PDA

View Full Version : Why is Lucic not in Miami?


Brashkoala
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:30 PM
?????

Cat's Pajamas
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:31 PM
A bus can only go across the nation so quickly...

LindsayRulz
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:31 PM
She didn't ask for a wildcard? :shrug:

polishprodigy
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Apparently she had no shot at getting a WC because Miami is run by IMG, a company she is currently suing ;)

MLF
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:32 PM
She would need a wild card and as this is an IMG event there's no way she's getting one as she's currently in a legal dispute with them.

:inlove:
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:33 PM
Apparently she had no shot at getting a WC because Miami is run by IMG, a company she is currently suing ;)

Yes, that's what I thought. :tape:

ce
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:34 PM
miami:mad:

Monica_Rules
Mar 19th, 2007, 10:50 PM
Mirjana:sad:

Frode
Mar 19th, 2007, 11:03 PM
And why is she suing them?

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 20th, 2007, 02:26 AM
Does anyone know how many IMG events there are throughout the year?

I just wanna know how many tournaments she'll be banned from playing (before her ranking hopefully gets high enough for direct entry... then they would have to let her play). :o

ewbangkok
Mar 20th, 2007, 02:27 AM
maybe she wants to rest?

MLucicSuper
Mar 20th, 2007, 04:12 AM
Maybe the people shouldnt be so mean on this board.....coz if they earned few milions in their career and then it gets stolen from them i dont think they would be laughing....
She told teh fans in Indian Wells that she was going to play prequalies for Miami,but couldnt coz of Indian Wells (it was at the same time) I mean come on,i dont agree with everything she has done,but to make fun of her is just not nice ..:wavey:

Brashkoala
Mar 20th, 2007, 05:14 AM
A bus can only go across the nation so quickly...

hahahahahahahaha. that's is so funny and yet so mean.

Brashkoala
Mar 20th, 2007, 05:15 AM
Apparently she had no shot at getting a WC because Miami is run by IMG, a company she is currently suing ;)

oh, no wonder. that makes sense. it's a pity. hope to see her play a lot more tournaments.

faboozadoo15
Mar 20th, 2007, 05:35 AM
it's too bad... but she'll get her fair share of wildcards and she impressed people at indian wells. she's on a slow trail back.

DOUBLEFIST
Mar 20th, 2007, 05:59 AM
And why is she suing them?

I believe their is a suit and a counter-suit. I think she claims they mis-managed and mis-appropriated monies owed to her, and they are claiming that she owes them for being housed in one of their properties.

There was a big article on the whole affair and accompanying sordid details, but I've forgotten most of them.

esquímaux
Mar 21st, 2007, 07:51 AM
A bus can only go across the nation so quickly...*deathness* That's so mean :lol:

esquímaux
Mar 21st, 2007, 08:03 AM
She's prolly sittin' back on her laurels somewhere :shrug:

Steffica Greles
Mar 21st, 2007, 09:05 AM
Maybe the people shouldnt be so mean on this board.....coz if they earned few milions in their career and then it gets stolen from them i dont think they would be laughing....
She told teh fans in Indian Wells that she was going to play prequalies for Miami,but couldnt coz of Indian Wells (it was at the same time) I mean come on,i dont agree with everything she has done,but to make fun of her is just not nice ..:wavey:

First of all Mirjana did not earn a few million while she was competing before 2003. I would be surprised if she earned $500 000.

Secondly, if she was that broke, then why didn't she play to earn some cash?

jrm
Mar 21st, 2007, 09:13 AM
WTA isn't charity - what has she done to deserve one :shrug:

Tenis Srbija
Mar 21st, 2007, 09:44 AM
Does anyone know how many IMG events there are throughout the year?

I just wanna know how many tournaments she'll be banned from playing (before her ranking hopefully gets high enough for direct entry... then they would have to let her play). :o

Well she can't either ask for WC's the whole year :rolleyes: Few more, and that will be it...

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 03:16 PM
Well she can't either ask for WC's the whole year :rolleyes: Few more, and that will be it...
True.

What's the rule on the number of WC's a player is allowed to get?

jazar
Mar 21st, 2007, 03:55 PM
cos she would lose quickly and easily

Martian Willow
Mar 21st, 2007, 03:57 PM
WTA isn't charity - what has she done to deserve one :shrug:

More than Alex Stevenson.

GoDominique
Mar 21st, 2007, 03:58 PM
More than Alex Stevenson.
How so?

tenn_ace
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:00 PM
because stupid IMG would rather subject a junior to a double bagle than give it to someone who can do something of it.

Martian Willow
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:01 PM
How so?

Two WTA titles, for a start. :p

tenn_ace
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:01 PM
A bus can only go across the nation so quickly...


:haha:

FUNNY.

