PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon 2006 is very important for Sharapova


borisy
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:40 PM
After her Wimbledon win, she was promoted as the next great champion who will win many slams and dominate the field. In the last 2 years she was very consistent in top 5 but failed to reach any GS finals. If she fails to reach the finals again this year sponsors may start reconsidering their lucrative deals with her. Right now Maria seems like someone who can win 1-2 more slams in her career with a good draw, rather than someone who can win 5+ in total.

But maybe she will prove me wrong and win Wimbledon, who knows...

Kart
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:45 PM
She's reached four semis out of seven grand slams since Wimbledon and only surrendered one of those in straight sets I think.

Given her age and likeliness to improve her game, I doubt her sponsors are worried that she's not threatening for slam titles.

vwfan
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:46 PM
her endorsements have never been purely about tennis, so her result won't matter as much as it will for some.

as long as she's around in the latter rounds more often than not, she will be making good on her endorsements.

Andrew..
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:48 PM
After her Wimbledon win, she was promoted as the next great champion who will win many slams and dominate the field. In the last 2 years she was very consistent in top 5 but failed to reach any GS finals. If she fails to reach the finals again this year sponsors may start reconsidering their lucrative deals with her. Right now Maria seems like someone who can win 1-2 more slams in her career with a good draw, rather than someone who can win 5+ in total.

But maybe she will prove me wrong and win Wimbledon, who knows...
She could fall out of the top ten and sponsors wouldn't care. It's not about her results at all at this point.

The_Pov
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:49 PM
I don't know why anyone is making a big deal out of this, yeah by Maria's age Martina hingis was dominating but that's not how the game is working right now.

No other girl Maria's age (right now) has achieved half as much as she has.

Shonami Slam
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:51 PM
as stated already - her success helped her sponsers, but she made her deals because of her looks, grace and charm. let's be PC and say that Graf would have never been the frontwomen for any earing or shoe based on her looks (though i'd marry her any given day!) - something sharapova (and her former, miss K) will be able to do if ranked 1000 in the world.

other than that - she has a decade to give. that's 10 Wimbledons that she will be entering as "former champion" and thus - a threat.

Mike_T
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:52 PM
If she fails to reach the finals again this year sponsors may start reconsidering their lucrative deals with her. And instead give them to Kournikova? Big endorsements have little association with playing well, or playing at all. A:yawn:K is proof.

Wannabeknowitall
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:53 PM
She's reached four semis out of seven grand slams since Wimbledon and only surrendered one of those in straight sets I think.

Given her age and likeliness to improve her game, I doubt her sponsors are worried that she's not threatening for slam titles.
I don't see that likliness. She's not willing to play enough doubles to help her net game. Her movement is at a plateau now. She doesn't anticipate well. She doesn't use the whole court even on her groundstrokes. She still doesn't play good defense and she still doesn't have a good consistent backhand slice. On the plus side her lob is good and her forehand drop shot is not bad. She needs to really show some progess on that backhand.

furrykitten
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Her endorsements will not run out if she has a bad Wimbledon! :rolleyes:

Jasmin
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Her endorsement comes from looks like Anna K. It doesn't matter seem to matter how she does.

I'm not sure why they thought from one big win she would be like Martina, Serena, Venus, Davenport, Seles, Graf and so on. I mean really it would be nice if they would give people time.

slydevil6142
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:57 PM
shell be fine as far as sponsers go b/c shes hott... but if she fails to have a good wim expect to see more girls believe they can beat her.

borisy
Jun 17th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Yes as if Anna K is earning as much as when she was playing tennis and Serena and Venus are offered the same deals as when they were at the top of the game. :rolleyes:

In The Zone
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:04 PM
I don't know why people are doubting Sharapova's success.
Serena Williams won her first grand slam in 1999. When did she dominate? 2002, 2003. A good 3-4 year span after. Maria dipped her feet into the waters of being a Grand Slam Champion.

She needs to improve a lot. I don't see anything improving in her. She just seems to hit the ball and fight, similar to what Venus did before she got a net game.

Venus knew she had to fix her game, it wasn't working enough. And that brought her the 2005 Wimbledon Championship. If Maria doesn't want to change, the next step to being a champion may never come but she has time. Serena needed three, four years.

