it wasn't a classic in terms of quality even then. Venus had around 10 minutes of great play between 6-5 in the 2nd and somewhere along the beggining of the 3rd.

Venus was too passive and frightned for quite a while in the match, and for me, we've seen her playing WAY better then this. Same goes for Lindsay, but, well, that's obvious.

Knizzle
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Also most players' winner total gets exaggerated against Lindsay because she doesn't chase alot of balls.

RenaSlam.
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Allez!

Volcana
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:18 PM
The stats lie. Frankly, neither girl played a good match untill the 3rd set, and it wasn't a classic in terms of quality even then.Who to believe? The stats or your lyin' eyes?:)

My eyes saw it the way the stats did, and I'd seen it three times now. A truly enthalling match. Watch it with another fan, and two non-fans, and even the non-fans said they enjoyed every minute.
Also most players' winner total gets exaggerated against Lindsay because she doesn't chase alot of balls.Lindsay chased a LOT of balls on Saturday. She caught them too, for the most part. Also Kuznetsova only had 23 winners vs Davenport. Clijsters only had 21. Safina had 11.

Mauresmo, OTOH, had 42. I think this shows the winner total is function of how well the opponent plays, NOT that Lindsay 'doesn't chase alot of balls'.

calabar
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:19 PM
I use to consider the US Open '00 semi against Hingis as Venus'BEST performance of her career. Now I'm not too sure anymore. This Wimby final is right up there with that match of 5 years ago.

tennisbum79
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:21 PM
... throw in these number from the Venus vs Mary Pierce match

Break point against : 0/0 = 0%
Net Approaches: 10 of 11 = 91 %
1 st Serve 53 of 63 = 84 %
Winning 1st Serve:42 of 53 = 79 %

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:24 PM
Who to believe? The stats or your lyin' eyes?:)

My eyes saw it the way the stats did, and I'd seen it three times now. A truly enthalling match. Watch it with another fan, and two non-fans, and even the non-fans said they enjoyed every minute.


If you had followed tennis for some years you would know that in Wimbledon the UEs always are way below the numbers at other tournaments. The British obviously are polite people and don't count everything as "unforced" as they would do in the U.S. or in Europe ...
:wavey:

BTW have you ever tried to have a winner/UEs count and compared that to a count by a friend of yours? You would be surprised about the difference most probably.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:25 PM
I use to consider the US Open '00 semi against Hingis as Venus'BEST performance of her career. Now I'm not too sure anymore. This Wimby final is right up there with that match of 5 years ago.


BS.

Knizzle
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:26 PM
Can't believe I'm saying this but Cali's right!! :tape:

Volcana
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:28 PM
Anyway you slice it, those were three fun matches for Venus fans. The Pierce and Sharapova matches both had tie-breakers, and the final was three hours of alternating marveling and holding your breathe.

The only really freaky thing was Sharapova only winning 39% of the points on her first serve during that 6-1 set. The set looked closer than that. But the stats look like a 6-1 set.

faboozadoo15
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:29 PM
from the quarters on, that's the high level venus won tons of matches at, yes. i think she played her best in the semis, and that really has little to do with overall winner/error ratios but more in her ability to control so many of the rallies and keep it clean and never give her opponent the ability to breathe.

kiwifan
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:35 PM
I agree stats lie, I'll take the Venus from the Sharapova match against anybody on any day...

...I'm happy about the result of the Davenport match, but I wouldn't put it first in the Venus Williams time capsule. :p

SJW
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:36 PM
best ever? maybe not.
i dont think she played that well consistently through the final. she had her little spurts like Knizzle said, but she was frustrating me like hell some of the time.
her first set against Pierce was great. couldnt believe what i was seeing :D she had like only 5 UFEs up until about 2-2 second set. and she was pretty darn good in the Sharapova match too :)

Volcana
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:37 PM
If you had followed tennis for some years you would know that in Wimbledon the UEs always are way below the numbers at other tournaments.Actually, that statement is false on a couple levels.
a) Following tennis for 'some years' doesn't even guarantee you've SEEN Wimbledon.
b) The Wimbledon UE numbers are by no means lower than ALL other tournaments. The British obviously are polite people and don't count everything as "unforced" as they would do in the U.S. or in Europe ...Wow, you mean they actually understand that all errors AREN'T unforced. Wow, a couple extra years of holding the tournament DOES help.
BTW have you ever tried to have a winner/UEs count and compared that to a count by a friend of yours?Of course. And generally, me and my tennis playing friends are more generous than most American tournaments. Serena Williams knocking the racket out of your hand isn't an unforced error.

But hey, they weren't any of them matches I'd expect you to enjoy or appreciate. Throw on a Steffi tape, and pretend it's 1988.

ys
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:38 PM
The Davenport match might be the cleanest tennis I've ever seen Venus play. Forget the actual numbers. I've got quite a few of Venus' matches on tape. And those were some LONG rallies without Venus making errors.

Stats are cheats. Venus played her worst match out of last three against Davenport. Tentative, nervous play.. Mind you, she almost lost. And those extra 20 winners that she hit against Davenport would have simply no made it into the stats - as Sharapova would manage to put a racket on those.

Don't worship stats.. I remember Kuznetsova-Davenport quarters. By the end of the first set Kuznetsova had like +10, Davenport had close to -5. Yet Davenport won the set. The stats against Davenport are always flattering.

bobcat
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:39 PM
Disagree. Venus's serve used to a much bigger weapon on grass. She used to hit the slice serve out wide on the deuce court so well that it was impossible to return even if you knew it was going there. I only saw that serve a couple of times against Davenport near the end of the match.

Volcana
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Don't worship stats.I don't, I watch the matches.I remember Kuznetsova-Davenport quarters. By the end of the first set Kuznetsova had like +10, Davenport had close to -5. Yet Davenport won the set. You don't remember it well.

Kuznetsova had 14 winners vs 13 UEs at the end of the first set. That's +1, not +10. And that 13 UEs allowing for you and Cali's 'generous stats' theory.The stats against Davenport are always flattering.That's why she's ranked #1, right? Stats vs Davenport or generally UN-flattering. Davenport won 44 points in the first set to Kuznetsova's 38. That's not really close.

Volcana
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Disagree. Venus's serve used to a much bigger weapon on grass. She used to hit the slice serve out wide on the deuce court so well that it was impossible to return even if you knew it was going there. I only saw that serve a couple of times against Davenport near the end of the match.True. But Venus was far more consistent off the ground than in the past. It isn't as dramatic, but it's far more controllable. Venus just beat #1 and #2 in the world WITHOUT serving them into the ground. Would you even have thought that possible?

Geisha
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:58 PM
Umm, I don't know if I agree with you, Volcana. Not here.