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:09 PM
How so?
How can you even argue that Lucic doesnt deserve wildcards more than Stevenson? She deserves them simply based on what she's been through in her life coupled with what she's done in the past. Plus, she just won a round in Indian Wells and took a top 15 player to 5-7 in a set. The girl can obviously still play.

Stevenson has been getting handout after handout for a while now and has never done anything with them. Lucic is just beginning a comeback and is extremely fit (contrary to Stevenson), so to compare Lucic getting one to Stevenson getting one at this point is dumb. If Lucic got a bunch this year and crashed out miserably in her attempts, then yes, one could argue she shouldnt be given wildcards anymore. But at this point, Mirjana deserves the WC's she gets, certainly a hell of a lot more than Stevenson does.

GoDominique
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:19 PM
Based on career achievements, Lucic is not much ahead of Stevenson, if at all.
That's what I was referring to. :)

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:26 PM
Based on career achievements, Lucic is not much ahead of Stevenson, if at all.
That's what I was referring to. :)
Not much, that's true...but at all? Certainly one would take Lucic's career over Stevenson's any day (that's not saying that much, but still). And she deserves WC's at this moment wayyy more than Stevenson does.

Lucic very well might be completely unsuccessful in this comeback, but she still deserves a chance.

GoDominique
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:43 PM
Not much, that's true...but at all? Certainly one would take Lucic's career over Stevenson's any day (that's not saying that much, but still). And she deserves WC's at this moment wayyy more than Stevenson does.

Lucic very well might be completely unsuccessful in this comeback, but she still deserves a chance.
I don't really care who has had the better (or worse) career. However:

Career-high rankings: Stevenson 18, Lucic 32
Top 100 finishes: Stevenson 5, Lucic 3
Prize money: Stevenson 1.3M, Lucic 850K

Lucic leads in titles and has the doubles and mixed results (with the help of some decent partners, it must be said).

Overall, you could argue for both.

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:48 PM
I don't really care who has had the better (or worse) career. However:

Career-high rankings: Stevenson 18, Lucic 32
Top 100 finishes: Stevenson 5, Lucic 3
Prize money: Stevenson 1.3M, Lucic 850K

Lucic leads in titles and has the doubles and mixed results (with the help of some decent partners, it must be said).

Overall, you could argue for both.
Yeah, true. But I would still take Lucic's. Not that it matters, like you said... but dont you agree? Singles and doubles titles (including a slam and some other nice finishes) just mean more than a couple of top 100 finishes and some extra cash.

GoDominique
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:51 PM
Please don't make me pick one of these two careers. :o

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:52 PM
Please don't make me pick one of these two careers. :o
Death. You know you'd pick Lucic if you had to choose one. :ras: :o

GoDominique
Mar 21st, 2007, 04:55 PM
Death. You know you'd pick Lucic if you had to choose one. :ras: :o
I was assuming that it's about the whole package, including parents.

In that case I think I take Samantha Stevenson over Lucic's father.

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 05:00 PM
I was assuming that it's about the whole package, including parents.

In that case I think I take Samantha Stevenson over Lucic's father.
Oh God no. I'm talking strictly tennis. I'd (reluctantly) take Stevenson's life over Mirjana's.

Steffica Greles
Mar 21st, 2007, 06:23 PM
I personally can't bear Stevenson, but how can anybody seriously say Lucic had a better career?

Both were Wimbledon semi-finalists. Stevenson developed at least some semblance of consistency in 2001/2002 and penetrated the top 20. She defeated the likes of Dokic, Capriati, Dementieva, top players much more recently than those whose scalps Lucic claimed apart from Pierce. With the exception of a couple of tier 4s, a Rome semi-final when she was 16, a runner-up spot to Graf when she was 15, and a few grandslam 3rd rounds, I can't hardly remember Lucic even winning another match. If you check her career results, I'll bet you'll find that 75% of her tournaments are first round losses.

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 06:32 PM
I personally can't bear Stevenson, but how can anybody seriously say Lucic had a better career?
Doubles slam. End of discussion. The categories that Alex trumps Mirjana in arent close to enough to overcoming that. A short stint in the top 20, more top-100 finishes and a couple more top player scalps? Please.

Babolatpro880
Mar 21st, 2007, 06:33 PM
I personally can't bear Stevenson, but how can anybody seriously say Lucic had a better career?

Both were Wimbledon semi-finalists. Stevenson developed at least some semblance of consistency in 2001/2002 and penetrated the top 20. She defeated the likes of Dokic, Capriati, Dementieva, top players much more recently than those whose scalps Lucic claimed apart from Pierce. With the exception of a couple of tier 4s, a Rome semi-final when she was 16, a runner-up spot to Graf when she was 15, and a few grandslam 3rd rounds, I can't hardly remember Lucic even winning another match. If you check her career results, I'll bet you'll find that 75% of her tournaments are first round losses.

That would be the second (out of 2) assumptions you've made about Mirjana's career in this thread, without checking them first, that would be completely WRONG.

