PDA

View Full Version : Are we seeing the "age of Williams" again?


ZeroSOFInfinity
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:14 PM
The Australian, Wimbledon and US slams are in Serena's hands.
Both the sisters currently occupy 2 of the top-4 WTA rankings.

Are we seeing the return / new "age of Williams" at the moment?

P.S: Yeah, I'm back... and my Wimby prediction sucks. Should keep my day job :lol:. By the way, you might have seen me at Henmen Hill during the men's final... waving my hands at the camera :p

Thanx4nothin
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:58 PM
Lol with Serena and Venus ranked 2 and 3 and Serena having won 3/4 slams and the williamses having won the last 3 Wimbledons...I'd say definitely!

SAEKeithSerena
Jul 8th, 2009, 01:58 PM
yup!

CloudAtlas
Jul 8th, 2009, 02:55 PM
Yes at the moment, although I also think that the WTA is going through a transitional period , a lot of the top players other than them are playing nowhere near their best and some of them are just past it and are in the top 10 by default.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:00 PM
Yes at the moment, although I also think that the WTA is going through a transitional period , a lot of the top players other than them are playing nowhere near their best and some of them are just past it and are in the top 10 by default.

Dementieva is playing the best she ever has. Safina is at the peak of her career. Svetlana just won a grandslam, so she is having one of her best seasons ever.

Azarenka/Caroline/Sabine/ are a constant threat, having a considerable amount of top 10 wins in the past 12 months.

I would say, its very competitive right now.

The only two players who could make a major difference are Maria and Ana. But you cannot have every top player playing their best at a time. (Momo hasnt played well since early 2007, and her 2009 is much much better than her past 2 years)

Polikarpov
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:00 PM
Hmmm, I think I'll wait for Venus' performance at the US Open first.

CloudAtlas
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:12 PM
Dementieva is playing the best she ever has. Safina is at the peak of her career. Svetlana just won a grandslam, so she is having one of her best seasons ever.

Azarenka/Caroline/Sabine/ are a constant threat, having a considerable amount of top 10 wins in the past 12 months.

I would say, its very competitive right now.

The only two players who could make a major difference are Maria and Ana. But you cannot have every top player playing their best at a time. (Momo hasnt played well since early 2007, and her 2009 is much much better than her past 2 years)


Apart from maybe Dementieva , Jankovic and Ivanovic are the two players who can challenge the WS in terms of speed, power and athleticism and their 2008 form seems to have deserted them. Svetlana is a threat only on clay and is the most inconsistent of the top 10 players , winning a GS one week then getting bagelled by Wozniak on grass the next.

Other than on clay, Safina will never be a threat to any Williams sister playing well. And even on clay she wouldn't have beaten Serena. Wozniacki isn't a threat right now.

The hard hitting youngsters coming up like Azarenka, Cibulkova and Lisicki will most likely be the ones who eventually topple them completely but it'll take 2-3 years at least for them to reach their peaks.

It's not that competitive right now , when you had Clisters (even though she had an abysmal H2H against either sister) , Henin , Mauresmo, Daveport , Hingis , Capriati e.t.c that was a competitive era , right now the WS are almost always the heavy favourites against any player.

Andy T
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:15 PM
Serena is definitely back with a vengeance but for it to be an "age of Williams", Venus would have to be getting to finals as she did before. This is far from the case. Her GS record over the last 12 months puts her about 5th:
Serena WWWQ
Sveta WQ33
Dinara FFSS
Jelena F443
Venus FQ32
(Last year's US in italics)
and taking the whole tour into account, she's only 6th in the 2009 race, behind Serena, Sveta, Dinara, Elena and Vika.

If she can have a good hardcourt season and do well at the US Open, she stands a chance of moving up but right now it's Serena out in front with Venus just one more in the chasing pack.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 8th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Apart from maybe Dementieva , Jankovic and Ivanovic are the two players who can challenge the WS in terms of speed, power and athleticism and their 2008 form seems to have deserted them. Svetlana is a threat only on clay and is the most inconsistent of the top 10 players , winning a GS one week then getting bagelled by Wozniak on grass the next.