No doubt it was a great match, but I am starting to think that some people can only remember the long rallies that were played- with that one forehand winner that turned around the match for Venus. But, if Venus were to have played one of her best matches ever, she would not have double faulted ten times, she would have been able to hit quality first serves. The first set, Venus played like she has played all year. Then, at the end of the second, she picked it up dramatically, especially in the tiebreak, but lost three or four points in a row. And I also do not agree with the Venus vs. Hingis US Open SF as being one of the best matches for Venus. There is no doubt that these two matches are probably the best two matches Venus has been apart of, but by no means are they the best matches of Venus' career. If you want great matches, look at the Venus vs. Jen US Open 2001 SF- Venus vs. Lindsay 2002 Pilot Pen F, 2002 Wimbledon SF vs. Justine.

Geisha
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:15 PM
If you had followed tennis for some years you would know that in Wimbledon the UEs always are way below the numbers at other tournaments. The British obviously are polite people and don't count everything as "unforced" as they would do in the U.S. or in Europe ...
:wavey:

BTW have you ever tried to have a winner/UEs count and compared that to a count by a friend of yours? You would be surprised about the difference most probably.

The reason why the unforced error count at Wimbledon is lower than at other tournaments, namely the French Open, isn't because Parisians are pissy and Wimbledish people aren't. It's because on clay, players have more time to get to the ball and set up, so if they miss, it's a bad unforced error. On grass, there's less time to get to the ball AND less time to set up for the shot, so if they miss, the Brits are a little more easy on that.

CJ07
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:18 PM
when venus plays her best, she wins in 2 quick sets.
against anyone.

SJW
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:29 PM
when venus plays her best, she wins in 2 quick sets.
against anyone.

as much as i would love this statement to be true, there's something wrong with it :)

Knizzle
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:34 PM
as much as i would love this statement to be true, there's something wrong with it :)

let me add "against everyone but her sister playing her best" ;)

GoDominique
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:35 PM
Venus played a lot better in the semifinals, and a bit better in the quarterfinals.
She was really strong when it mattered most though.

SJW
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:37 PM
let me add "against everyone but her sister playing her best" ;)
not just that. but i think that if the other player played their "best" also, it may not always be two quick sets.
and what signifies "best"? not making an UFE? that's never gonna happen.
when Venus plays well, she usually wins. but like for every rule, there are exceptions. :)

Volcana
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:02 PM
when venus plays her best, she wins in 2 quick sets.
against anyone.I do not agree. In crediting Venus with great play, understand I am also crediting Lindsay with great play. A normal opponent would have capitulated 2 and 2 facing Venus playing defense like that. Lindsay was quite justifiably satisfied with her overall play. She didn't let her level drop as she did at OZ. She kept firing and firing and firing. She forced a great player to produce an absurdly high level of play. The match already being called one of the all-time great Wimbledon finals.

A 6-0 6-2 destruction of some hopelessly overmatched opponent just doesn't compare to match like this.

LeRoy.
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:04 PM
I have seen Venus play much better in some of her matches in 2001 :eek:

joao
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:13 PM
Venus had very good patches and bad patches in every set during that final. Remember when she won those 9 straight points in the 1st set (8 of those being winners) to come back from 2-5 to 4-5 down? I mean that was the old Venus of 2000-2001 ... even Davenport couldn't believe it ...

But I'd have to agree that the SF match was way better than the finals ... at least it seemed to me that Venus was a lot more focused during the SF!

tennisIlove09
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:19 PM
I'd love to see the Forced Errors...

WorldWar24
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:44 PM
Volcana: stats are very deceiving and no, Venus didn't even play that well. She was never in control, it was Davenport's to win or choke. And no, you can't compare the stats against Davenport with those against other players. After counterpunching the first few blows, all you have to do is to keep her guessing as she only covers half the court on her best days

Venus played very well, a lot better on key points than Davenport that's for sure, but Venus has played so much better than this in the past. And also to call this her best match EVER is not a compliment, given she could have bowed out out 2-6 4-6 or 5-7 I don't remember. And she fought off a match point, great, but not the best of signs from the best performance ever

CJ07
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:48 PM
let me add "against everyone but her sister playing her best" ;)
thats what i should have said

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:55 PM
Also most players' winner total gets exaggerated against Lindsay because she doesn't chase alot of balls.
I'm not really sure if I believe that to be true. It's not like she really gives most of her opponents a chance to even hit winners since she's usually the aggressor in a rally. Against the small handful of players that can withstand her power there is definitely some truth in your statement (about Lindsay,) and of course that would definitely be applicable to Venus- Who can "take it" as good as she can "give it". But even in some instances where you have a player that can match Lindsay in the power department, they often times feel rushed to go for their shots before Lindsay starts to dictate play, which can, in-turn, lead them to have a higher than normal amount of errors, which balances their winners. I do agree with the heart of what you're saying though, cuz generally LindZ doesn't bother chasing down balls (she really surprised me in the final chasing a lot more down than she usually does). To me, the biggest offender of not chasing down a ball would have to Monica Seles. She only runs if she knows with certainty she can get the ball back and sometimes as a fan it's so annoying to watch...

Knizzle
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:00 PM
I'm not really sure if I believe that to be true. It's not like she really gives most of her opponents a chance to even hit winners since she's usually the aggressor in a rally. Against the small handful of players that can withstand her power there is definitely some truth in your statement (about Lindsay,) and of course that would definitely be applicable to Venus- Who can "take it" as good as she can "give it". But even in some instances where you have a player that can match Lindsay in the power department, they often times feel rushed to go for their shots before Lindsay starts to dictate play, which can, in-turn, lead them to have a higher than normal amount of errors, which balances their winners. I do agree with the heart of what you're saying though, cuz generally LindZ doesn't bother chasing down balls (she really surprised me in the final chasing a lot more down than she usually does). To me, the biggest offender of not chasing down a ball would have to Monica Seles. She only runs if she knows with certainty she can get the ball back and sometimes as a fan it's so annoying to watch...

I should amend what I said, not MOST players, but those that can move well and absorb Lindsay's power will have an inflated winner total.

xan
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:55 PM
Even Venus admitted she played worse in the final than in the Semi.

As far as the UE stats go, it depends who is operating the machine at the time, and what he decides is a forced or unforced error. I saw dozens of slappy shots go in the net or go long in the final, far more than were recorded as UE. The statisticians were generous.

The Venus of the final was obviously nervous and tentative, made errors and DF and lost the first set and three quarters. I wish it was THAT Venus who had shown up against Sharapova.

Knizzle
Jul 6th, 2005, 11:04 PM
Even Venus admitted she played worse in the final than in the Semi.

