PDA

View Full Version : Warsaw - reports on televised matches


Corswandt
May 9th, 2006, 12:27 AM
I know that reports on televised matches are useless by definition, and these are all ancient history because they're already a few days old, but I wanted to collect my own thoughts, particularly on the Ivanovic vs Chakvetadze match. It was the first time I saw Anna Chak play and it was a huge surprise.

I merged them onto a single post because I didn't feel like digging up the threads on all four individual matches, which are all long buried anyway.

VENUS WILLIAMS vs HINGIS

This match was a hoot.

Hingis played about 60% of what she played at the AO, making many needless UEs and showing herself to be completely unable to keep Venus from entering the court (all she had to do was to hit deep; it's not that difficult); Venus was hitting awful UEs (some of which went out by kms) by the truckload and yet won.

Venus huge range and stride mean she's a decent defender; her powerful BH allowed her to enter the court and control just about every point. Her countless UEs are a direct consequence of her playing style, which can be summed up as "Hit everything damn hard even if you don't really have to". I have to admit it was kind of funny to see where Venus placed herself to return Hingis' serve, but this brutal, unrefined game isn't for me.

Hingis' game since her comeback is that of a glorified Smashnova, and against Venus that just won't do. Clay makes her pitiful serve even easier to blast away, and she's not the most accomplished clay mover. Throughout the match, she was always one step away from being completely flattened, and only Venus' inconsistency prevented a complete rout from happening. The way Venus blasted away her serves was just embarrassing. I was thinking "Tennis is also an athletic contest. If you're not strong enough to play it, go into telemarketing or something."

ANNA CHAK vs IVANOVIC

The main features of Ivanovic's game are well known: a huge serve that when it's on makes her nearly unbreakable and a huge FH, one of the most powerful on the Tour. Her firepower is such that one fully expects to see her surrounded by a team of gunners, an ammunition limber and a prime mover. The problems are well known too: poor movement, reflexes and footwork, and an inability to keep her game at the same high throughout a match. As long as her first serve percentage is decent and her FH is on target, she can blow anyone off the court. But she tends to be unable to keep both going for more than a set.
Ivanovic is improving her defensive skills - she can now hit defensive slices from awkward positions, for instance. The problem is that just about any position that actually requires her to move her big frame around even just a bit is an awkward one. She tries to make up for her shortcomings in mobility with her fighting spirit, but sometimes it's not enough.

Anna Chak is a more dangerous version of Kirilenko; Kirilenko's game is pretty but remains somewhat ineffective against more powerful players. Anna Chak's isn't as flashy, but it can be deadlier.

Anna Chak is a very interesting player, with a balanced mix of mobility, firepower and shot variety. She has a good all-round game, something so few players have these days. All she has to do to crack the top (maybe top 20, probably not more) is to improve her consistency; she still makes too may needless errors (Kirilenko here has the edge).

Her FH is both powerful and versatile; it can go to any side of the court with just a flick of her wrist. Her BH ranges from hitting breathtaking winners to being unreliable. Her first serve is pretty good when it's working (during this match, not that often).

Anna Chak turned the match around once she realized all she had to do was not to hit the ball straight back at Ivanovic but rather to move her around (and for that her FH was instrumental), sending the ball left and right until Ivanovic was left ragged, and forced into UEs while trying to finish points off faster.

Anyway, the best was saved for last – who would have thought that, after Ivanovic saved all those MPs on her serve with some simply brilliant play, Anna Chak, whose serve had been a bit shaky until then, would come up with such a confident performance when serving to close out the match?

This was a textbook demolition of a more powerful opponent by a slighter but more versatile player. Hingis should watch this match – she might learn a thing or two.

LENA vs A. RADWANSKA

ES showed only the first set and the first half of the second.

Radwanska is very fast and an excellent defender – she belongs to a breed of player that is quickly disappearing.