Other than on clay, Safina will never be a threat to any Williams sister playing well. And even on clay she wouldn't have beaten Serena. Wozniacki isn't a threat right now.

The hard hitting youngsters coming up like Azarenka, Cibulkova and Lisicki will most likely be the ones who eventually topple them completely but it'll take 2-3 years at least for them to reach their peaks.

It's not that competitive right now , when you had Clisters (even though she had an abysmal H2H against either sister) , Henin , Mauresmo, Daveport , Hingis , Capriati e.t.c that was a competitive era , right now the WS are almost always the heavy favourites against any player.

When you compare this Era with the most competitive era WTA has ever seen, it will look easy ofcourse.

You said that all the top players are nowhere near their best. As I said before, there are a lot of players out there who are in form and can make life really hard for the WS on tour. Sveta almos tbeat Serena at AO this year, so its not like she is a threat only on clay.

Just because the WS are favourites doesnt mean its not a competitive ERA.

Horizon
Jul 8th, 2009, 04:10 PM
Serena is definitely back with a vengeance but for it to be an "age of Williams", Venus would have to be getting to finals as she did before. This is far from the case. Her GS record over the last 12 months puts her about 5th:
Serena WWWQ
Sveta WQ33
Dinara FFSS
Jelena F443
Venus FQ32
(Last year's US in italics)
and taking the whole tour into account, she's only 6th in the 2009 race, behind Serena, Sveta, Dinara, Elena and Vika.

If she can have a good hardcourt season and do well at the US Open, she stands a chance of moving up but right now it's Serena out in front with Venus just one more in the chasing pack.
Elena has SF SF R3 SF
which trumps Jelena and Venus too, imo.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:29 PM
The problem is, we always tend to see these things in hindsight. By the time we acknowledge it's a Williams age, the age seems to be ending. I hope that's not the case here.

Slutiana
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:41 PM
I don't think so. They will win many more slams, no doubt, but I think that this is a transition period and in two, three, four years from now, someone/s big group will come and take over the reigns.

Olórin
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:46 PM
More the age of Serena really. She's the most talked about female tennis player on the planet and the one holding three of the slams :shrug:

spartanfan
Jul 8th, 2009, 05:47 PM
Well hopefully both Serena and Venus can stay injury free and capitalize on their Wimbledon form leading up to hte USO.

Cakeisgood
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:37 PM
It's more of a Serena age if anything. Vee hasn't done much this year imho. She's ranked highly because those who threaten her are playing horribly.

If only everyone was peak form :sobbing:

starin
Jul 8th, 2009, 06:42 PM
please stop predicting you are so awful at it
:tape::tape:
remember Wimbledon and a certain prediction you made over and over again:rolleyes:

Markus
Jul 8th, 2009, 07:11 PM
please stop predicting you are so awful at it
:tape::tape:
remember Wimbledon and a certain prediction you made over and over again:rolleyes:

You can't help but wonder if this is the reason for this thread.
It looks definitely like a jinx thread:lol:

Kart
Jul 8th, 2009, 08:49 PM
It seems to me just an age of only one Williams sister at the moment.

Denise4925
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:39 PM
Yeah :banana: And all is right with the world. ;)

Denise4925
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Dementieva is playing the best she ever has. Safina is at the peak of her career. Svetlana just won a grandslam, so she is having one of her best seasons ever.

Azarenka/Caroline/Sabine/ are a constant threat, having a considerable amount of top 10 wins in the past 12 months.

I would say, its very competitive right now.

The only two players who could make a major difference are Maria and Ana. But you cannot have every top player playing their best at a time. (Momo hasnt played well since early 2007, and her 2009 is much much better than her past 2 years)

:worship::worship::worship: So everyone needs to STFU about it being only because the WTA is in a slump.

Denise4925
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:45 PM
Serena is definitely back with a vengeance but for it to be an "age of Williams", Venus would have to be getting to finals as she did before. This is far from the case. Her GS record over the last 12 months puts her about 5th:
Serena WWWQ
Sveta WQ33
Dinara FFSS
Jelena F443
Venus FQ32
(Last year's US in italics)
and taking the whole tour into account, she's only 6th in the 2009 race, behind Serena, Sveta, Dinara, Elena and Vika.