As far as the UE stats go, it depends who is operating the machine at the time, and what he decides is a forced or unforced error. I saw dozens of slappy shots go in the net or go long in the final, far more than were recorded as UE. The statisticians were generous.

The Venus of the final was obviously nervous and tentative, made errors and DF and lost the first set and three quarters. I wish it was THAT Venus who had shown up against Sharapova.

Stop your whining Xan, PLEASE!!

fammmmedspin
Jul 6th, 2005, 11:17 PM
True for the SF which was sustained and overwhelming - like 2000. Venus put in better Wimbledon performances against Graf and Serena and lost than she put in in the final. She didn't win because she played a great match in a sustained way but because she played the points that really mattered better than Lindsay did.

GogoGirl
Jul 6th, 2005, 11:17 PM
Hey All,

The 2005 Wimby final was played at a mostly high level, and it was a good one. Both ladies showed up and took it to each other. What separated Venus out though and IMO, was the winner ratio between the two. Venus had 49 and Lindsay 30. Isn't it something that at times only one or two points can bare out and crown a winner in a hard fought match? Both were deservant to win - and in this case - stating that is just not a mere cliche'. I think it was a great match by Venus because she dug deep, gutted it out, and matched the level of a great player from across the net. She also had a great winner to error ratio and some more stuff, but it was not her very best match IMO.

When Venus was rollin' and had risen (2000-2002), and Serena for that matter, they were both stingy as it pertained to their letting/allowing their opponents' winners to build up. They played great defense. In the wins Venus had over Jennifer, for instance, Jen was never able to secure a lot of winners.

Below is Venus's win/loss record since she bursted on to the tour. I was trying to find the stats of the matches - but to no avail - and as of yet.

http://www.itftennis.com/womens/players/activity.asp?player=20005009

http://tennis.quickfound.net/tennis_news_index.html

sartrista7
Jul 6th, 2005, 11:19 PM
Best ever? Venus's level in the final wasn't even her best of the tournament, let alone of her career. She was scary against Pierce and Sharapova, and had she been able to play at that level in the final then we would have seen a similar scoreline.

For most of the final we saw the Venus of the past 18 months - dodgy forehand, double faults all over the place, second serves which had me biting my nails. The difference in that match and most of Venus's recent matches is that, just at the moments when it looked like it was all over for her, Venus somehow managed to find her form of the QF and SF to briefly extricate her from trouble, and ultimately push her over the finishing line.

Stats aren't everything. Stats don't take into account mid-rally shot selection - balls which a Venus who was REALLY in top form would have put away, but which she hit tentatively back to Davenport allowing Davenport to take control of the point. Stats don't take into account how a match ebbed and flowed.

That said, it was a very good match.

skanky~skanketta
Jul 6th, 2005, 11:48 PM
volcana, it was a three setter. with the 3rd set going to 9-7. naturally there is gonna be a helluva lot more winners than a 2 set match.

Bright Red
Jul 6th, 2005, 11:49 PM
I agree stats lie, I'll take the Venus from the Sharapova match against anybody on any day...

I agree. I don't know what it was, but Venus was much more impressive against Sharapova. Maybe it was Venus' ultra-confidence/aggression.

To me, Venus played Lindsay almost as if she would have played Serena -- not much aggression until when she really needed it.

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 12:22 AM
WHen Venus is playing close to her best/her best, she dominates a match. She never really domianted Davenport in this match, just hung with her and outplayed her when it mattered.

Kabezya
Jul 7th, 2005, 12:38 AM
I agree stats lie, I'll take the Venus from the Sharapova match against anybody on any day...

...I'm happy about the result of the Davenport match, but I wouldn't put it first in the Venus Williams time capsule. :p

A thing of beauty that semi was :hearts:

I'll co-sign on your post.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:35 AM
Stop your whining Xan, PLEASE!!

Why is it people like you, when they can't answer arguments logically, slip back into making personal attacks and insults? There is no call for this infantile behaviour.

If you want to debate with the adults. GROW UP!

Robbie.
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:41 AM
From reading this, (1) it's clear to me that the Maria-Venus semifinal is one of the most overrated matches of recent times; (2) It's also clear how little credit people give to the person on the other side of the net.

I wonder if people have actually watched the semifinal match again. I have. I'm sorry folks, but it wasnt all that.

Forget the winners column. Look at the unforced errors. Take double faults into account. Venus made 20 unforced errors off the ground in TWO sets.

When you knock 10 DF's off her finals account we have 19 UE's in THREE SETS.

Was the statistician THAT much more lenient on the finalists than on the semifinalists? I very much doubt it.

In the final I think people have been seriously fooled by the start. BOTH Venus and Lindsay were obviously nervous when they came out. They made many easy errors. Obviously Venus made more as she found herself in a big whole.

But from 5-2 in the first set the quality was unbelievable. The stats say Venus made only 4 UE's off the ground in the second set and 8 in the last set. I believe it. She just wasn't giving away free points.

People forget that you only play as well as your opponent let's you play. Everything you do in a match is affected by what your opponent does. People are saying Venus was not dictating. Well ask yourself why. The fact is that Maria played right into Venus hands. Pure power has never phased an in form Venus Williams. She just goes into ASV Version 2.0 mode, absorbs it and returns it with interest, and you eventually either kill yourself with unforced errors or give her short balls which, having gotten herself into a rhythm, she dispatches with ease. Power rallies are Venus' bread and butter and she just wore Maria down in them. Lindsay and Serena are two players who have the perfect combination of power and precision to expose Venus' defensive nature as a liability. They generally don't allow her to get into a rhythm. This is particularly true on serve. Venus was in nearly every one of Maria's service games, she was in very few of Lindsay's service games for the whole match. This wasn't because she was suddenly returning poorly against Lindsay, it was because Lindsay's serve is more potent than Maria's; not pacier but more difficult to read. In rallies Lindsay was constantly hitting the baseline or within inches of it. Too often Maria's shots, while fired with as much pace as Lindsay's were not deep enough, half way between the service and the baseline. It makes a big difference. Notice that when Lindsay tightened up slightly at the end of the first set, when serving for the match or at match point and her balls landed just that couple of feet shorter in the court, Venus was all over her.

Honestly, I think Venus' level was sustained at a very high for her last three matches, perhaps the first seven games of the final exempted. I don't see too many women's matches outside the GS so it's hard for me to pass judgement but I doubt I've seen her play BETTER in GS matches than she did from the quarters in this torunament. People are talking about US 00 Semi as the best she has played. Again, go and have a look at that match again, it has striking resemblances to this final. Venus, on the longest winning streak of her career, played a horror first set and generally never found any rhythm until she had her back against the wall at 3-5 third set. She then ran off the last four games in a torrent of winners. Is it possible that her opponent, in that match Hingis, had more bearing on Venus' seemingly below par level than you think?

