PDA

View Full Version : Analysis of where a few players are at


Steffica Greles
Feb 2nd, 2010, 10:51 PM
I've just chosen a few...

Serena Williams


Looking fitter than a couple of years ago, Serena could win at least 3 slams this year if she's eager enough. However, after winning the Australian Open in 2005 and 2007, I thought exactly the same thing. She's unlikely to ever be as eager as she was in 2002. If she really cared that much about records she'd have started winning slams at the rate she is capable of several years ago.


I was watching some footage of her against Henin and Roland Garros in 2007 recently, and, to my surprise, there wasn't much between them. Serena was just the more error prone, but she had Justine on the backfoot plenty of times. She's still a threat at Roland Garros, but needs to quit the drama and the excuses, and just focus on winning.


You never can predict with Serena what's going to happen, but I do tend to think that as she approaches 30, she's more likely to retain her focus than she was a few years ago. But she's ever capricious. Who knows. We know what she's capable of, which is winning all four, but she's only briefly ever reached that level of dominance, many years ago now when she was a lot quicker.


Justine Henin


The potential for winning majors is still there, and so is the motivation. I think it all hinges on whether she's able to reach the same physical level that she always struggled to maintain several years ago without getting ill. And her serve - that must be sorted out. I don't see her really challenging Serena until she's made these key improvements. I think Serena could have beaten her a lot more easily in Australia - scores can be deceptive. Having said that, she might not even have to play Serena all that often.


Kim Clijsters


I think the score she lost by against Porkchopova was revealing. Kim might not be able to attain consistency now that she's playing a part-time schedule. One thing I've noticed is that when Kim's fired up, she's more aggressive, but when she's tired, distracted or just generally wishing she was somewhere else, she steps further back behind the baseline. That's what happened in 2006 and early 2007, when she began to fade, even if only slightly.


I'd be interested to know where Kim's motivation lies now that she's added another slam to her resume. Does she really want to win Wimbledon or the French, which in past years she's hated playing due to the red clay which isn't good for her joints? And what if she gets those pesky injuries again? She told us in 2007 that she couldn't cope with any more.


I have my doubts - and did even when she won the US Open last year - that Kim's comeback will last all that long.


Dinara Safina


Her lack of a slam will continue to motivate her. I don't expect her to disappear into oblivion like, for example, Myskina now that she has the distraction of a few injuries. However, at the moment she's looking very much like she was a stop gap, which even I don't think is totally fair. Even if the Belgians and Williams sisters are better players, that still makes her arguably 5th best when she plays at her highest level. It all rests on whether she can put this back injury fully behind her. If she can, she belongs in the top 6-8, which will always put her in contention. She's a physical specimen given her height and leverage, which is a huge advantage, and another factor in her favour is that, as she nears her mid-20s, she's still one of the younger players given the dearth of junior talent pushing up the rankings.


Jelena Jankovic


Make or break year for her. Her backhand is one of the best in the history of women's tennis, but the rest of her game is average. She used to rely on perseverance and attrition to win her matches, but with her game and confidence falling to pieces over the last year, she hasn't really been able to find the rhythmn she thrives on in order to do that. It will take a lot for her to find that self-belief again, in my view. Between 2006 and 2007, something changed her from a top 20 player at best, to a top 3 player almost over night. It wasn't clear exactly what that was; there were no discernible improvements to the extent that her game had been re-modelled. She stayed in the top ten last year purely on reputation more than anything else; her name and seeding helped her make some inroads into draws. However, if she's lost whatever that 'something extra' was, then she's back to where she was 4 years ago.


Svetlana Kuznetsova


It's clear that she's never going to lead the women's tour. I predict a bad year for her because she simply hasn't appeared bothered since she won in Paris last year. There's not really a lot to say about her - talented, has the game, but chances seem to go begging more often than they're taken. She will in all likelihood be a finalist once or semi-finalist a couple of times in the majors this year.


Venus Williams


Again, not the athlete she was, but still the greatest on the tour. Venus looks ailing and like she's not bothered, but most often does in Australia. The test for her will be Wimbledon. If she can't at least reach the final this year, then yes, I wonder how many more years she has as a serious threat at the grandslams. But at the moment she's no different from how she is at the beginning of most years. In fact, she often loses before the QF in Australia. In 2008, she lost to Ivanovic in the QF and went on to have her best year after the glory years of 2000-2001.


Maria Sharapova


I think the reason Maria is sticking around is because she wants to win Wimbledon one more time. However, in the last couple of years she's started talking as if tennis is rather less important to her. If she relinquishes that dream, I honestly think she'll be gone, so a good run at Wimbledon, or at least a slam, is imperative this year. Another serious injury will probably see her retire.


What made Sharapova different from other powerful baseliners such as Pierce, Davenport, Ivanovic is that she had the brute force to impose her game over theirs. Her mentality was such that she refused to let them out-slog her. It took an iron will. I do wonder whether that iron has started to melt after years in the heat of competition and all its attendant ailments.

Craig.
Feb 2nd, 2010, 11:06 PM
Agree with most of it :yeah:, except Safina being 5th best at her best... LOL, no.

Could you do Sharapova please?

VivalaSeles
Feb 2nd, 2010, 11:12 PM
Agree with most of it :yeah:, except Safina being 5th best at her best... LOL, no.

Could you do Sharapova please?
Same thoughts here too :)

Temperenka
Feb 2nd, 2010, 11:24 PM
I'd love to hear what you have to say about the youngsters (Vika and Caro) and Ana as well.

Great work :yeah:

Potato
Feb 4th, 2010, 01:04 AM
Great analysis! Everything you say is totally true.

serenafan08
Feb 4th, 2010, 01:39 AM
Very nice! Agree with most of what you say. Awesome stuff. :yeah: :D

danieln1
Feb 4th, 2010, 01:53 AM
nice analysis!!

Could you do Ivanovic please??? Slumping ana :sobbing:

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 4th, 2010, 03:04 AM
I've just chosen a few...
Like your analysis. It's pretty reasonable, but this...