Lena entered the match "cold" so to speak, making a few UEs here and there (which was more than enough to keep the score tied vs a player as consistent as Radwanska), not moving as well as she usually does, and squandering one opportunity to take the lead in the score after the other. She didn't hit that many DFs, but her serve was for the most weak, predictable and easy to attack. She held serve brilliantly (for her standards) until serving for the set – then the DFs and the usual DRAMA she seemingly can't live without appeared again. Lena is also a great defender when she's on (all the muscle she packs allows her to hit big shots out of defensive positions), so there were some amazing rallies. But the way she lost the first set would be enough evidence that, no matter how exhilarating her game can be, in normal circumstances she'll never be a contender for big titles.

CLIJSTERS vs KUZNETSOVA

Interesting match, which exposed both some of Clijsters main strengths and Kuznetsova's main weaknesses. Both players played very aggressively and really went for their shots. As the Portuguese ES commentator perceptively remarked, this looked like a match played on a much faster surface than the disgusting muck the Poles had for clay.

Kim was looking like a million bucks. It's a mystery to me why she hasn’t got even more fans. She's sweet, she's cute without being intimidatingly beautiful, she wins titles by the truckload which should attract glory hunters…

Clijsters' strengths: the best defender on the Tour, and also the best counterattacker; those running FHs that turn a point around are simply awesome, and some of her DTL BHs were to die for

Kuznetsova's weaknesses: merely average mobility and footwork, flaws that will lead her to sometimes reach balls late and make errors, and which are most evident when Kuznetsova is put under pressure – which Clijsters managed to do quite often – and inconsistency and rashness that will lead her to go for winners prematurely

Clijsters, who has had some problems with her serve since her injury at the AO, was serving very well, and her FH was both stronger and more consistent than Kuznetsova's own "Scourge of God" FH, who wasn't playing at her best.

spencercarlos
May 9th, 2006, 01:02 AM
I know that reports on televised matches are useless by definition, and these are all ancient history because they're already a few days old, but I wanted to collect my own thoughts, particularly on the Ivanovic vs Chakvetadze match. It was the first time I saw Anna Chak play and it was a huge surprise.

I merged them onto a single post because I didn't feel like digging up the threads on all four individual matches, which are all long buried anyway.

VENUS WILLIAMS vs HINGIS

This match was a hoot.

Hingis played about 60% of what she played at the AO, making many needless UEs and showing herself to be completely unable to keep Venus from entering the court (all she had to do was to hit deep; it's not that difficult); Venus was hitting awful UEs (some of which went out by kms) by the truckload and yet won.

Venus huge range and stride mean she's a decent defender; her powerful BH allowed her to enter the court and control just about every point. Her countless UEs are a direct consequence of her playing style, which can be summed up as "Hit everything damn hard even if you don't really have to". I have to admit it was kind of funny to see where Venus placed herself to return Hingis' serve, but this brutal, unrefined game isn't for me.

Hingis' game since her comeback is that of a glorified Smashnova, and against Venus that just won't do. Clay makes her pitiful serve even easier to blast away, and she's not the most accomplished clay mover. Throughout the match, she was always one step away from being completely flattened, and only Venus' inconsistency prevented a complete rout from happening. The way Venus blasted away her serves was just embarrassing. I was thinking "Tennis is also an athletic contest. If you're not strong enough to play it, go into telemarketing or something."

ANNA CHAK vs IVANOVIC

The main features of Ivanovic's game are well known: a huge serve that when it's on makes her nearly unbreakable and a huge FH, one of the most powerful on the Tour. Her firepower is such that one fully expects to see her surrounded by a team of gunners, an ammunition limber and a prime mover. The problems are well known too: poor movement, reflexes and footwork, and an inability to keep her game at the same high throughout a match. As long as her first serve percentage is decent and her FH is on target, she can blow anyone off the court. But she tends to be unable to keep both going for more than a set.
Ivanovic is improving her defensive skills - she can now hit defensive slices from awkward positions, for instance. The problem is that just about any position that actually requires her to move her big frame around even just a bit is an awkward one. She tries to make up for her shortcomings in mobility with her fighting spirit, but sometimes it's not enough.