The_Pov
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:04 PM
I don't see that likliness. She's not willing to play enough doubles to help her net game. Her movement is at a plateau now. She doesn't anticipate well. She doesn't use the whole court even on her groundstrokes. She still doesn't play good defense and she still doesn't have a good consistent backhand slice. On the plus side her lob is good and her forehand drop shot is not bad. She needs to really show some progess on that backhand.

Are you serious that backhand is one of the best double handed ones in the game.

Kart
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:05 PM
I don't see that likliness. She's not willing to play enough doubles to help her net game. Her movement is at a plateau now. She doesn't anticipate well. She doesn't use the whole court even on her groundstrokes. She still doesn't play good defense and she still doesn't have a good consistent backhand slice. On the plus side her lob is good and her forehand drop shot is not bad. She needs to really show some progess on that backhand.

She's only at a plateau because her game has been good enough to beat almost everyone else for the last two years.

Once the other girls catch up as they're starting to, she will have to respond and she has scope to do so on all the points you've mentioned.

No Name Face
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:06 PM
i don't mean to hate, but i think she's gonna be like the WTA's roddick.

premature slam win, some runs to the semis, then everyone figures out her game and she becomes shockingly mediocre. i could be wrong, of course, but i don't think i am.

furrykitten
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:07 PM
i don't mean to hate, but i think she's gonna be like the WTA's roddick.

premature slam win, some runs to the semis, then everyone figures out her game and she becomes shockingly mediocre. i could be wrong, of course, but i don't think i am.

Well, I think you are wrong.

Natasc
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:09 PM
She's reached four semis out of seven grand slams since Wimbledon and only surrendered one of those in straight sets I think.

Given her age and likeliness to improve her game, I doubt her sponsors are worried that she's not threatening for slam titles.
exactly

I really dont understend why peoples are making such a big deal about it
Its not like she will never be able to win anymore
thats tennis, win and lose are side to side

Wannabeknowitall
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:09 PM
Are you serious that backhand is one of the best double handed ones in the game.
She needs to show progress on the backhand from a defensive perspective. A slice. A defensive lob. A drop shot. I rarely even she her hit an out wide winner on the backhand. She does it with the forehand a lot but rarely on the backhand.

squig2k
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:10 PM
the important thing is her consistency and her appearance in how many consecutive semis

borisy
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:13 PM
You also have to consider the fact that it's a very suitable time for her to do well at the slams. The only two top players fully committed right now are Amelie and Justine (even though she's not always 100% healthy all the time). Lindsay and Mary are at the end of their careers. Kim may retire next year and seems unfocused. Who knows whether Serena will come back strong or not. Venus and Martina are still warming up to do better at bigger events.

If Maria can't take advantage of this when there is such an open field, some new girls can cact up with her in 2-3 years.

furrykitten
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:14 PM
Yeah borisy what you fail to see is that Maria can improve herself

serenafan08
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:25 PM
She'll be fine with all her endorsements and stuff...she's going to be around for a long time, so that gives her plenty of opportunities to improve her game and win more Grand Slams. Any person in their right mind, no matter whom they're a fan of, can see that Maria has the potential to win more Slams. Right now she's going through a rough patch in her career. You know, Serena did the same thing. She didn't win a slam for two and a half years after the '99 US Open, and then look what she did - won five of six and became the best player in the world. It's possible for her to come out of this "slump," and I think she will.

Corswandt
Jun 17th, 2006, 06:50 PM
I don't see that likliness. She's not willing to play enough doubles to help her net game. Her movement is at a plateau now. She doesn't anticipate well. She doesn't use the whole court even on her groundstrokes. She still doesn't play good defense and she still doesn't have a good consistent backhand slice. On the plus side her lob is good and her forehand drop shot is not bad. She needs to really show some progess on that backhand.

Good remarks. Her game is very limited and predictable, and that makes it easy for her opponents to figure it out.

i don't mean to hate, but i think she's gonna be like the WTA's roddick.

premature slam win, some runs to the semis, then everyone figures out her game and she becomes shockingly mediocre. i could be wrong, of course, but i don't think i am.

This is a possibility. What's preventing this from happening right now is her focus and competitiveness. Take that away, and she becomes very vulnerable.