She's made $850,000 in her career, not $500,000. And, simply to prove you wrong, I ckecked her results, and she's played 82 tournaments in her career, and has 48 first round losses (give or take a couple, since I might've miscounted), which is around 58%. Surely not great, but to make the stupid assumptions you've madeclearly without even checking is, frankly, stupid.

Steffica Greles
Mar 21st, 2007, 06:55 PM
That would be the second (out of 2) assumptions you've made about Mirjana's career in this thread, without checking them first, that would be completely WRONG.

She's made $850,000 in her career, not $500,000. And, simply to prove you wrong, I ckecked her results, and she's played 82 tournaments in her career, and has 48 first round losses (give or take a couple, since I might've miscounted), which is around 58%. Surely not great, but to make the stupid assumptions you've madeclearly without even checking is, frankly, stupid.

Err, I think you'll find 500k was closer than "a few million". Secondly, 58% is not all that far off 75%. It's terrible.

In almost 6 out of 10 of her tournaments, she failed to win a match. And are you counting among the 42% the tournaments where she qualified and lost in round 1? If so, then the stat is even closer to 75%.

So I don't think, off the top of my head, those guesses were all that bad. Better than you could muster, otherwise you wouldn't have checked.

WhattheDeuce: I thought we were talking singles careers. That's what I was referring to.

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 07:11 PM
If you restrict it to just singles, then Stevenson may have a slight edge. But at least Mirjana has a couple of titles to her name (albeit small ones), and some records which still stand to this day I believe (one of them being she was the only player to ever win the first ever WTA event she competed in). Stevenson's peak years were far and away more "consistent" than Lucic ever was, but Lucic had really, really serious issues in her life that prevented her from both reaching her potential and playing a true full schedule.

MLucicSuper
Mar 21st, 2007, 07:40 PM
http://nuclearworldwarsite.com/russia.html



who ever tries to fight with steffica grelles on this borad...DONT....he/she is a complite idot who bashed Mirjana since the day one....so what is the point in arguing? Is this Mirjans dad? And Alex gets all the WC coz (sad but true) she plays a race card..and she will be getting them forever. .

Steffica Greles
Mar 21st, 2007, 07:55 PM
http://nuclearworldwarsite.com/russia.html



who ever tries to fight with steffica grelles on this borad...DONT....he/she is a complite idot who bashed Mirjana since the day one....so what is the point in arguing? Is this Mirjans dad? And Alex gets all the WC coz (sad but true) she plays a race card..and she will be getting them forever. .

I've "bashed" Mirjana Lucic since not day one, but c2001, because it was clear to me as long ago as that that the girl was not serious about tennis.

So this "idiot" knew a lot longer ago than you did that she would be unable to obtain wildcards and be 25 and unranked.

As for all the trauma she's been through, of course it's very sad -- if it's true. But we only have Mirjana's word on that. None of us really know. And many, many tennis players have their off-court problems, many of which we don't know about because they don't appeal for our sympathy through the press.

I judge Mirjana as a tennis player.

WhatTheDeuce
Mar 21st, 2007, 08:05 PM
I've "bashed" Mirjana Lucic since not day one, but c2001, because it was clear to me as long ago as that that the girl was not serious about tennis.
Completely unfair statement.

And to suggest Mirjana isnt being truthful about the traumas in her life is probably more unfair.

Helen Lawson
Mar 21st, 2007, 08:07 PM
I don't mean to offend, because most of my posts have no value either, but you know you have too much time on your hands when you're debating who has had the better career--Lucic or Stevenson.

Helen Lawson
Mar 21st, 2007, 08:08 PM
I don't mean to offend, because most of my posts have no value either, but you know you have too much time on your hands when you're debating who has had the better career--Lucic or Stevenson.

And I guess that goes for reading through it all, also. :o

tennismaster8820
Mar 21st, 2007, 08:32 PM
I've "bashed" Mirjana Lucic since not day one, but c2001, because it was clear to me as long ago as that that the girl was not serious about tennis.

So this "idiot" knew a lot longer ago than you did that she would be unable to obtain wildcards and be 25 and unranked.

As for all the trauma she's been through, of course it's very sad -- if it's true. But we only have Mirjana's word on that. None of us really know. And many, many tennis players have their off-court problems, many of which we don't know about because they don't appeal for our sympathy through the press.

I judge Mirjana as a tennis player.

This deserves bad repping!:(
How could she be serious about her tennis with all the problems she had!?:rolleyes:
If you would judge Mirjana as a tennis player you would sympathize with her!

goran_the_2nd
Mar 21st, 2007, 10:18 PM
As for all the trauma she's been through, of course it's very sad -- if it's true. But we only have Mirjana's word on that. None of us really know.

yeah right.. think about it for a second. if her dad was such a great guy i think we both agree she wouldnt run away from him, she wouldnt hide from him, and she wouldnt leave pro tennis and all the money she could have earned.