Bottom Line: Venus' level wasn't lower in the finals than in the quarters and semis. Her opponents had less guns to hurt her with, however.

Knizzle
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:47 AM
Robbie I think Venus' level was lower in the finals because of nerves, but not drastically lower than the semifinals. Her same fight was still there, but she generally didn't play with the same free flowing attitude as the QF or SF until she had her back against the wall.

Knizzle
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:49 AM
Why is it people like you, when they can't answer arguments logically, slip back into making personal attacks and insults? There is no call for this infantile behaviour.

If you want to debate with the adults. GROW UP!

You keep acting as if Venus betrayed you somehow because she beat Maria losing only 7 games and then had a titanic 3 set struggles against Lindsay in the final. Saying repeatedly that Venus would have been "stomped" if she played like that against Maria. That's nothing, but pure unadulterated WHINE.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:53 AM
Bottom Line: Venus' level wasn't lower in the finals than in the quarters and semis. Her opponents had less guns to hurt her with, however.
You're clearly seeing what you want to see. The difference in level was obvious from the start. If Venus had played in the Semi like she did in the final, she'd have lost.

If you still don't want to believe...

POST MATCH INTERVIEW Saturday 2 July

Q. How will you summarize your game today?

VENUS WILLIAMS: I really didn't feel like I was able to play my best. I didn't feel like I was able to get to that form I was in in the semifinals or the quarterfinals. But I just had to work with what I had today. I just spent so much time behind that the only time I think I was in front was when I won the match.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:59 AM
You keep acting as if Venus betrayed you somehow because she beat Maria losing only 7 games and then had a titanic 3 set struggles against Lindsay in the final. Saying repeatedly that Venus would have been "stomped" if she played like that against Maria. That's nothing, but pure unadulterated WHINE.

Titanic error-fest you mean?

You are obviously over-defensive and insecure about your fave since you can't defend her without sinking into insults and ad-hominems. The fact is that Venus played worse against Lindsay, falling back into something like her old form. If you can't discuss these matters sanely and rationally, perhaps a tennis forum isn't the place for you.

Robbie.
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:02 AM
Robbie I think Venus' level was lower in the finals because of nerves, but not drastically lower than the semifinals. Her same fight was still there, but she generally didn't play with the same free flowing attitude as the QF or SF until she had her back against the wall.

I think up to 5-2 Venus was definitely nervous. After that, I think you have to attribute alot of what happened to the persons standing across the net who was a much more dangerous foe than her two previous opponents.

In the quarters and especially the semis, her opponents gave her rhythm. When this happens Venus is at her most dangerous. As you say she was wonderfully 'free flowing' in the semis but it was largely because she was getting the balls, virtually on every point, fed to her exactly the way she likes them. Hard and into her hitting zone. She was reading Maria's serve perfectly and got those legs pumping by running and running and running.

It's a common misconception that Venus likes short points. Lindsay likes short points. Serena likes short points. Venus likes rallies and if her opponent is hitting hard with no variation, then even better.

Knizzle
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:03 AM
Titanic error-fest you mean?

You are obviously over-defensive and insecure about your fave since you can't defend her without sinking into insults and ad-hominems. The fact is that Venus played worse against Lindsay, falling back into something like her old form. If you can't discuss these matters sanely and rationally, perhaps a tennis forum isn't the place for you.

I've said that she didn't play as well as Lindsay, but does NOT mean that she would have been "stomped" by Sharapova for reasons I have previously stated to you. If you want to consult other posters on this board to see which one of us is more "sane" or "rationsl" then feel free to do that cause I've already had multiple posters tell me you were out of your mind.

Knizzle
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:07 AM
I think up to 5-2 Venus was definitely nervous. After that, I think you have to attribute alot of what happened to the persons standing across the net who was a much more dangerous foe than her two previous opponents.

In the quarters and especially the semis, her opponents gave her rhythm. When this happens Venus is at her most dangerous. As you say she was wonderfully 'free flowing' in the semis but it was largely because she was getting the balls, virtually on every point, fed to her exactly the way she likes them. Hard and into her hitting zone. She was reading Maria's serve perfectly and got those legs pumping by running and running and running.

It's a common misconception that Venus likes short points. Lindsay likes short points. Serena likes short points. Venus likes rallies and if her opponent is hitting hard with no variation, then even better.

Oh, I know, I said before that LD had more variety of shot and had a better strategy to use against Venus than Venus' previous opponents. She's played Venus more than any other player so LD knows what she has to do and what to expect from Venus. She mixed up the pace and height of her shots to Venus' forehand to throw Venus off and also was more effective in wrongfooting Venus.

Robbie.
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:09 AM
You're clearly seeing what you want to see. The difference in level was obvious from the start. If Venus had played in the Semi like she did in the final, she'd have lost.

If you still don't want to believe...

POST MATCH INTERVIEW Saturday 2 July

Q. How will you summarize your game today?

VENUS WILLIAMS: I really didn't feel like I was able to play my best. I didn't feel like I was able to get to that form I was in in the semifinals or the quarterfinals. But I just had to work with what I had today. I just spent so much time behind that the only time I think I was in front was when I won the match.

Note Venus says I wasn't able.

I agree with that.

Maria played into her hands, Lindsay less so.

You can't say 'if Venus played like that in the semi she would have lost'. It's nonsense. EVERY shot you hit is effected by the shot coming from your opponent. Maria is not Lindsay. It's been a typical Williams cliche over the years to say that 'when Venus/Serena plays well no one can beat them'. It's nonsense. How they play is ALWAYS effected by what their opponent is doing. To challenge an in form Venus you have to take away her rhythm. This means negating her return with your serve; and hitting with extraoardinary depth to keep her off balance. Preferably keep the points as short as possible.

Maria did neither of these things well enough on Thursday. Lindsay did them better.

The stats say Venus made more unforced errors off the ground in the semis than in the final. How do you explain this. That the statistician in the semis hated Maria?

Gumbycat
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:10 AM
The Venus/Davenport Final was a CLASSIC. These players have played each other 27 times. They know each others game almost as well as Venus and Serena know their games.

This match was something special. The quality was high and the desire to win the championship was of paramount importance to both players. This was a career altering championship for whoever won.

There was no rest period during this match. This was two former heavy weight champion boxers throwing bombs throughout 12 rounds. When the match entered the 3rd set, each knew they had to leave it all on the court. And both women raised the level of their play because the match could turn with the slightest loss of focus.

Throw the statistics out the window. These two warriors fought with all of their heart, guts and soul on the grass of tennis greatest tournament. If you could not see the beauty of this match, then you really don't understand sports.

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:13 AM
Titanic error-fest you mean?