The other possibility is that Masha finds a way to improve her game and either add some variety to it or achieve a level of consistency with her current, somewhat conservative, game that can grind out even the toughest opponents - but for that, she would need to become a better defender to keep herself from being surprised by those counterattacks at which some players excel.

thelittlestelf
Jun 17th, 2006, 07:16 PM
After her Wimbledon win, she was promoted as the next great champion who will win many slams and dominate the field. In the last 2 years she was very consistent in top 5 but failed to reach any GS finals. If she fails to reach the finals again this year sponsors may start reconsidering their lucrative deals with her. Right now Maria seems like someone who can win 1-2 more slams in her career with a good draw, rather than someone who can win 5+ in total.

But maybe she will prove me wrong and win Wimbledon, who knows...believe me, sponsors will not relinquish any deals with maria sharapova unless she quits tennis altogether.

dreamgoddess099
Jun 17th, 2006, 07:29 PM
I don't know why people are doubting Sharapova's success.
Serena Williams won her first grand slam in 1999. When did she dominate? 2002, 2003. A good 3-4 year span after. Serena needed three, four years.
Maria and Serena aren't the same. Other than the fact that they both won a slam at 17, nothing else in their careers parallel. Serena regularly beat top ten players and won tier II and I tournaments before she won her first slam. While Maria didn't beat any top ten players or win anything above a tier III until she won her first slam. Even 2 years after they both won their first slam, Maria's won 3 tier II's or above and the YEC's, while Serena won 5 tier II's or above and the YEC's. During that time Serena played 22 tournaments while so far Maria has played 31. Also, Serena went 6 slams between her first slam final and her second, while Maria has already gone 7 slams between her first slam final and her next. So while people keep saying Serena went 2 years and so months between her first and second slam, they keep forgetting that the reason is because she played so little.
That said, Maria never needs to win another slam ever to keep her endorsements.

Natasc
Jun 17th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Compare Maria to Andy is ridiculous
they slam record say it all
Maria goes pretty in well and deep in tournaments
Andy no....

besides, Andy came as a star and then dissapered, Maria is still there winning things or at least getting in semis
Andy lost in first round of USO'05, RG'05 and 06
maria has more consistence in Slams than even Nadal.... (besides rg)
so no way...

Carmen Mairena
Jun 17th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Maria is already a "Kournikovized" woman. This means she doesn't have to win in order to get zillions of dollars from everywhere.

So I don't think that a bad Wiimbledon would hurt her in any way!

jj74
Jun 17th, 2006, 07:55 PM
I always said the same about that, Serena spend more than two years between her first and her second grand slam tittle, and she is the active player with more grand slams. Even i don't like Maria's game she is a top player and very young and i think is easy that she wins at least one GS more

slydevil6142
Jun 17th, 2006, 08:55 PM
There is NOTHING wrong with either of her ground strokes Marias problem is she has poor footwork.

Derek.
Jun 17th, 2006, 09:02 PM
:lol:

Jasmin
Jun 18th, 2006, 01:01 AM
Compare Maria to Andy is ridiculous
they slam record say it all
Maria goes pretty in well and deep in tournaments
Andy no....

besides, Andy came as a star and then dissapered, Maria is still there winning things or at least getting in semis
Andy lost in first round of USO'05, RG'05 and 06
maria has more consistence in Slams than even Nadal.... (besides rg)
so no way...

I don't know...roddick got to the wimby finals 2 times after his slam win so that's like 2 years in a row reaching a fina. So Maria and Andy are kind of the similar. Roddick actually got to the final.

Now this past year has been different for Roddick.

Andy.
Jun 18th, 2006, 01:03 AM
MAsha will have to step it up i havent been happy with her last 2 tournaments and either should she. I hope she can put it together for the one that matters the most.

Il Primo!
Jun 18th, 2006, 01:05 AM
It's very important for Venus,Kim,Mauresmo,JHH,Lindsay,Petrova,Hingis...to o ;)

spencercarlos
Jun 18th, 2006, 02:40 AM
After her Wimbledon win, she was promoted as the next great champion who will win many slams and dominate the field. In the last 2 years she was very consistent in top 5 but failed to reach any GS finals. If she fails to reach the finals again this year sponsors may start reconsidering their lucrative deals with her. Right now Maria seems like someone who can win 1-2 more slams in her career with a good draw, rather than someone who can win 5+ in total.