Jelena Jankovic

Make or break year for her. Her backhand is one of the best in the history of women's tennis
...not so much. Sorry, but you're the one that mentioned "stop gap" and that's exactly what I think she is/was.

Also, I think Maria is likely down-playing how important tennis is to remove some of the external pressures of being "Maria Sharapova." Now, for a couple of years, ever since the revelation of the shoulder thing, I've said, much to the disdain the the most militant Mashabaters, that Maria's shoulder injury would require significant change on her part otherwise it would threaten her career. When I said this, thought my computer would explode from the verbal bombs hurled my way ("verbal bombs" :rolleyes: ). So many of them will, perhaps, find it surprising that I feel like Maria's going to be okay. She just has to weather this storm. Sooner or later, my beloved Sisters, Clijsters and Juju will be riding off into the sunset, leaving her the Sheriff in town, and believe me - IF she can get through whatever she's going through now - she will impose some frontier (dare I say, "Siberian") justice on all those other girls. 23 is not old.

As for Venus, I think you've got it pretty much right, but HOW she lost this year seemed so much more pathetic in years past. It was infuriating. But, Venus is Venus and being a fan of hers is like playing the stock market - previous performance doesn't guarantee future results. :lol: So, *sigh* , I'm gonna stay "invested."

I like your observations about Clijsters. I, too, think we'll continue to see more erratic result than her usual erratic results. Being a Mom, I think, as a good bit to do with that. The pull and the need a baby --> toddler has for their Mother is tremendous. I don't know a single committed mother who's life is not deeply affected by this - including a certain wife and mother I'm extremely close to ;) .

Henin..., Well, what can I say. Kudos to her for being back and in such fine form, but I have a feeling if she doesn't get the results she wants soon, as in RG, the pressure, speculation and second guessing surrounding her will be too great. Her game will crumble followed by another retirement. However, if she can put together a string of quality victories, win RG, she'll be clear sailing. (though she ain't winnin' wimby).

I don't need to say anything about Serena!! :bounce: :bounce: If she can keep herself healthy, undistracted and improve her form from here and SOMEHOW eek out RG, she could be looking at a Grandslam this year.

Anyway, good analysis.

I'm also pleased that you, limited the "fat" jokes. Though SOME of them are funny.

bandabou
Feb 4th, 2010, 09:26 AM
Good analysis, Steffica. Agreed about most of it.

Serena I think now has the right focus..she's realising that she's doing something special if she can keep it up.

mashafann
Feb 4th, 2010, 09:50 AM
Didn't know you can predict future :rolleyes:

Direwolf
Feb 4th, 2010, 09:56 AM
So this is how you did it...

Serena Williams
Justine Henin
Kim Clijsters
Dinara Safina
Jelena Jankovic
Svetlana Kuznetsova
Venus Williams

Maria Sharapova(can't believe you think dinara is better than her)
so Serena got a bad patch year, Venus, Justine and Kim
and Sharapova and didnt she win Tokyo???

Steffica Greles
Feb 4th, 2010, 05:19 PM
Agree with most of it :yeah:, except Safina being 5th best at her best... LOL, no.

Could you do Sharapova please?


I said arguably. I myself would argue Sharapova is a better player, as would most, but let's not forget it's two years now since Maria actually looked like a champion. That's no short amount of time. Safina has a case that she's 5th best after the Williams sisters and Belgians based on the fact - nothing else - that she's been in the top 2 longer than anyone else over the last two years, other than Serena. No small achievement.

Denise4925
Feb 4th, 2010, 08:01 PM
Like your analysis. It's pretty reasonable, but this...


...not so much. Sorry, but you're the one that mentioned "stop gap" and that's exactly what I think she is/was.

Also, I think Maria is likely down-playing how important tennis is to remove some of the external pressures of being "Maria Sharapova." Now, for a couple of years, ever since the revelation of the shoulder thing, I've said, much to the disdain the the most militant Mashabaters, that Maria's shoulder injury would require significant change on her part otherwise it would threaten her career. When I said this, thought my computer would explode from the verbal bombs hurled my way ("verbal bombs" :rolleyes: ). So many of them will, perhaps, find it surprising that I feel like Maria's going to be okay. She just has to weather this storm. Sooner or later, my beloved Sisters, Clijsters and Juju will be riding off into the sunset, leaving her the Sheriff in town, and believe me - IF she can get through whatever she's going through now - she will impose some frontier (dare I say, "Siberian") justice on all those other girls. 23 is not old.

As for Venus, I think you've got it pretty much right, but HOW she lost this year seemed so much more pathetic in years past. It was infuriating. But, Venus is Venus and being a fan of hers is like playing the stock market - previous performance doesn't guarantee future results. :lol: So, *sigh* , I'm gonna stay "invested."

I like your observations about Clijsters. I, too, think we'll continue to see more erratic result than her usual erratic results. Being a Mom, I think, as a good bit to do with that. The pull and the need a baby --> toddler has for their Mother is tremendous. I don't know a single committed mother who's life is not deeply affected by this - including a certain wife and mother I'm extremely close to ;) .

Henin..., Well, what can I say. Kudos to her for being back and in such fine form, but I have a feeling if she doesn't get the results she wants soon, as in RG, the pressure, speculation and second guessing surrounding her will be too great. Her game will crumble followed by another retirement. However, if she can put together a string of quality victories, win RG, she'll be clear sailing. (though she ain't winnin' wimby).

I don't need to say anything about Serena!! :bounce: :bounce: If she can keep herself healthy, undistracted and improve her form from here and SOMEHOW eek out RG, she could be looking at a Grandslam this year.

Anyway, good analysis.

I'm also pleased that you, limited the "fat" jokes. Though SOME of them are funny.

Great duo of analysis by you and Steffica.