You are obviously over-defensive and insecure about your fave since you can't defend her without sinking into insults and ad-hominems. The fact is that Venus played worse against Lindsay, falling back into something like her old form. If you can't discuss these matters sanely and rationally, perhaps a tennis forum isn't the place for you.

lol, talk about ad-hominems...:o:tape:

Its ok xan, i feel your pain. I felt the same way in Miami when Venus beat Serena but played passively in the secind set against Maria. At least Venus validated her win over the defending champ and won. :yeah:

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:18 AM
I've said that she didn't play as well as Lindsay, but does NOT mean that she would have been "stomped" by Sharapova for reasons I have previously stated to you. If you want to consult other posters on this board to see which one of us is more "sane" or "rationsl" then feel free to do that cause I've already had multiple posters tell me you were out of your mind.

You see you just cannot get away from insulting people who disagree with you. This identifies you as an infantile individual, unable to interact intelligently, or eespond rationally in an adult or intelligent manner.

I have not insulted you in this thread, but you have continually responded to rationally argued posts with vicious personal attacks against me, simply because I do not agree with your viewpoint, or your inflated opinion of your fave.

I have no interest in the views of the fellow trolls and abusive persons you hang around with. I think on this thread you have proved yourself to be unable to interact in a normal or respectful manner. As such you have no place on a debate forum of this sort until you have learned to behave in a civilised manner.

I await your apology.

Knizzle
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:20 AM
You see you just cannot get away from insulting people who disagree with you. This identifies you as an infantile individual, unable to interact intelligently, or eespond rationally in an adult or intelligent manner.

I have not insulted you in this thread, but you have continually responded to rationally argued posts with vicious personal attacks against me, simply because I do not agree with your viewpoint, or your inflated opinion of your fave.

I have no interest in the views of the fellow trolls and abusive persons you hang around with. I think on this thread you have proved yourself to be unable to interact in a normal or respectful manner. As such you have no place on a debate forum of this sort until you have learned to behave in a civilised manner.

I await your apology.

OK xan I'm sorry. :haha::cuckoo:

StarDuvallGrant
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:21 AM
:lol: I'm still waiting on those names... 80% :lol:

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:26 AM
lol, talk about ad-hominems...:o:tape:

Excuse me. Can you READ.

Who was it who started with the ad-hominems. Can you tell me?

Did I begin by insulting Knizzle, or did I make a reasonably-argued post insulting nobody? I'd like an answer please.

Its ok xan, i feel your pain.

Who started this thread? Who made the allegation that the final was Venus at her best? Was it me?

If not, please do not start to try to assume or draw inferences about my posts. there are arguments in my posts. If you wish to answer the points RATIONALLY, please attempt to do so, but I do not appreciate heavy-handed attempts at mockery. Answer the POINT if you can. If you can't, go back to whatever else you were doing.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:29 AM
OK xan I'm sorry. :haha::cuckoo:

I really thought you were at least a teenager. I see I was mistaken. The mentality is hovering between 7 year-old and moron.

With apologies to morons.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:59 AM
I really thought you were at least a teenager. I see I was mistaken. The mentality is hovering between 7 year-old and moron.

With apologies to morons.

You're doing exactly what you criticize others for.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:03 AM
You're doing exactly what you criticize others for.

No. I'm responding to unprovoked abuse from Knizzle.

I'm not taking that sort of crap from anyone.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:05 AM
No. I'm responding to unprovoked abuse from Knizzle.

I'm not taking that sort of crap fro anyone.

However, you're calling others "unintelligent" for making personal attacks...then you turn right around and do the same.

sunset
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:09 AM
I had to work and missed this final but heard she was playing extremly well.

G_Slammed
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:15 AM
I had to work and missed this final but heard she was playing extremly well.

ESPN Classic will be airing it on the 8th.


On ESPN Classic: Lindsay Davenport vs. Venus Williams

July 8, 9pm to 12am (ET)

sunset
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:15 AM
Thank you so much. I won't miss it.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:27 AM
However, you're calling others "unintelligent" for making personal attacks...then you turn right around and do the same.

There's a big difference between making an unprovoked personal attack in response to a completely ordinary post, as Knizzle did, and my rebuking him for that unprovoked attack.

And I notice you're not taking Knizzle to task for starting these attacks. Double standards anyone?

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:33 AM
Excuse me. Can you READ.

Who was it who started with the ad-hominems. Can you tell me?

Did I begin by insulting Knizzle, or did I make a reasonably-argued post insulting nobody? I'd like an answer please.



Who started this thread? Who made the allegation that the final was Venus at her best? Was it me?

If not, please do not start to try to assume or draw inferences about my posts. there are arguments in my posts. If you wish to answer the points RATIONALLY, please attempt to do so, but I do not appreciate heavy-handed attempts at mockery. Answer the POINT if you can. If you can't, go back to whatever else you were doing.

It didnt matter who started the ad hominem attacks, you hypocrite. (As you can see, I am not above ad hominems either.) And you obviously dont know the meaning of an ad hominem attack, if in fact you are asserting that Knizzle employed them, you fool. (<-------- another ad hominem) All Knizzle said was stop whining, you are the one who called him derogatory names and questioning his intelligence, retard. (<---ad hominem #3)

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:43 AM
There's a big difference between making an unprovoked personal attack in response to a completely ordinary post, as Knizzle did, and my rebuking him for that unprovoked attack.

And I notice you're not taking Knizzle to task for starting these attacks. Double standards anyone?

You are truly an idiot. Of the buffoon variation, most likely.

</ad hominem>

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Note Venus says I wasn't able.

I agree with that.

Maria played into her hands, Lindsay less so.

You can't say 'if Venus played like that in the semi she would have lost'. It's nonsense. EVERY shot you hit is effected by the shot coming from your opponent. Maria is not Lindsay.

No. Maria has a winning H to H record over Lindsay.

Your theory to explain Venus's decline in form between the semi and the Final is that Maria "played into Venus's hands" by playing strongly. This doesn't explain the 10 Double Faults venus served against Lindsay compared to 1 against Maria. In fact the serve was symptomatic of Venus's whole game which was nervy and tentative. The way your opponent plays doesn't stop you starting off points well, and dominating. Instead, Venus served far less well, and failed to dominate. The theory that Maria's game is meat and drink to Venus is also not supported by the act of Maria's two previous straight set victories over her.

It's been a typical Williams cliche over the years to say that 'when Venus/Serena plays well no one can beat them'. It's nonsense. How they play is ALWAYS effected by what their opponent is doing. To challenge an in form Venus you have to take away her rhythm. This means negating her return with your serve; and hitting with extraoardinary depth to keep her off balance. Preferably keep the points as short as possible.