Anna Chak is a more dangerous version of Kirilenko; Kirilenko's game is pretty but remains somewhat ineffective against more powerful players. Anna Chak's isn't as flashy, but it can be deadlier.

Anna Chak is a very interesting player, with a balanced mix of mobility, firepower and shot variety. She has a good all-round game, something so few players have these days. All she has to do to crack the top (maybe top 20, probably not more) is to improve her consistency; she still makes too may needless errors (Kirilenko here has the edge).

Her FH is both powerful and versatile; it can go to any side of the court with just a flick of her wrist. Her BH ranges from hitting breathtaking winners to being unreliable. Her first serve is pretty good when it's working (during this match, not that often).

Anna Chak turned the match around once she realized all she had to do was not to hit the ball straight back at Ivanovic but rather to move her around (and for that her FH was instrumental), sending the ball left and right until Ivanovic was left ragged, and forced into UEs while trying to finish points off faster.

Anyway, the best was saved for last – who would have thought that, after Ivanovic saved all those MPs on her serve with some simply brilliant play, Anna Chak, whose serve had been a bit shaky until then, would come up with such a confident performance when serving to close out the match?

This was a textbook demolition of a more powerful opponent by a slighter but more versatile player. Hingis should watch this match – she might learn a thing or two.

LENA vs A. RADWANSKA

ES showed only the first set and the first half of the second.

Radwanska is very fast and an excellent defender – she belongs to a breed of player that is quickly disappearing.

Lena entered the match "cold" so to speak, making a few UEs here and there (which was more than enough to keep the score tied vs a player as consistent as Radwanska), not moving as well as she usually does, and squandering one opportunity to take the lead in the score after the other. She didn't hit that many DFs, but her serve was for the most weak, predictable and easy to attack. She held serve brilliantly (for her standards) until serving for the set – then the DFs and the usual DRAMA she seemingly can't live without appeared again. Lena is also a great defender when she's on (all the muscle she packs allows her to hit big shots out of defensive positions), so there were some amazing rallies. But the way she lost the first set would be enough evidence that, no matter how exhilarating her game can be, in normal circumstances she'll never be a contender for big titles.

CLIJSTERS vs KUZNETSOVA

Interesting match, which exposed both some of Clijsters main strengths and Kuznetsova's main weaknesses. Both players played very aggressively and really went for their shots. As the Portuguese ES commentator perceptively remarked, this looked like a match played on a much faster surface than the disgusting muck the Poles had for clay.

Kim was looking like a million bucks. It's a mystery to me why she hasn’t got even more fans. She's sweet, she's cute without being intimidatingly beautiful, she wins titles by the truckload which should attract glory hunters…

Clijsters' strengths: the best defender on the Tour, and also the best counterattacker; those running FHs that turn a point around are simply awesome, and some of her DTL BHs were to die for

Kuznetsova's weaknesses: merely average mobility and footwork, flaws that will lead her to sometimes reach balls late and make errors, and which are most evident when Kuznetsova is put under pressure – which Clijsters managed to do quite often – and inconsistency and rashness that will lead her to go for winners prematurely

Clijsters, who has had some problems with her serve since her injury at the AO, was serving very well, and her FH was both stronger and more consistent than Kuznetsova's own "Scourge of God" FH, who wasn't playing at her best.
Nice post. Great comments.

VeeReeDavJCap81
May 9th, 2006, 01:06 AM
Venus huge range and stride mean she's a decent defender; her powerful BH allowed her to enter the court and control just about every point. Her countless UEs are a direct consequence of her playing style, which can be summed up as "Hit everything damn hard even if you don't really have to". I have to admit it was kind of funny to see where Venus placed herself to return Hingis' serve, but this brutal, unrefined game isn't for me.

Is this a match report, or a 'I don't like Venus Williams' report. In other words STFU!

tennisrox
May 9th, 2006, 02:57 AM
Is this a match report, or a 'I don't like Venus Williams' report. In other words STFU!