Thank God he left the "fat" jokes out, except I take exception to the "Porkchopova" reference. I think women let alone athletes have enough problems with self-image than to have to endure comments about their bodies from some puter potato. I'll bet "Porkova" would run rings around him on the court though.

Steffica Greles
Feb 4th, 2010, 10:29 PM
Great duo of analysis by you and Steffica.

Thank God he left the "fat" jokes out, except I take exception to the "Porkchopova" reference. I think women let alone athletes have enough problems with self-image than to have to endure comments about their bodies from some puter potato. I'll bet "Porkova" would run rings around him on the court though.

Pffft. They're fair game. They are the people who are supposed to inspire other women to take part in sports, and if they look like they couldn't be arsed to train, they make a mockery of women's athletics and deserve derision for it. That's my take. I'm not interested in them looking 'pretty' or like catwalk models.

Denise4925
Feb 4th, 2010, 10:38 PM
Pffft. They're fair game. They are the people who are supposed to inspire other women to take part in sports, and if they look like they couldn't be arsed to train, they make a mockery of women's athletics and deserve derision for it. That's my take. I'm not interested in them looking 'pretty' or like catwalk models.

No, womens bodies are not fair game. How do you know they don't inspire women to take part in sports? Women obviously are not as shallow thinking or as narrow minded as you seem to be. Women know how much training and conditioning it takes to play a set against these players on tour, let alone two and three sets. You make a mockery of women and you deserve derision for it. Who gives a shit what you're interested in? At one point you were interested in retiring from posting on this forum. What happened to that? :rolleyes:

tennisbear7
Feb 4th, 2010, 10:51 PM
No, womens bodies are not fair game. How do you know they don't inspire women to take part in sports? Women obviously are not as shallow thinking or as narrow minded as you seem to be. Women know how much training and conditioning it takes to play a set against these players on tour, let alone two and three sets. You make a mockery of women and you deserve derision for it. Who gives a shit what you're interested in? At one point you were interested in retiring from posting on this forum. What happened to that? :rolleyes:

:worship::worship::worship:

pov
Feb 4th, 2010, 11:18 PM
I've just chosen a few...


Sensible, thoughtful, well put together analysis? On this board?:eek:

Thank you!

sorceress
Feb 5th, 2010, 12:25 AM
Pffft. They're fair game. They are the people who are supposed to inspire other women to take part in sports, and if they look like they couldn't be arsed to train, they make a mockery of women's athletics and deserve derision for it. That's my take. I'm not interested in them looking 'pretty' or like catwalk models.
I wasn't aware you actually knew their schedules and lifestyle activities back to front.
Ignorant, ignorant post.
No, womens bodies are not fair game. How do you know they don't inspire women to take part in sports? Women obviously are not as shallow thinking or as narrow minded as you seem to be. Women know how much training and conditioning it takes to play a set against these players on tour, let alone two and three sets. You make a mockery of women and you deserve derision for it. Who gives a shit what you're interested in? At one point you were interested in retiring from posting on this forum. What happened to that? :rolleyes:

:worship:

pov
Feb 5th, 2010, 12:38 AM
No, womens bodies are not fair game. How do you know they don't inspire women to take part in sports? Women obviously are not as shallow thinking or as narrow minded as you seem to be. Women know how much training and conditioning it takes to play a set against these players on tour, let alone two and three sets. You make a mockery of women and you deserve derision for it.
Generally I would agree with these sort of sentiments but the focus on "women" makes them even more sexist than comments coming from the other direction. Pro tennis players are athletes and I support similar standards of evaluation being applied across the board whether it's women or men. If an ATP player seems to be out-of-shape he gets called on it. In the same vein, if a WTA player seems to be out-of-shape she gets called on it. Holding to equal standards doesn't make a mockery of women, while treating professional women athletes as if they are psychological frail people who need to be coddled does.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 04:47 PM
Generally I would agree with these sort of sentiments but the focus on "women" makes them even more sexist than comments coming from the other direction. Pro tennis players are athletes and I support similar standards of evaluation being applied across the board whether it's women or men. If an ATP player seems to be out-of-shape he gets called on it. In the same vein, if a WTA player seems to be out-of-shape she gets called on it. Holding to equal standards doesn't make a mockery of women, while treating professional women athletes as if they are psychological frail people who need to be coddled does.

That's bullshit. No they don't. Women are constantly judged and berated for their body shapes and looks. Nobody ever says anything about men. To say that everything is fair is a masculine point of view and one that is not honest. I never intimiated that women were psychologically frail. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. My point is that it is sexist to constantly bring up a woman's body and constantly harp on biased viewpoints of whether someone is fat or fit. As pointed out earlier in either this or another thread, the majority of women at the top of the sport are probably the heaviest, and are constantly referred to by some as being fat. People erroneously judge women by their own biased standards of body type. If they are out-of-shape and/or not fit enough, it will show up in their game. It's not something that can be judged by the outside looking in.

Golovinjured.
Feb 5th, 2010, 04:57 PM
No, womens bodies are not fair game. How do you know they don't inspire women to take part in sports? Women obviously are not as shallow thinking or as narrow minded as you seem to be. Women know how much training and conditioning it takes to play a set against these players on tour, let alone two and three sets. You make a mockery of women and you deserve derision for it. Who gives a shit what you're interested in? At one point you were interested in retiring from posting on this forum. What happened to that? :rolleyes:

Umm, you? Since you're in a thread about his analysis and all. :weirdo:

Golovinjured.
Feb 5th, 2010, 04:58 PM
Generally I would agree with these sort of sentiments but the focus on "women" makes them even more sexist than comments coming from the other direction. Pro tennis players are athletes and I support similar standards of evaluation being applied across the board whether it's women or men. If an ATP player seems to be out-of-shape he gets called on it. In the same vein, if a WTA player seems to be out-of-shape she gets called on it. Holding to equal standards doesn't make a mockery of women, while treating professional women athletes as if they are psychological frail people who need to be coddled does.