Maria did neither of these things well enough on Thursday. Lindsay did them better.

Did you see Maria's returns, serves, and deep groundstrokes? The simple fact is that Venus did not START well against Lindsay. It wasn't brilliant play from Lindsay that put her off. She never got going. All the experts, even Venus herself will tell you this.

The stats say Venus made more unforced errors off the ground in the semis than in the final. How do you explain this. That the statistician in the semis hated Maria?
Firstly, Watch the game, not the stats. Venus was hitting dozens of groundstrokes into the middle of the net - which she wasn't doing on the Thursday. She was making a lot more errors.

As for statisticians. The judgement of UE is subjective. What one person sees as a UE, the other will not. Pierce supposedly made 34 UE against Vakulenko, but only 6 against Ivanovic. Apparently six times as many UE, but this difference is not reflected in the other stats. 1 DF to 2 for example. Obviously a different statistician was deciding what were UE and what not.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:24 AM
It didnt matter who started the ad hominem attacks, you hypocrite. (As you can see, I am not above ad hominems either.) And you obviously dont know the meaning of an ad hominem attack, if in fact you are asserting that Knizzle employed them, you fool. (<-------- another ad hominem) All Knizzle said was stop whining, you are the one who called him derogatory names and questioning his intelligence, retard. (<---ad hominem #3)

Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I believe you are the retard. i had no quarrel with you, but you decide to jump in and attack me for no reason. That is the ignorant behaviour of the sort of scum who I assume people like Knizzle hang out with.

And of course it matters who starts ad-hominem attacks. That person is the assailant and is to blame for transforming an intelligent debate into an abuse fest. As for hypocricy, I think you are the chief master of that skill, attacking me, but not the one who started the aggression.

Just to educate you. An Ad-hominem attack is when a poster, instead of debating the argument put forward, either because he is unable to respond intelligently to the points made, or for some other reason, decides to insult the maker of the argument, or his motives instead. This is banned on most message boards because it destroys intelligent discussion, and allows trolls like yourself to chip in with more brainless abuse.

Knizzle's response to my argued post was Stop whining. Which if you do not understand English is an abusive and ad-hominem attack.

This is particularly ironic since Williams fans are the masters of whining:

* Serena was ill.
* Serena wasn't feeling well.
* Venus wasn't herself.
* The sisters were only at 20%
* venus got a bad line call.
* her opponent cheated.
* Justine held up her hand.

I've never heard so much whining as comes from Williams fans.

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:27 AM
You are truly an idiot. Of the buffoon variation, most likely.

</ad hominem>

Is that it?

Is that your response to my post asking about double-standards?

You truly have the debating ability of a retarded baboon don't you?

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:36 AM
Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I believe you are the retard. i had no quarrel with you, but you decide to jump in and attack me for no reason. That is the ignorant behaviour of the sort of scum who I assume people like Knizzle hang out with.

And of course it matters who starts ad-hominem attacks. That person is the assailant and is to blame for transforming an intelligent debate into an abuse fest. As for hypocricy, I think you are the chief master of that skill, attacking me, but not the one who started the aggression.

Just to educate you. An Ad-hominem attack is when a poster, instead of debating the argument put forward, either because he is unable to respond intelligently to the points made, or for some other reason, decides to insult the maker of the argument, or his motives instead. This is banned on most message boards because it destroys intelligent discussion, and allows trolls like yourself to chip in with more brainless abuse.

Knizzle's response to my argued post was Stop whining. Which if you do not understand English is an abusive and ad-hominem attack.

This is particularly ironic since Williams fans are the masters of whining:

* Serena was ill.
* Serena wasn't feeling well.
* Venus wasn't herself.
* The sisters were only at 20%
* venus got a bad line call.
* her opponent cheated.
* Justine held up her hand.

I've never heard so much whining as comes from Williams fans.

Telling you to "Stop whining" is an insult to you and/or your motives? What are you, menstrual? (<---- ad hominem) Or just stupid? (<----ad hominem #2) Or just bitter that Maria has plateaud and is currently slamless?

An abusive ad hominem attack is an informal argumentative fallacy in which an attack is made on the character of an opponent rather than on the merits of an opponents position.

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:37 AM
Is that it?

Is that your response to my post asking about double-standards?

You truly have the debating ability of a retarded baboon don't you?

:awww: That hurted my feelings. :crying2:

Robbie.
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:51 AM
No. Maria has a winning H to H record over Lindsay.

Your theory to explain Venus's decline in form between the semi and the Final is that Maria "played into Venus's hands" by playing strongly. This doesn't explain the 10 Double Faults venus served against Lindsay compared to 1 against Maria. In fact the serve was symptomatic of Venus's whole game which was nervy and tentative.

Let's not get hung up on double faults. Double faults are usually the result of pressure. Lindsay exerted plenty on Venus by taking her OUT of her rhythm. Maria by contrast worked her INTO her rhythm. In any case 10 double faults over three sets is not really horrific.

A more rounded analysis would look at other indicators of service health such as the following.

Against Lindsay
74 % First Serves in
67 % Won

Against Maria
70% First Serves in
65 % Won

Average First Serve Speed Against Lindsay
105 mph

Average First Serve Speed Against Maria
108 mph

Average Second Serve Speed Against Lindsay
87 mph

Average Second Serve Speed Against Maria
86 mph

You were saying?

Lindsay won a lot more points on Venus' second serve than Maria did, 53 % as compared to Maria's 42 percent. But Venus's second serves were FASTER against Lindsay. This indicates to me that Lindsay's return was causing many more problems for Venus than Maria's was. Hence, the DF's.

The way your opponent plays doesn't stop you starting off points well, and dominating.

Of course it does. Half of the games you play in a match are receiving serve. Maria's serve gave Venus far less trouble than Lindsay's did. Venus won 49 % of Maria's first serve points. She won only 39 % of Lindsay's. Lindsay's serve caused much more trouble for Venus than Maria's and was a major difference.

Instead, Venus served far less well, and failed to dominate.

Refer to the above stats. If anything she was serving LESS WELL against Maria.

The theory that Maria's game is meat and drink to Venus is also not supported by the act of Maria's two previous straight set victories over her.

Let's not be talking about other tournaments. My whole analysis is based on a Venus Williams 'playing well'. Wimbledon '05 was pretty much the first tournament that Venus Williams could be said to have been 'playing well' for any sustained period since Wimbledon '03.


Did you see Maria's returns, serves, and deep groundstrokes? The simple fact is that Venus did not START well against Lindsay. It wasn't brilliant play from Lindsay that put her off. She never got going. All the experts, even Venus herself will tell you this.