If she can have a good hardcourt season and do well at the US Open, she stands a chance of moving up but right now it's Serena out in front with Venus just one more in the chasing pack.


Why do outside slam titles and consistency count only when we are talking about Dinara and her No. 1 status? There's a reason Vee is No. 3 in the world. She had some nice tour titles between Wimbledon '08 and Wimbledon '09 and aside from the last two slams, she's made at least the quarter finals of the US Open '08 and Wimbledon '09.

Denise4925
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:48 PM
Apart from maybe Dementieva , Jankovic and Ivanovic are the two players who can challenge the WS in terms of speed, power and athleticism and their 2008 form seems to have deserted them. Svetlana is a threat only on clay and is the most inconsistent of the top 10 players , winning a GS one week then getting bagelled by Wozniak on grass the next.

Other than on clay, Safina will never be a threat to any Williams sister playing well. And even on clay she wouldn't have beaten Serena. Wozniacki isn't a threat right now.

The hard hitting youngsters coming up like Azarenka, Cibulkova and Lisicki will most likely be the ones who eventually topple them completely but it'll take 2-3 years at least for them to reach their peaks.

It's not that competitive right now , when you had Clisters (even though she had an abysmal H2H against either sister) , Henin , Mauresmo, Daveport , Hingis , Capriati e.t.c that was a competitive era , right now the WS are almost always the heavy favourites against any player.

:lol: They were heavy favorites during Clisters, Henin , Mauresmo, Daveport, Hingis, Capriati era.

jzrnsk
Jul 8th, 2009, 10:56 PM
Apart from maybe Dementieva , Jankovic and Ivanovic are the two players who can challenge the WS in terms of speed, power and athleticism and their 2008 form seems to have deserted them. Svetlana is a threat only on clay and is the most inconsistent of the top 10 players , winning a GS one week then getting bagelled by Wozniak on grass the next.

Other than on clay, Safina will never be a threat to any Williams sister playing well. And even on clay she wouldn't have beaten Serena. Wozniacki isn't a threat right now.

The hard hitting youngsters coming up like Azarenka, Cibulkova and Lisicki will most likely be the ones who eventually topple them completely but it'll take 2-3 years at least for them to reach their peaks.

It's not that competitive right now , when you had Clisters (even though she had an abysmal H2H against either sister) , Henin , Mauresmo, Daveport , Hingis , Capriati e.t.c that was a competitive era , right now the WS are almost always the heavy favourites against any player.


Kuznetsova is not good at grass. Plus, Wozniak is in the form of her life, so you can sympathize with Kuzzi. Anyway, I like them both.

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2009, 11:19 PM
Err...no.

Denise4925
Jul 8th, 2009, 11:22 PM
It's more of a Serena age if anything. Vee hasn't done much this year imho. She's ranked highly because those who threaten her are playing horribly.

If only everyone was peak form :sobbing:

:weirdo:

Human Nature
Jul 8th, 2009, 11:35 PM
:lol: They were heavy favorites during Clisters, Henin , Mauresmo, Daveport, Hingis, Capriati era.

Thats what i wanted to say ... when Henin, clijters, Davenport , Hingis , Mauresmo , Capriati were there all at the same time...the Williams were HEAVY favorites ..:lol:

RenaSlam.
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:10 AM
Yep, so step to it, fucking sluts.

Olórin
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:06 AM
Yep, so step to it, fucking sluts.

:spit:

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:14 AM
With Serena holding 3 of the slams, it could be described as another "age of Serena", but then again she isn't no.1 and hasn't won anything else.

Don't know how Venus could be put in the title without at least including Safina.

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:28 AM
As for the top of the game not being competitive, all the top players regularly lose to each other, nobody is dominating. We're just coming off Wimbledon where the WS are a league above everyone else, but that is not the case anywhere else. We have a very competitive elite, anyone can beat anyone.

Obviously when people compare this period with the 98-03 period, it's going to look weak. And of course, without Davenport/Henin/Clijsters/Mauresmo at the top, this period is weaker, but there are still many good players to be beaten. It's not a walkover for anyone.