100% agree. :yeah:

Martina2
Feb 5th, 2010, 04:59 PM
Good post! Can you analyse some more players?

pov
Feb 5th, 2010, 05:17 PM
Generally I would agree with these sort of sentiments but the focus on "women" makes them even more sexist than comments coming from the other direction. Pro tennis players are athletes and I support similar standards of evaluation being applied across the board whether it's women or men. If an ATP player seems to be out-of-shape he gets called on it. In the same vein, if a WTA player seems to be out-of-shape she gets called on it. Holding to equal standards doesn't make a mockery of women, while treating professional women athletes as if they are psychological frail people who need to be coddled does.

That's bullshit. No they don't. Women are constantly judged and berated for their body shapes and looks. Nobody ever says anything about men. To say that everything is fair is a masculine point of view and one that is not honest. I never intimiated that women were psychologically frail. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. My point is that it is sexist to constantly bring up a woman's body and constantly harp on biased viewpoints of whether someone is fat or fit. As pointed out earlier in either this or another thread, the majority of women at the top of the sport are probably the heaviest, and are constantly referred to by some as being fat. People erroneously judge women by their own biased standards of body type. If they are out-of-shape and/or not fit enough, it will show up in their game. It's not something that can be judged by the outside looking in.
No sorry, it isn't BS. As I said, often I agree with sentiments similar to yours. However, if you really have the idea that ATP or male athletes in general who are perceived as out-of-shape don't get called out on it, you're not seeing things clearly. The idea that "Nobody ever says anything about men" is completely incorrect as incorrect as suggesting that I'm "putting words in your mouth." Your assertion that perspectives and discourse about the fitness and level of "in-shapeness" of professional athletes is somehow detrimental to them just because they're women is to suggest psychological frailty. It's sport - it is all about physical condition. If you want to concentrate on areas where viewpoints on the person's degree of fitness, body-type, muscle/fat ratio, tone, limberness, etc are not valid factors - focusing on women in corporate culture would be coherent.

BTW There is no intelligent person who makes a direct correlation between an athlete's weight and fitness or even slimness/fatness since muscle weighs more than fat.

BTW -2 Attractiveness is not a factor in athletic performance so it's interesting that I haven't seen you lambasting all the threads on this board that focus on people's thoughts about who is attractive and who isn't.

AcesHigh
Feb 5th, 2010, 05:20 PM
Justine Henin


The potential for winning majors is still there, and so is the motivation. I think it all hinges on whether she's able to reach the same physical level that she always struggled to maintain several years ago without getting ill. And her serve - that must be sorted out. I don't see her really challenging Serena until she's made these key improvements. I think Serena could have beaten her a lot more easily in Australia - scores can be deceptive. Having said that, she might not even have to play Serena all that often.


Kim Clijsters


I think the score she lost by against Porkchopova was revealing. Kim might not be able to attain consistency now that she's playing a part-time schedule. One thing I've noticed is that when Kim's fired up, she's more aggressive, but when she's tired, distracted or just generally wishing she was somewhere else, she steps further back behind the baseline. That's what happened in 2006 and early 2007, when she began to fade, even if only slightly.


I'd be interested to know where Kim's motivation lies now that she's added another slam to her resume. Does she really want to win Wimbledon or the French, which in past years she's hated playing due to the red clay which isn't good for her joints? And what if she gets those pesky injuries again? She told us in 2007 that she couldn't cope with any more.


I have my doubts - and did even when she won the US Open last year - that Kim's comeback will last all that long.

:lol: I love how all this about Kim is based on one loss. When in form, she probably rivals Serena as the best player on tour. I think you're just using that loss to support the views you've already had, especially questioning her motivation.

She wouldnt be back if this return wasnt serious.

And I disagree with your analysis on Henin. In Australia, we obviously saw a player in transition.. still making adjustments, still getting used to playing matches again, especially utilizing different strokes and tactics.
That she was able to stretch Serena to 3 in her 2nd tournament back is amazing... yet you doubt her ability to challenge Serena in the future? :rolleyes: And Serena should have won more easily? It wasn't as if Serena was off and Henin was firing on all-cylinders.. they both could have done better, especially Henin in attempting to capture that first set. Even if Henin doesnt improve(which I seriously doubt), she will still be a challenge for anyone on tour.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 07:38 PM
No sorry, it isn't BS. As I said, often I agree with sentiments similar to yours. However, if you really have the idea that ATP or male athletes in general who are perceived as out-of-shape don't get called out on it, you're not seeing things clearly. The idea that "Nobody ever says anything about men" is completely incorrect as incorrect as suggesting that I'm "putting words in your mouth." Your assertion that perspectives and discourse about the fitness and level of "in-shapeness" of professional athletes is somehow detrimental to them just because they're women is to suggest psychological frailty. It's sport - it is all about physical condition. If you want to concentrate on areas where viewpoints on the person's degree of fitness, body-type, muscle/fat ratio, tone, limberness, etc are not valid factors - focusing on women in corporate culture would be coherent.

Yes, it is. I couldn't care less what you normally agree or don't agree with. That statement doesn't make what you say valid. You haven't shown any proof other than your words that the ATP and male athletes in general are perceived "out of shape" and get called out by the media, etc. on this.

I made no such assertion that "perspective and discourse regarding female fitness levels of professional athletes" is "somehow detrimential" to women. You're putting words in my mouth again in order to make your argument. My assertion was that females are targeted for such discussion moreso than men and unjustly so, in my opinion.

BTW -2 Attractiveness is not a factor in athletic performance so it's interesting that I haven't seen you lambasting all the threads on this board that focus on people's thoughts about who is attractive and who isn't.

I don't agree with them and because of that, you don't see me posting in them, so what's your point? Besides, what good would it do? People are free to start any thread in this forum that conforms to the rules. I don't feel compelled to participate.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 07:40 PM
:lol: I love how all this about Kim is based on one loss. When in form, she probably rivals Serena as the best player on tour. I think you're just using that loss to support the views you've already had, especially questioning her motivation.

:spit: You're certifiable Aces.

She wouldnt be back if this return wasnt serious.

And I disagree with your analysis on Henin. In Australia, we obviously saw a player in transition.. still making adjustments, still getting used to playing matches again, especially utilizing different strokes and tactics.
That she was able to stretch Serena to 3 in her 2nd tournament back is amazing... yet you doubt her ability to challenge Serena in the future? :rolleyes: And Serena should have won more easily? It wasn't as if Serena was off and Henin was firing on all-cylinders.. they both could have done better, especially Henin in attempting to capture that first set. Even if Henin doesnt improve(which I seriously doubt), she will still be a challenge for anyone on tour.

Excuses. :rolleyes:

mboyle
Feb 5th, 2010, 08:06 PM
A lot of this is good. I think the Sharapova analysis is a little off. I think Double Fist does well with it.

azinna
Feb 5th, 2010, 08:10 PM
Good analysis, Steffica, and good thread, you guys. Serena does indeed have a strong chance to collect 2-3 slams this year. Primarily because her response to the return of Justine has been telling: nothing motivates her more than having a clear foil/rival and she seems to have upped her preparation from even last year's level. She can improve further, but the key will be staying healthy and playing with calm, clarity, conviction and confidence. When she does that, her footwork, anticipation and strategy come together and she's really too tough to beat.

I personally don't question Kim's motivation (always refrain from reading people's minds) but it is pretty difficult to play at that consistently high a level so early post-comeback. She actually didn't play all that well during the early rounds of the US Open last year. But the Kim Comeback Story was so captivating, she was able to relax and fight, with nothing to lose, while her opponents couldn't help but feel they should be beating her....while having a hard time remembering how. The AO loss indicated a palpable shift in these dynamics: tennis now considers her a legitimate contender for any slam, so it's much more difficult now for Kim to not feel pressure; her capable opponents are now coming in with Kim-specific game plans and any loss of feel, timing or calm on Kim's part will be exploited; and these off days are likely to recur, given that she's still in her first year of her comeback and she's not going full-time.

Justine almost fully benefited from the Kim Scenario above. Several of her opponents -- including Serena -- were visibly playing nervous, pressured and confused tennis out there, while Justine was for the most part able to able to think of each win as a bonus. This Aussie Open may have been her best chance to snag a slam during her first season back, since from here on out it gets that much tougher mentally, physically and competitively to win those 7 matches. I see a "surprise loss" at RG this year for Justine, especially if she comes in still adamant about perfecting an new, ultra-aggressive game plan designed to win Wimbledon (in 2011).

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 08:26 PM
I see a "surprise loss" at RG this year for Justine, especially if she comes in still adamant about perfecting an new, ultra-aggressive game plan designed to win Wimbledon (in 2011).

Good analysis as well, azinna. But, I thought Justine was trying to win this years Wimbledon. :confused:

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 5th, 2010, 08:27 PM
That's bullshit. No they don't. Women are constantly judged and berated for their body shapes and looks. Nobody ever says anything about men. To say that everything is fair is a masculine point of view and one that is not honest. I never intimiated that women were psychologically frail. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. My point is that it is sexist to constantly bring up a woman's body and constantly harp on biased viewpoints of whether someone is fat or fit. As pointed out earlier in either this or another thread, the majority of women at the top of the sport are probably the heaviest, and are constantly referred to by some as being fat. People erroneously judge women by their own biased standards of body type. If they are out-of-shape and/or not fit enough, it will show up in their game. It's not something that can be judged by the outside looking in.
This is a great post D'! :yeah:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Denise4925 again.

I admit, I'm probably not the most "evolved" man when it comes to Women's issues. Though I do try, my wife still thinks me something of a neanderthal. :shrug:

The issue of female athletes and fitness is a fascinating one because of the difference in body types of Men and Women. For example, you look at Women's college hoops. Even at the very highest level, you can find starters on squads who SEEM to be "fat" by Steffica's standard and would be called out of shape. Yet they are up and down that court virtually every minute of the game. Women naturally, in general, carry more body fat than men - at least that's my understanding unless new studies have come out in recent years that dispel that fact. So it would seem that the body fat "standard" (as if their were such a thing) in judging a female athlete would, perforce, be different than that of a male athlete, given the natural predisposition of each.

So, again, I get back to what I've ALWAYS said about this issue. A better standard, in comparing Women's fitness to Men's fitness (setting the notion of "obesity" aside) is to examine and evaluate CARDIOVASCULAR fitness. That, unless someone knows a study out there that says otherwise, is where men and women start off on EQUAL footing. I suppose we could always examine how many men run out of gas over the course of three sets, v/s how many women do. THEN, I think, we would have a more equitable way of determining who's fit and who's not.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 08:34 PM
This is a great post D'! :yeah:



I admit, I'm probably not the most "evolved" man when it comes to Women's issues. Though I do try, my wife still thinks me something of a neanderthal. :shrug:

The issue of female athletes and fitness is a fascinating one because of the difference in body types of Men and Women. For example, you look at Women's college hoops. Even at the very highest level, you can find starters on squads who SEEM to be "fat" by Steffica's standard and would be called out of shape. Yet they are up and down that court virtually every minute of the game. Women naturally, in general, carry more body fat than men - at least that's my understanding unless new studies have come out in recent years that dispel that fact. So it would seem that the body fat "standard" (as if their were such a thing) in judging a female athlete would, perforce, be different than that of a male athlete, given the natural predisposition of each.

So, again, I get back to what I've ALWAYS said about this issue. A better standard, in comparing Women's fitness to Men's fitness (setting the notion of "obesity" aside) is to examine and evaluate CARDIOVASCULAR fitness. That, unless someone knows a study out there that says otherwise, is where men and women start off on EQUAL footing. I suppose we could always examine how many men run out of gas over the course of three sets, v/s how many women do. THEN, I think, we would have a more equitable way of determining who's fit and who's not.