:rolleyes:
Everyone has a right to voice their opinions. It was good of him to take the trouble to write match reports. Do you expect him to say that Venus has the finesse of Hingis?

tennisrox
May 9th, 2006, 03:04 AM
I know that reports on televised matches are useless by definition, and these are all ancient history because they're already a few days old, but I wanted to collect my own thoughts, particularly on the Ivanovic vs Chakvetadze match. It was the first time I saw Anna Chak play and it was a huge surprise.
ANNA CHAK vs IVANOVIC

The main features of Ivanovic's game are well known: a huge serve that when it's on makes her nearly unbreakable and a huge FH, one of the most powerful on the Tour. Her firepower is such that one fully expects to see her surrounded by a team of gunners, an ammunition limber and a prime mover. The problems are well known too: poor movement, reflexes and footwork, and an inability to keep her game at the same high throughout a match. As long as her first serve percentage is decent and her FH is on target, she can blow anyone off the court. But she tends to be unable to keep both going for more than a set.
Ivanovic is improving her defensive skills - she can now hit defensive slices from awkward positions, for instance. The problem is that just about any position that actually requires her to move her big frame around even just a bit is an awkward one. She tries to make up for her shortcomings in mobility with her fighting spirit, but sometimes it's not enough.

Anna Chak is a more dangerous version of Kirilenko; Kirilenko's game is pretty but remains somewhat ineffective against more powerful players. Anna Chak's isn't as flashy, but it can be deadlier.

Anna Chak is a very interesting player, with a balanced mix of mobility, firepower and shot variety. She has a good all-round game, something so few players have these days. All she has to do to crack the top (maybe top 20, probably not more) is to improve her consistency; she still makes too may needless errors (Kirilenko here has the edge).

Her FH is both powerful and versatile; it can go to any side of the court with just a flick of her wrist. Her BH ranges from hitting breathtaking winners to being unreliable. Her first serve is pretty good when it's working (during this match, not that often).

Anna Chak turned the match around once she realized all she had to do was not to hit the ball straight back at Ivanovic but rather to move her around (and for that her FH was instrumental), sending the ball left and right until Ivanovic was left ragged, and forced into UEs while trying to finish points off faster.

Anyway, the best was saved for last – who would have thought that, after Ivanovic saved all those MPs on her serve with some simply brilliant play, Anna Chak, whose serve had been a bit shaky until then, would come up with such a confident performance when serving to close out the match?

This was a textbook demolition of a more powerful opponent by a slighter but more versatile player. Hingis should watch this match – she might learn a thing or two.

LENA vs A. RADWANSKA

ES showed only the first set and the first half of the second.

.

Thanks a lot for the reports. I agree with you about Chakvedatze. IMO she can be more than just top 20 if she gets her head together. Very smart and versatile player, with decent offensive skills to boot. She's a headcase like most of the russians.

spencercarlos
May 9th, 2006, 03:06 AM
Is this a match report, or a 'I don't like Venus Williams' report. In other words STFU!
80 unforced errors is horrible to watch, honestly i saw the match and it was horrible. Unlike some of their classic battles. But what can we do, we are 2006, not 2000.

Derek.
May 9th, 2006, 03:22 AM
Anna Chak is a more dangerous version of Kirilenko;

Kind of, but not really. Anna is more of a baseliner, and Maria is more of an all-court player who likes to attack the net. Anna really won't come to net as much as Maria, so that's why I disagree with this statement. Plus I think Maria has more variety.

gsm
May 9th, 2006, 03:25 AM
VENUS WILLIAMS vs HINGIS

This match was a hoot.

thanks, enjoyed reading your thoughts on last weeks matches :)

i must say though, i was suprised by your comments on the venus v hingis match.

had seen some highlights via youtube.com and got the impression both venus and hingis played not bad at all, but prob the highlight package left out all the crud :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9E2DOgDbDI&search=Venus%20WIlliams

Dan23
May 9th, 2006, 03:27 AM
Kind of, but not really. Anna is more of a baseliner, and Maria is more of an all-court player who likes to attack the net. Anna really won't come to net as much as Maria, so that's why I disagree with this statement. Plus I think Maria has more variety.
Yea true....Anna hits decievingly hard and flat, moreso than Maria I would say but Maria does move up the court a lot more.