:lol: They were heavy favorites during Clisters, Henin , Mauresmo, Daveport, Hingis, Capriati era.

Venus was never a "heavy" favourite against Davenport or Hingis. Most of her matches with them were extremely competitive, and she ended up with losing records vs both. Same with Serena except she ended up with winning records.

Human Nature
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:28 AM
With Serena holding 3 of the slams, it could be described as another "age of Serena", but then again she isn't no.1 and hasn't won anything else.

Don't know how Venus could be put in the title without at least including Safina.

On which criterias does WTA' officials base its choise for THE PLAYER OF THE YEAR ?

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:32 AM
On which criterias does WTA' officials base its choise for THE PLAYER OF THE YEAR ?

Are we calling 2008 the "age of Jankovic" now? :shrug:

Donny
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:32 AM
As for the top of the game not being competitive, all the top players regularly lose to each other, nobody is dominating. We're just coming off Wimbledon where the WS are a league above everyone else, but that is not the case anywhere else. We have a very competitive elite, anyone can beat anyone.

Obviously when people compare this period with the 98-03 period, it's going to look weak. And of course, without Davenport/Henin/Clijsters/Mauresmo at the top, this period is weaker, but there are still many good players to be beaten. It's not a walkover for anyone.





Venus was never a "heavy" favourite against Davenport or Hingis. Most of her matches with them were extremely competitive, and she ended up with losing records vs both. Same with Serena except she ended up with winning records.

Serena has a 10-4 h2h with Davenport. that's better than winning two thirds of the time they played.

Wth are you talking about?

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:37 AM
Serena has a 10-4 h2h with Davenport. that's better than winning two thirds of the time they played.

Wth are you talking about?

I acknowledged the winning record, my point is for most of their matches it wasn't a given that Serena would win and when she did it was usually a close match.

Donny
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:42 AM
I acknowledged the winning record, my point is for most of their matches it wasn't a given that Serena would win and when she did it was usually a close match.

You're saying that from LA 2000 to Charleston 03, when Serena won 6 straight matches in a row against Davenport, with only 2 out of 6 going to three sets, that she wasn't a heavy favorite?

I have an immensely hard time believing that. Scratch that, I have an impossible time believing that.

Denise4925
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:44 AM
Yep, so step to it, fucking sluts.

:lol::lol::lol:

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:47 AM
You're saying that from LA 2000 to Charleston 03, when Serena won 6 straight matches in a row against Davenport, with only 2 out of 6 going to three sets, that she wasn't a heavy favorite?

I have an immensely hard time believing that. Scratch that, I have an impossible time believing that.

Some of the straight setters were still close, Lindsay had 5-2 in the USO semi IIRC. Apart from the couple of heavy losses, I don't think it was a given that Serena would win. Serena wasn't a heavy favourite for their last 3 matches either.

Denise4925
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:53 AM
As for the top of the game not being competitive, all the top players regularly lose to each other, nobody is dominating. We're just coming off Wimbledon where the WS are a league above everyone else, but that is not the case anywhere else. We have a very competitive elite, anyone can beat anyone.

Obviously when people compare this period with the 98-03 period, it's going to look weak. And of course, without Davenport/Henin/Clijsters/Mauresmo at the top, this period is weaker, but there are still many good players to be beaten. It's not a walkover for anyone.


People said the same thing during the Davenport/Henin/Clijsters/Mauresmo era after the Seles/Graf/Sanchez/Sabatini/Novotna era.


Venus was never a "heavy" favourite against Davenport or Hingis. Most of her matches with them were extremely competitive, and she ended up with losing records vs both. Same with Serena except she ended up with winning records.

Venus was a heavy favorite again Hingis during the 2000/2001 period, even though Hingis was No. 1 between 2000/2001 because she was another paper champion (playing 20,000 tournaments a season) once Big Babe tennis began. She couldn't overcome JenCap at the AO or RG and she couldn't overcome Vee at Wimbledon and the US Open. In 2001/2002 she wasn't a factor. Davenport couldn't compete with either Venus or Serena in 2000/'03 and Hingis wasn't a factor during that time (hadn't she retired by then?). Most of Hingis and Davenport's winning record over Venus occured prior to 2000 when she wasn't at her peak. Don't obscure the facts.