But maybe she will prove me wrong and win Wimbledon, who knows...
I donīt think it will be as important, she just came from injury not too long ago, and definetly the attention will be more on Venus, Henin, Clijsters and Mauresmo. She is still young, just 19 years of age, and already as champion she can repeat, but i donīt think she will this year.

VeeDaQueen
Jun 18th, 2006, 02:46 AM
she is not endorsed for her tennis skills :tape:

spencercarlos
Jun 18th, 2006, 02:50 AM
she is not endorsed for her tennis skills :tape:
Actually a Wimbledon singles title is more than enough to support her tennis skills. She is not Anna Kournikova. :rolleyes:

Il Primo!
Jun 18th, 2006, 02:52 AM
she is not endorsed for her tennis skills :tape:

...Sharapova is not the only beautiful girl of the WTA Tour..Look at Daniella Hantuchova??When she was ranked 5,she has much more endorsements than now(Nike even created a special dress at Wimbledon 2003). Sonce she's less good,they don't really care about her,she's just a glamourous girl nothing more nothing less.
But Shrapova shows power,motivation,drama when she plays tennis..And she didn't win as much anymore,she would hae been less well endorsed,it's logical

tennisjunky
Jun 18th, 2006, 04:43 AM
maria doesnt have any problems. she can beat anyone, she's young, shes mentally strong, she recovers well from bad losses, she is only getting better, and shes commited to playing. shes come really close to being in the finals of a major and most sane people know its just a matter of time before shes winning slams again- it's a given! maria fans arent the only ones who know this, some people are hoping for her to be a one slam wonder and imagine her falling down the ranks but thats just not going to happen.

GracefulVenus
Jun 18th, 2006, 07:20 AM
Think you are over-reacting..........she is still a fantastic tennis player. Her game is showing that. Been in the top 5 for a while now!

Volcana
Jun 18th, 2006, 07:35 AM
If she fails to reach the finals again this year sponsors may start reconsidering their lucrative deals with her.You crazy. Insane. Taken leave of your senses. Don't undestand marketing.

Do you know what they call Sharapova in marketing meetings? 'An Anna Kournikova who wins'. Sure, she doesn't have close to Kournikova's sex appeal, but in the boardroom, winning counts. Sh's got a GS title, plays a lot, wins enough to stay Top Five, and is white, blonde and skinny.

Her sponsors are 'reconsidering' absolutely nothing.

Jasmin
Jun 18th, 2006, 04:16 PM
Sh's got a GS title, plays a lot, wins enough to stay Top Five, and is white, blonde and skinny.

...until the next white skinny blond comes a long and wins a slam title. Then for Maria it will be 'what have you done for me lately'.

henmanhill
Jun 18th, 2006, 04:42 PM
she made her deals because of her looks, grace and charm.

:eek:

Orion
Jun 18th, 2006, 11:50 PM
On the Hantuchova parallel:

When she was ranked 5,she has much more endorsements than now(Nike even created a special dress at Wimbledon 2003). Sonce she's less good,they don't really care about her,she's just a glamourous girl nothing more nothing less.

The big difference is Hantuchova never had a truly phenomenal entrance. She never took off in the USA or Asia, the two biggest markets for non-athletic endorsements. Hantuchova won a Tier I title against a fading Martina Hingis, and then proved capable of winning 4 matches in a row tops. She never had a huge enough win to put her on the marketing map. When Sharapova won Wimbledon, she got through two huge media darlings/endorsement queens, and then backed those wins up at the Year End Championship.

Basically, Hantuchova's rise wasn't big enough for her to remain when her results fell off. Sharapova's rise was/is, and her fall hasn't been very significant, just a sophomore slump.

Incidentally, I don't think any of the 10 million + endorsements have a whole lot to do with tennis. Had any been unmarketable they would never have gotten offers they did. See Kuznetsova, Svetlana. Or Navratilova, Martina. Or Henin, Justine. Evert got huge endorsements over Navratilova when she couldn't win a match against her in the early 80's. The Williams' got huge endorsements for advertisement reasons starting in '99/'00, when they weren't yet the best in the world. Roddick currently earns more in endorsements than Nadal and Federer combined. It's rarely about results after the first big one is on the books.

Jasmin
Jun 19th, 2006, 02:19 PM
Roddick currently earns more in endorsements than Nadal and Federer combined. It's rarely about results after the first big one is on the books.

That's pretty messed up.