xin_hui
May 9th, 2006, 04:29 AM
Is this a match report, or a 'I don't like Venus Williams' report. In other words STFU!

then dont read it. people take the time to write all these out, and this is what u say :rolleyes:

VeeReeDavJCap81
May 9th, 2006, 04:32 AM
then dont read it

It's too late, I wouldn't have known that was in there if I didn't read it :rolleyes:

xin_hui
May 9th, 2006, 04:36 AM
It's too late, I wouldn't have known that was in there if I didn't read it :rolleyes:

and he/she was more derogatory towards martina than venus. dont know what the hell you're complaining about

junlee_vee
May 9th, 2006, 05:03 AM
80 unforced errors is horrible to watch, honestly i saw the match and it was horrible. Unlike some of their classic battles. But what can we do, we are 2006, not 2000.

Yeah, but it kind of didn't help that Venus couldn't hardly walk (in some parts) in that 3rd set.

VeeReeDavJCap81
May 9th, 2006, 06:25 AM
and he/she was more derogatory towards martina than venus. dont know what the hell you're complaining about

Don't worry about what I'M complaining about, given the fact I wasn't talking to you in the first place. :rolleyes:

spencercarlos
May 9th, 2006, 09:03 AM
Yeah, but it kind of didn't help that Venus couldn't hardly walk (in some parts) in that 3rd set.
Much more reasons for a horrible match, you don´t like to see when someone is in pain, you like to see a match where both players are 100%.
For the one who said that highlights showed it was a good match, go and look the whole match, honestly it bored me. Venus had exactly 80 errors, Hingis 30 something errors, on a match that produced only 60 something winners, not pretty at all with those 110 unforced errors.

Thauron
May 9th, 2006, 10:04 AM
Thanks for the excellent reviews, Corswandt. Great job! :worship:

Is this a match report, or a 'I don't like Venus Williams' report. In other words STFU!

:rolleyes: Where is that ignore button again? :rolleyes:

fifiricci
May 9th, 2006, 10:31 AM
Is this a match report, or a 'I don't like Venus Williams' report. In other words STFU!

Oh for heaven's sake, grow up and stop whining! :rolleyes:

V-MAC
May 9th, 2006, 01:43 PM
thanks, enjoyed reading your thoughts on last weeks matches :)

i must say though, i was suprised by your comments on the venus v hingis match.

had seen some highlights via youtube.com and got the impression both venus and hingis played not bad at all, but prob the highlight package left out all the crud :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9E2DOgDbDI&search=Venus%20WIlliams

:lol: yeah I missed the match and only saw the highlights on youtube too :)
Judging by youtube, it seemed like quite a match but then again, it did only show like 5 mins out of a 2hr 40 mins match so have to put things in perspective. :lol: I was surprised how Martina didn't really seem to be doing anything out there, besides retreating the ball. I really thought she'd mix it up more. I can't believe Venus hit 80 unforced errors, that is an ugly stat but at least she still won the match.

V-MAC
May 9th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Oh for heaven's sake, grow up and stop whining! :rolleyes:

:lol: ouch! :tape:

Corswandt
May 9th, 2006, 03:24 PM
Kind of, but not really. Anna is more of a baseliner, and Maria is more of an all-court player who likes to attack the net. Anna really won't come to net as much as Maria, so that's why I disagree with this statement. Plus I think Maria has more variety.

Point taken.

Anna Chak will only come to the net for easy putaways.

Kirilenko was the first player that came to my mind when I tried to find someone who could be compared to Anna Chak because this match brought memories of Kirilenko's final vs ALG last year at Peking - they are both lightweight players who aren't entirely lacking in power and can use their versatility to pose great difficulties to more one-dimensional heavy hitters.

If Anna Chak was then routed by Kuznetsova, that's because Kuznetsova may be a heavy hitter, but is most certainly not one-dimensional - quite the opposite.