Denise4925
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:54 AM
I acknowledged the winning record, my point is for most of their matches it wasn't a given that Serena would win and when she did it was usually a close match.

She was always a favorite to win though :shrug: close matches or not.

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:09 AM
People said the same thing during the Davenport/Henin/Clijsters/Mauresmo era after the Seles/Graf/Sanchez/Sabatini/Novotna era.




Venus was a heavy favorite again Hingis during the 2000/2001 period, even though Hingis was No. 1 between 2000/2001 because she was another paper champion (playing 20,000 tournaments a season) once Big Babe tennis began. She couldn't overcome JenCap at the AO or RG and she couldn't overcome Vee at Wimbledon and the US Open. In 2001/2002 she wasn't a factor. Davenport couldn't compete with either Venus or Serena in 2000/'03 and Hingis wasn't a factor during that time (hadn't she retired by then?). Most of Hingis and Davenport's winning record over Venus occured prior to 2000 when she wasn't at her peak. Don't obscure the facts.

From what I understand, the mid-90's is considered a weak era with the absence of Seles and it got stronger with the emergence of the Sisters, Davenport, Hingis, and later on with the Belgians. Now with the majority of those gone, and more "paper champions/lack of slam winners" than ever, it's understandable why people think this era is weaker.

Davenport was the one who ended Venus' (peak) winning streak in 2000. Venus was closer to her peak in 98/99 than Davenport was in 02/03. Davenport continually gave the Sisters some of their tougher matches then, so I can't see how they were ever "heavy favourites" against her. Slight favourites maybe when they were ranked 1 and 2, but saying heavy implies Davenport was what Safina was to Venus last week, which was never the case.

bandabou
Jul 9th, 2009, 04:53 AM
Venus was never a "heavy" favourite against Davenport or Hingis. Most of her matches with them were extremely competitive, and she ended up with losing records vs both. Same with Serena except she ended up with winning records.

Then it isn't the same with Serena, no? Serena never had any trouble beating Linds..close matches here and there yes, but Serena was the one winning most of the time.

Same with Andy vs Roger..lots of close matches there ( plenty of tiebreakers,4-setters,) but nobody was giving Andy a shot against Roger last sunday.

Cakeisgood
Jul 9th, 2009, 05:26 AM
:weirdo:

Eloquent as always darling.

Knizzle
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:00 AM
From what I understand, the mid-90's is considered a weak era with the absence of Seles and it got stronger with the emergence of the Sisters, Davenport, Hingis, and later on with the Belgians. Now with the majority of those gone, and more "paper champions/lack of slam winners" than ever, it's understandable why people think this era is weaker.

Davenport was the one who ended Venus' (peak) winning streak in 2000. Venus was closer to her peak in 98/99 than Davenport was in 02/03. Davenport continually gave the Sisters some of their tougher matches then, so I can't see how they were ever "heavy favourites" against her. Slight favourites maybe when they were ranked 1 and 2, but saying heavy implies Davenport was what Safina was to Venus last week, which was never the case.Venus owned Davenport pretty badly. She owned LD's game for awhile. LD didn't have much control at times from 2001-2002, even sometimes in 2000.

Serenita
Jul 9th, 2009, 06:05 AM
It's Serena time

volta
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:22 AM
Serena for sure , Venus not so much , she needs to step it up big time

Sharapower
Jul 9th, 2009, 09:27 AM
The age of Williams:
Venus is 29
Serena is 27

Matt01
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:12 AM
Serena never had any trouble beating Linds..


Yeah, right, she never had ANY trouble...you remember the 6:1,6:3 beatdown that Lindsay gave Serena? Or the 6:4,6.2 win when Serena was the defending Us Open champion? :lol:


Venus owned Davenport pretty badly. She owned LD's game for awhile. LD didn't have much control at times from 2001-2002, even sometimes in 2000.