Venus did not start well. I acknowledged that in my very first post. Then again she didn't start particularly well against Maria when she was nearly broken in the first game. But as I said some people (this means you!) have been completely blinded by the tardy start. From 5-2 down, Venus was miserly with the unforced errors even though Lindsay, unlike Maria, was playing a game that was antithetical to producing her best tennis.

Firstly, Watch the game, not the stats. Venus was hitting dozens of groundstrokes into the middle of the net - which she wasn't doing on the Thursday. She was making a lot more errors.

No I'll forget the stats and instead listen to your warped and biased intepretation of what is widely regarded as one of the greatest Wimbledon finals of all time.

As for statisticians. The judgement of UE is subjective. What one person sees as a UE, the other will not. Pierce supposedly made 34 UE against Vakulenko, but only 6 against Ivanovic. Apparently six times as many UE, but this difference is not reflected in the other stats. 1 DF to 2 for example. Obviously a different statistician was deciding what were UE and what not.

What's with the focus on double faults? They hardly tell the whole story. I mean Elena D for example has served only 3 DF's against Myskina but we all know she has played much better tennis in matches where she has served double faults in the double digits. DF's are hardly the be all and end all. I don't need stats to tell me that Mary is obviously playing a lot better to trounce Ivanovic than to struggle over the line against Vakulenko. 34 UE's in a three set struggle against 6 in a two set annihilation is not so difficult to comprehend is it? :shrug:

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:51 AM
Telling you to "Stop whining" is an insult to you and/or your motives?

If you don't understand what those words mean, I can't help you
What are you, menstrual? (<---- ad hominem) Or just stupid? (<----ad hominem #2) Or just bitter that Maria has plateaud and is currently slamless?

Well. At last we see the true cause of all this hysterical abuse launched at me for no reason. Another insecure and obsessive Maria hater. :rolleyes:

It's amazing how this supposedly awful player who has plateaued etc. etc. causes so much insecurity, fear and hysteria from fans of certain rivals.

An abusive ad hominem attack is an informal argumentative fallacy in which an attack is made on the character of an opponent rather than on the merits of an opponents position.

Good. Now you know what it is. Stop doing it.

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 05:14 AM
If you don't understand what those words mean, I can't help you


Well. At last we see the true cause of all this hysterical abuse launched at me for no reason. Another insecure and obsessive Maria hater. :rolleyes:

It's amazing how this supposedly awful player who has plateaued etc. etc. causes so much insecurity, fear and hysteria from fans of certain rivals.



Good. Now you know what it is. Stop doing it.

Yeah, all of this is tied back down to my insecure, obsessive hatred for Maria Sharapova. :rolleyes: Make it whatever you want, Xan. I just know youre a Maria fan, and you sounded quite bitter in this thread that Venus probably treed against Maria, denying her the defense of her slam title, based on the assumption that Venus, playing like she did in the finals against Davenport, would have been stomped by Sharapova. lazy reasoning, but still, I wouldnt expect much more from someone of your calibre.

If what you have received in this thread was hysterical abuse, then you should get out more and experience real life every once in a while.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 7th, 2005, 05:26 AM
Is that it?

Is that your response to my post asking about double-standards?

You truly have the debating ability of a retarded baboon don't you?

You really make yourself look bad and uncredible everytime you make such statements. You're the first person that crys "stop making personal attacks" and then you turn right around and do the same thing. If you're as intelligent as you claim to be, why not just ignore the supposed "personal attacks"??

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2005, 05:27 AM
You really make yourself look bad and uncredible everytime you make such statements. You're the first person that crys "stop making personal attacks" and then you turn right around and to the same thing. If you're as intelligent as you claim to be, why not just ignore the supposed "personal attacks"??

Because hes obviously bluffing.

LucasArg
Jul 7th, 2005, 06:27 AM
The stats are good, but my opinion is Venus outplayed a lot of good players (Pierce, Sharapova and Davenport), she played excellent tennis and shut the fuck up to all those haters around.

Kudos for Venus for did it again! :wavey:

Lady
Jul 7th, 2005, 06:57 AM
My opinion about this thread's topic was greatly expressed by Robbie.
Watch that SF again, it wasn't that magnificent. The final was better. ;)

Experimentee
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:19 PM
No way was it her best ever. She was much better against Pierce and Sharapova, in the Sharapova match, I'd say that was her best ever.
Against Davenport she was nervous, made way too many errors, and the double faults cost her. It was the DF's that pretty much gave away the breaks in the 1st set. She played well in spurts, but she sustained a high level thrughout against Sharapova.

GogoGirl
Jul 7th, 2005, 09:03 PM
Hey All,

I agree the double faults set Venus back a fraction - and especially in the first set. The rest were spread out over two sets - so not so detrimental. I am not one to worry about whether Venus played Maria better than Lindsay. My response to this thread was made to comment on whether it was her very best match ever played. I say no.

LOL - remember when Venus lost in the quarters, right, to Steffi at Wimby in 1999? I for one thought that was a great match - and felt Venus coulda-shoulda pulled it out. And nothing against Steffi - because Iím on record as stating that Venus reminded me of Steffi as far back as in 1997, and that she was my fave player up until Venus. They are both Geminiís, and Venus commented before on how great she found Steffi and Monica.

Lindsay beat Venus in two Aussie Opens. Venus beat Lindsay in four Wimby Opens. May haps this is a case for things that make one go - hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, as it pertains to grand slams. And the US Open wins between the two have slipped my mind - but I know Venus won at least one of those.

Anyway and again - we know some players play another player differently than they play the next one. Who knows what would have happened if Maria had broken at 4-1 in the second when she got robbed of that break. She might have held her serve - and she might then have broken Venus to get back to 4-4. Venus still might have won and so on. Granted that is one of those suppositions that we just donít know what would have happened either way if the break was secured for Maria.

In the final - Venus did start slowly, and she soon found herself at 5-2 in the 1st. When she won the next 8 points - I thought - ďCan she break Lindsay again?Ē She didnít. In the second - I had a feeling Venus would win it - and of course the going even in that set was a little tight and rough for her - but she prevailed. In the third - I knew after 2-2 that they both had shown up and neither would tank - fold or totally go off course - and especially after Venus broke Lindsay back to level it. It really was a toss-up after that. I was just pleased that Venus held her own up until 5-6 (survived at 15-30 w/that 25 point rally) - and then leveled it at 6-6. To be honest - when it got to 6-6 in the third, I had a strong feeling Venus would bring it on home - and she did. But they both showed up - never let up - and dug down deep. It could have gone either way.

Yes............... it was a great match - w/a lot of intensity - heart - grit and determination brought forth by both. It wasn't either of their best ever though - IMO. Which was their best ever - I wonder?