Thanks DF. That's the point I was trying to make. Because women have more body fat than men, it's easy to say that a female athlete is not fit based on what she looks like, but it's not a quantifier of her fitness or whether she's "in shape" or "out of shape".

sportywoman
Feb 5th, 2010, 09:17 PM
While this analysis is somewhat true TODAY. I think people should not be carried away and should based their predictions on RECURRENT past behaviour, the most closest in time compared to that present situation .

And based on this CONSISTENCY is the least value shared by all of them within a yearly span.

Actually the recent one who consistently had good results during a whole year was...Justine in 2007, then Kim I think in 2005 and then Serena in 2002.

Based on that i wouldn't predict anything on anyone based on results of 1/12 of the year when 11/12 still has to be run and that all those who have been mentioned haven't been consistent for years during an entire year.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 09:20 PM
Duh.

Just sayin...:shrug:

azinna
Feb 5th, 2010, 09:42 PM
Good analysis as well, azinna. But, I thought Justine was trying to win this years Wimbledon. :confused:

Yeah, but I think winning Wimbledon this year will be tough, tough, tough, and even Henin/Rodriguez know that. No matter what she says publicly, they've got to know the changes in technique and strategy they're instituting will take a while to be instinctive, well-executed in big points and big matches, against truly capable players. Especially for Justine. So I'm figuring they have 2011 in mind. That attitude may even relax her enough to collect a slam this year.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 5th, 2010, 09:47 PM
While this analysis is somewhat true TODAY. I think people should not be carried away and should based their predictions on RECURRENT past behaviour, the most closest in time compared to that present situation .

And based on this CONSISTENCY is the least value shared by all of them within a yearly span.

Actually the recent one who consistently had good results during a whole year was...Justine in 2007, then Kim I think in 2005 and then Serena in 2002.

Based on that i wouldn't predict anything on anyone based on results of 1/12 of the year when 11/12 still has to be run and that all those who have been mentioned haven't been consistent for years during an entire year.

Serena's 2009 was damned consistent. two slams and a YEC.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 09:54 PM
Yeah, but I think winning Wimbledon this year will be tough, tough, tough, and even Henin/Rodriguez know that. No matter what she says publicly, they've got to know the changes in technique and strategy they're instituting will take a while to be instinctive, well-executed in big points and big matches, against truly capable players. Especially for Justine. So I'm figuring they have 2011 in mind. That attitude may even relax her enough to collect a slam this year.

Yeah, because there's a enough pressure on her to win RG this year and then to have said all this stuff about winning Wimbledon this year, she's really going to be under a lot of pressure at Wimbledon.

AcesHigh
Feb 5th, 2010, 10:03 PM
Serena's 2009 was damned consistent. two slams and a YEC.

You said consistent but gave only 3 titles.

Serena's 2009 was great.. but I wouldnt use consistency to describe it.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 5th, 2010, 10:08 PM
You said consistent but gave only 3 titles.

Serena's 2009 was great.. but I wouldnt use consistency to describe it.
Consistent... when it mattered MOST.

...said DOUBLEFIST, brandishing an open can o' worms.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 10:25 PM
Consistent... when it mattered MOST.

...said DOUBLEFIST, brandishing an open can o' worms.

Consistent enough to end the year No.1. :lol:

Six Feet Under
Feb 5th, 2010, 10:56 PM
There are some very interesting standpoints in this thread.

Steffica Greles, you have made some good statements into where players are at, thank you for your insights.

But i do agree that "fat jokes" are vulgar and ironic considering the physical fitness that all professional tennis players require.

As for the women and men, honestly, as much as i hate it, there is a gender inequality problem even in a modern world. Especially ATP players in comparison to WTA players are definitely stressed about the physical fitness and appearances more. This is not to say that ATP players aren't under there own pressures that the media and other factors put on them, but if a WTA play isn't the perfect skinny supermodel build, which does not always define peak physical fitness, there is always someone to berate them for it.

MrSerenaWilliams
Feb 5th, 2010, 11:16 PM
Consistent enough to end the year No.1. :lol:
at the majors:
W
QF
W
SF

+ F, W at the next 2 biggest events she played

that's pretty consistent to me :shrug:

Plus she reached the semis of Sydney, Paris, Dubai, and Toronto

Dunlop1
Feb 5th, 2010, 11:24 PM
If an ATP player seems to be out-of-shape he gets called on it.

That's bullshit. No they don't. Women are constantly judged and berated for their body shapes and looks. Nobody ever says anything about men.

Not true.
David Nalbandian is constantly criticized for his appearance. Even though he is pretty fit. He is the Serena of the men's tour.
Just type in David Nalba... in google and the 2nd suggestion after his name is "David Nalbandian Fat"
Marcos Baghdatis, who isn't even overweight, always has his fitness questioned.

Matt01
Feb 5th, 2010, 11:31 PM
You said consistent but gave only 3 titles.

Serena's 2009 was great.. but I wouldnt use consistency to describe it.


Correct. No matter how many Slams you are winning, when you lose 4 times in a row in the first round, your year cannot be consistant.

The Dawntreader
Feb 5th, 2010, 11:42 PM
Correct. No matter how many Slams you are winning, when you lose 4 times in a row in the first round, your year cannot be consistant.

I'd agree with this. Consistency has to be all encompassing if you are to tag it with a tennis player.

However, Serena's year was fabulous.

AnnaK_4ever
Feb 6th, 2010, 12:31 AM
Correct. No matter how many Slams you are winning, when you lose 4 times in a row in the first round, your year cannot be consistant.

Serena has never lost 4 times in a row in the first round. Try again.

Noctis
Feb 6th, 2010, 01:21 AM
Serena has never lost 4 times in a row in the first round. Try again.

Step to this Carlito and TMatt
only 3 times in a row if your going to say this next.
It was all on clay injury Playing in Marbella.Late night vs Patty,and Retired vs Franny
than without winning a single match on Clay.Reach QF in RG.Than without playing Grass warm up wins Wimbledon.

MrSerenaWilliams
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:16 AM
Correct. No matter how many Slams you are winning, when you lose 4 times in a row in the first round, your year cannot be consistant.


Can you please tell me when exactly Serena lost in 4 first round matches? :wavey:

Thanks :hug:

Matt01
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:37 AM
Step to this Carlito and TMatt
only 3 times in a row if your going to say this next.
It was all on clay injury Playing in Marbella.Late night vs Patty,and Retired vs Franny
than without winning a single match on Clay.Reach QF in RG.Than without playing Grass warm up wins Wimbledon.


Yeah, injury :yawn:

Chrissie-fan
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:44 AM
Yeah, because there's a enough pressure on her to win RG this year and then to have said all this stuff about winning Wimbledon this year, she's really going to be under a lot of pressure at Wimbledon.
I think that she wants to win Wimbledon before her career is over. It doesn't necessarily have to be this year.

Donny
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:49 AM
Yeah, injury :yawn:

Not going to admit you made a mistake? Where's that "class" you always get on Serena about?

Matt01
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:52 AM
Not going to admit you made a mistake? Where's that "class" you always get on Serena about?


I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake. Serena lost 4 times in a row but not always in the first round. The way that annyoing AnnaK poster was jumping on me, that was totally unnecessary, though.

My point about Serena's year 2009 not being consistant still stands. :)

Donny
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:55 AM
I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake. Serena lost 4 times in a row but not always in the first round. The way that annyoing AnnaK poster was jumping on me, that was totally unnecessary, though.

My point about Serena's year 2009 not being consistant still stands. :)

'Not always in the first round'. Well, yea, the first of those losses was the final of the largest non slam event in tennis. Way to be misleading.

Matt01
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:01 AM
'Not always in the first round'. Well, yea, the first of those losses was the final of the largest non slam event in tennis. Way to be misleading.


How is Miami the largest non Slam event? The YEC is more important than Miami, which is on the same level as IW, Madrid and Bejing.

Donny
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:13 AM
How is Miami the largest non Slam event? The YEC is more important than Miami, which is on the same level as IW, Madrid and Bejing.

Large \Large\ (l[aum]rj), adjective [Compar. {Larger} (l[aum]r"j[~e]r); superl. {Largest}.] [F., fr. L. largus. Cf. {Largo}.]

1. Exceeding most other things of like kind in bulk, capacity, quantity, superficial dimensions, or number of constituent units; big; great; capacious; extensive; -- opposed to {small}; as, a large horse; a large house or room; a large lake or pool; a large jug or spoon; a large vineyard; a large army; a large city.

It's tied with Indian Wells for the largest draw of any WTA event. Hope that helps.

Matt01
Feb 6th, 2010, 10:20 AM
Large \Large\ (l[aum]rj), adjective [Compar. {Larger} (l[aum]r"j[~e]r); superl. {Largest}.] [F., fr. L. largus. Cf. {Largo}.]

1. Exceeding most other things of like kind in bulk, capacity, quantity, superficial dimensions, or number of constituent units; big; great; capacious; extensive; -- opposed to {small}; as, a large horse; a large house or room; a large lake or pool; a large jug or spoon; a large vineyard; a large army; a large city.

It's tied with Indian Wells for the largest draw of any WTA event. Hope that helps.


Then you should have mentioned Indian Wells as well in your post above and not only Miami. Way to be misleading. :p

And besides, the "largeness" of a tournament is hardly an important factor.

MrSerenaWilliams
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:36 PM
How is Miami the largest non Slam event? The YEC is more important than Miami, which is on the same level as IW, Madrid and Bejing.

:bs:

Matt01
Feb 7th, 2010, 01:01 AM
:bs:


:bs:

Denise4925
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:23 PM
Not true.
David Nalbandian is constantly criticized for his appearance. Even though he is pretty fit. He is the Serena of the men's tour.
Just type in David Nalba... in google and the 2nd suggestion after his name is "David Nalbandian Fat"
Marcos Baghdatis, who isn't even overweight, always has his fitness questioned.

Women are constantly judged and berated for their body shapes and looks.
Did I say anything about "fitness" in that post? :confused:

Denise4925
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:26 PM
I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake. Serena lost 4 times in a row but not always in the first round. The way that annyoing AnnaK poster was jumping on me, that was totally unnecessary, though.

My point about Serena's year 2009 not being consistant still stands. :)

No matter how many Slams you are winning, when you lose 4 times in a row in the first round, your year cannot be consistant.

You did say in the first round and AnnaK was correcting you. :shrug:

Denise4925
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:28 PM
Then you should have mentioned Indian Wells as well in your post above and not only Miami. Way to be misleading. :p

And besides, the "largeness" of a tournament is hardly an important factor.

Why should he have mentioned IW, when it doesn't change any of what he said as being true? You didn't mention IW. You mentioned YEC. :weirdo:

Originally Posted by Matt01
How is Miami the largest non Slam event? The YEC is more important than Miami, which is on the same level as IW, Madrid and Bejing.

Dunlop1
Feb 8th, 2010, 12:30 AM
Did I say anything about "fitness" in that post? :confused:

You said women are constantly being judged about their body shapes and looks while the men aren't.
I corrected you with David Nalbandian as an example who is constantly being berated for his physical appearance. A google search for his name has as a suggestion 'David Nalbandian fat'.

Did you not read that or are you just pretending to not notice??

Denise4925
Feb 8th, 2010, 12:41 AM
You said women are constantly being judged about their body shapes and looks while the men aren't.
I corrected you with David Nalbandian as an example who is constantly being berated for his physical appearance. A google search for his name has as a suggestion 'David Nalbandian fat'.

Did you not read that or are you just pretending to not notice??

Do you want me to seriously respond to the one man you used n on the ATP as an example of men (plural) being constantly criticized for their physical appearance? Actually, you made my point. You could only come up with one, possibly two examples if you include Bagdattis, to the litany I could point out on the womens side. So, thanks. :wavey:

Dunlop1
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:02 AM
Do you want me to seriously respond to the one man you used n on the ATP as an example of men (plural) being constantly criticized for their physical appearance? Actually, you made my point. You could only come up with one, possibly two examples if you include Bagdattis, to the litany I could point out on the womens side. So, thanks. :wavey:

You are really slow. The reason men aren't criticized as much is because you have to be in top shape to compete on the men's tour.

Since it is your contention that the men aren't criticized about their physical appearance, how about you actually give some examples of top players that are fat, rather than spout as fact, things you don't know about.

Donny
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:04 AM
You are really slow. The reason men aren't criticized as much is because you have to be in top shape to compete on the men's tour.

Since it is your contention that the men aren't criticized about their physical appearance, how about you actually give some examples of top players that are fat, rather than spout as fact, things you don't know about.

How is this not true of the WTA?

LeRoy.
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:07 AM
Excellent post StefficaGreles ! :worship: Thoroughly enjoyed reading your non-biased views on these wonderful women !

Dunlop1
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:10 AM
How is this not true of the WTA?

The men's game is more physical and taxing. It is a completely different game than the women's game. The advent of polyester strings and topspin means that there are fewer errors, rallies are longer, points are more athletic and thus more demanding of the body. Thus the men have to be in GREAT physical shape to stay at the top.
Look at Novak who early in his career would fade out of long matches. Same with Murray. They have gotten stronger and fitter to challenge the very top.

The women's game is very flat hitting. The rallies are shorter and there are more errors. It taxes the women less. (Doesn't mean it still isn't physical).

Since you agreed with Denise that the men aren't criticized about their physical appearance, which men were you talking about?

Donny
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:15 AM
The men's game is more physical and taxing. It is a completely different game than the women's game. The advent of polyester strings and topspin means that there are fewer errors, rallies are longer, points are more athletic and thus more demanding of the body. Thus the men have to be in GREAT physical shape to stay at the top.
Look at Novak who early in his career would fade out of long matches. Same with Murray. They have gotten stronger and fitter to challenge the very top.

The women's game is very flat hitting. The rallies are shorter and there are more errors. It taxes the women less. (Doesn't mean it still isn't physical).

Since you agreed with Denise that the men aren't criticized about their physical appearance, which men were you talking about?

What are you talking about?

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:22 AM
you mean then men's game is very taxing when you have men like nole who are close to the career retirement slam (1 retirement away) who is #2 in the world?? who seemingly always has breathing issues?? you mean THAT atp?

Dunlop1
Feb 8th, 2010, 03:17 AM
you mean then men's game is very taxing when you have men like nole who are close to the career retirement slam (1 retirement away) who is #2 in the world?? who seemingly always has breathing issues?? you mean THAT atp?

I have read and re-read this post, to see if there was a logical thought in there, but alas couldn't find any.
Did you consider that Novak has breathing problems and that due to the taxing nature of the men's game, this condition is aggravated making him unable to complete a tiny minority of his matches?
Did you also consider that this mightn't be the case if the men's game wasn't as taxing?

Did that ever cross your mind, or did you just 'knee-jerk' post the first thing that came into your mind?

If your point is that the men's game isn't more taxing than the women's (which is totally false), then state and explain why, and keep the drive-by posts to yourself.
Don't be like Denise saying that the men don't get criticized for their shape when the reality is the few ones that should, do get criticized.

Donny
Feb 8th, 2010, 03:33 AM
I have read and re-read this post, to see if there was a logical thought in there, but alas couldn't find any.
Did you consider that Novak has breathing problems and that due to the taxing nature of the men's game, this condition is aggravated making him unable to complete a tiny minority of his matches?
Did you also consider that this mightn't be the case if the men's game wasn't as taxing?

Did that ever cross your mind, or did you just 'knee-jerk' post the first thing that came into your mind?

If your point is that the men's game isn't more taxing than the women's (which is totally false), then state and explain why, and keep the drive-by posts to yourself.
Don't be like Denise saying that the men don't get criticized for their shape when the reality is the few ones that should, do get criticized.

How is the men's game more physically taxing? I've seen numerous women players do far more work in a much than Djokovic did in his retirements. Someone like Jankovic probably does more running than Djokovic ever has to do in three sets matches.

archie4
Feb 8th, 2010, 04:12 AM
As for Venus, I think you've got it pretty much right, but HOW she lost this year seemed so much more pathetic in years past. It was infuriating. But, Venus is Venus and being a fan of hers is like playing the stock market - previous performance doesn't guarantee future results. :lol: So, *sigh* , I'm gonna stay "invested."
:haha: That is a fantastic analogy--so true! I love Venus, but she can really take you for a ride.

bandabou
Feb 8th, 2010, 04:23 AM
I guess if you go by the injuries on the men's tour then it IS more taxing. Roddick, Djoko (only when losing), Nadal, Hewitt...I'm sure I'm forgetting some more players.

Dunlop1
Feb 8th, 2010, 04:40 AM
How is the men's game more physically taxing?

I expatiated on this in my previous post which you quoted. Feel free to read it.

I've seen numerous women players do far more work in a much than Djokovic did in his retirements. Someone like Jankovic probably does more running than Djokovic ever has to do in three sets matches.

What kind of spurious rationalization is this? Are you serious with this Donny?

Let's just say that Jankovic (and other women) do more work than Djokovic when comparing their matches (which they don't).
Is the strength of your position that Djokovic represents the entire ATP??

Djokovic faces a ball with more rpms + height on it.
If you play tennis you know the difference playing a flat hitter versus a player who hits with aggressive topspin. It takes more work to overcome the spin when returning such a ball versus a flat ball not to mention more work in the footwork dept.

Men and women play a different game. It's not really up for debate that the men's game is more taxing. You can choose to believe otherwise but that's just wishful thinking.

And to tie it in to the thread, some WTA players could do with losing pounds and getting in better shape.