Venus didn't have much control over Lindsay at times, either. Remember the 6:1,6:2 beatdown in Philadelphia or the 6.4,6:0 demolition at the OZ Open? :wavey: :lick:

bandabou
Jul 9th, 2009, 11:28 AM
Yeah, right, she never had ANY trouble...you remember the 6:1,6:3 beatdown that Lindsay gave Serena? Or the 6:4,6.2 win when Serena was the defending Us Open champion? :lol:

Sorry, forgot to add MOST of the time, as 10-4 h2h would suggest. ;)

Olórin
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:39 PM
Perhaps Venus and Serena weren't 'heavy' favourites against Davenport and Hingis after 2000, but Venus from 2000 and Serena from 2002 were certainly clear favourites against these two, they had the upperhand in the rivalry.

This is justified in Venus' case from her six wins in a row against Lindsay and her 9-1 record from winning her first slam until the abdominal injury.

In Serena's case she clearly had the upperhand against Lindsay since she was a 16 year old and Lindsay was 21 years old. Against Martina it was a bit more competitive but Serena was the heavy favourite by 2002. Her semi-final beating of number one Hingis at the US Open in 2001 is quite akin to Venus' recent beating of Safina, considering the relativity that Safina is a hack on grass and that Hingis was a former US Open Champion.

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2009, 12:52 PM
Perhaps Venus and Serena weren't 'heavy' favourites against Davenport and Hingis after 2000, but Venus from 2000 and Serena from 2002 were certainly clear favourites against these two, they had the upperhand in the rivalry.

This is justified in Venus' case from her six wins in a row against Lindsay and her 9-1 record from winning her first slam until the abdominal injury.

In Serena's case she clearly had the upperhand against Lindsay since she was a 16 year old and Lindsay was 21 years old. Against Martina it was a bit more competitive but Serena was the heavy favourite by 2002. Her semi-final beating of number one Hingis at the US Open in 2001 is quite akin to Venus' recent beating of Safina, considering the relativity that Safina is a hack on grass and that Hingis was a former US Open Champion.

I agree they had the upperhand for those few years, but heavy favourite is a bit extreme.

Lindsay and Venus' rivalry was an evenly matched one. They each could give the other a 6-1 6-2 type scoreline, or they could have a closer match. Let's not forget it was almost dead even at 10-9 before Lindsay's career threatening knee injury in 2002.

bandabou
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:07 PM
You keep saying THEY.. it's Vee who had her struggles with Linds and Martina. Serena never had problems with Linds..close matches here and there, but since she almost always won.. she should be considered the fav against Linds, no?

Linds got two (consolation) wins in 2004, but then Serena won the big one at the '05 oz open. So that was that.

Had a harder time with Martina, but by 2001..Martina wasn't the same player anymore.

Monica_Rules
Jul 9th, 2009, 01:10 PM
I think so yes, but it seems like its Serena thats dominating but Venus has gotten much more consistent.

Wouldn't be suprised to see and all williams US open final this year, but in fairness that could alos be down to the shit play of the rest of the tour.

spartanfan
Jul 9th, 2009, 02:48 PM
The thing about Venus and Serena over the past 10-12 years is that when they have the will to play and win, then they do. (when healthy). What Venus and Serena have over the rest of the field is experience and consistency. Who else in the top 30 is left from their generation? Mauresmo?

Denise4925
Jul 9th, 2009, 05:01 PM
From what I understand, the mid-90's is considered a weak era with the absence of Seles and it got stronger with the emergence of the Sisters, Davenport, Hingis, and later on with the Belgians. Now with the majority of those gone, and more "paper champions/lack of slam winners" than ever, it's understandable why people think this era is weaker.

Davenport was the one who ended Venus' (peak) winning streak in 2000. Venus was closer to her peak in 98/99 than Davenport was in 02/03. Davenport continually gave the Sisters some of their tougher matches then, so I can't see how they were ever "heavy favourites" against her. Slight favourites maybe when they were ranked 1 and 2, but saying heavy implies Davenport was what Safina was to Venus last week, which was never the case.

Well, I guess you're right if you're qualifying "favorites".