Volcana
Jul 7th, 2005, 09:26 PM
Some people think a 6-0 or a 6-1 set is a sign of superior play. Sometimes it is. Sometimes though, it just means you've figured out an advantage, and your opponent couldn't figure out a counter. Those are the matches where you lose, then look at the tape the next day and say, 'how the hell did I let her do that?'

(That's why coaching isn't allowed in tennis. Forces you to think for yourself.:))

To me, a match where you have to battle for almost every point shows far superior tennis. You haven't figured out your opponent. You have to play every point. You have to create small advantages point by point and exploit them. Superior tennis, in that sense, requires first and foremost a superior opponent.

I haven't gone back and looked at the Venus vs Sharapova semi. The match wasn't enthralling enough the first time around. I've seen the final a couple times now. Even knowing the outcome, the dynamics of the match and the quality of play make it very entertaining.

DA FOREHAND
Jul 7th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Volcana: stats are very deceiving and no, Venus didn't even play that well. She was never in control, it was Davenport's to win or choke. And no, you can't compare the stats against Davenport with those against other players. After counterpunching the first few blows, all you have to do is to keep her guessing as she only covers half the court on her best days

Venus played very well, a lot better on key points than Davenport that's for sure, but Venus has played so much better than this in the past. And also to call this her best match EVER is not a compliment, given she could have bowed out out 2-6 4-6 or 5-7 I don't remember. And she fought off a match point, great, but not the best of signs from the best performance ever


Really then how did Maria manage to get ZERO games against a player covering half the court?

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 11:42 PM
You really make yourself look bad and uncredible everytime you make such statements. You're the first person that crys "stop making personal attacks" and then you turn right around and do the same thing. If you're as intelligent as you claim to be, why not just ignore the supposed "personal attacks"??

And why do you keep having a go at me rather than at the persons who initiated the personal attacks? Could it be because you are being hypocritical? And that the tactics of certain Williams (and other) fans are to personally attack rival players and their fans?

xan
Jul 7th, 2005, 11:47 PM
Really then how did Maria manage to get ZERO games against a player covering half the court?

I think that's been covered already. Players have "off" days. Or is Maria the only player not allowed to be off-colour? You might as well say: How does Serena have any credibility after being taken out by Jill Craybas?

The point about the Final and Semi at Wimbledon was that Venus played worse, considerably worse in the Final, struggling to beat an injured Lindsay - and she admitted as much herself.

For some reason :o some posters want to pretend Venus played at peak form in the final. That is not a credible position.

Infiniti2001
Jul 8th, 2005, 01:02 AM
xan, you've been on overload ever since my Vee took Maria out. :tape: I'm thinking you need some time out :o :lol:

StarDuvallGrant
Jul 8th, 2005, 01:11 AM
xan, you've been on overload ever since my Vee took Maria out. :tape: I'm thinking you need some time out :o :lol:

:yeah:

mykarma
Jul 8th, 2005, 02:17 AM
From reading this, (1) it's clear to me that the Maria-Venus semifinal is one of the most overrated matches of recent times; (2) It's also clear how little credit people give to the person on the other side of the net.

I wonder if people have actually watched the semifinal match again. I have. I'm sorry folks, but it wasnt all that.

Forget the winners column. Look at the unforced errors. Take double faults into account. Venus made 20 unforced errors off the ground in TWO sets.

When you knock 10 DF's off her finals account we have 19 UE's in THREE SETS.

Was the statistician THAT much more lenient on the finalists than on the semifinalists? I very much doubt it.

In the final I think people have been seriously fooled by the start. BOTH Venus and Lindsay were obviously nervous when they came out. They made many easy errors. Obviously Venus made more as she found herself in a big whole.

But from 5-2 in the first set the quality was unbelievable. The stats say Venus made only 4 UE's off the ground in the second set and 8 in the last set. I believe it. She just wasn't giving away free points.

People forget that you only play as well as your opponent let's you play. Everything you do in a match is affected by what your opponent does. People are saying Venus was not dictating. Well ask yourself why. The fact is that Maria played right into Venus hands. Pure power has never phased an in form Venus Williams. She just goes into ASV Version 2.0 mode, absorbs it and returns it with interest, and you eventually either kill yourself with unforced errors or give her short balls which, having gotten herself into a rhythm, she dispatches with ease. Power rallies are Venus' bread and butter and she just wore Maria down in them. Lindsay and Serena are two players who have the perfect combination of power and precision to expose Venus' defensive nature as a liability. They generally don't allow her to get into a rhythm. This is particularly true on serve. Venus was in nearly every one of Maria's service games, she was in very few of Lindsay's service games for the whole match. This wasn't because she was suddenly returning poorly against Lindsay, it was because Lindsay's serve is more potent than Maria's; not pacier but more difficult to read. In rallies Lindsay was constantly hitting the baseline or within inches of it. Too often Maria's shots, while fired with as much pace as Lindsay's were not deep enough, half way between the service and the baseline. It makes a big difference. Notice that when Lindsay tightened up slightly at the end of the first set, when serving for the match or at match point and her balls landed just that couple of feet shorter in the court, Venus was all over her.

Honestly, I think Venus' level was sustained at a very high for her last three matches, perhaps the first seven games of the final exempted. I don't see too many women's matches outside the GS so it's hard for me to pass judgement but I doubt I've seen her play BETTER in GS matches than she did from the quarters in this torunament. People are talking about US 00 Semi as the best she has played. Again, go and have a look at that match again, it has striking resemblances to this final. Venus, on the longest winning streak of her career, played a horror first set and generally never found any rhythm until she had her back against the wall at 3-5 third set. She then ran off the last four games in a torrent of winners. Is it possible that her opponent, in that match Hingis, had more bearing on Venus' seemingly below par level than you think?

Bottom Line: Venus' level wasn't lower in the finals than in the quarters and semis. Her opponents had less guns to hurt her with, however.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 8th, 2005, 03:00 AM
I think that's been covered already. Players have "off" days. Or is Maria the only player not allowed to be off-colour? You might as well say: How does Serena have any credibility after being taken out by Jill Craybas?

The point about the Final and Semi at Wimbledon was that Venus played worse, considerably worse in the Final, struggling to beat an injured Lindsay - and she admitted as much herself.

For some reason :o some posters want to pretend Venus played at peak form in the final. That is not a credible position.

Maria had a sore knee and ankle at IW?

CoolDude7
Jul 9th, 2005, 02:09 PM
Poor masha =(

Bright Red
Jul 9th, 2005, 03:22 PM
Just because someone prefers how Venus played in a particular round does not mean they feel one opponent is better than the other :lol: Why can't it be only about Venus? :shrug:

I simply liked the incredible amount of confidence Venus had in the semis - regardless of the number of DF's or UE's.

Oh well, this thread is living way past it's shelf life. I'll let it sink:angel: