PDA

View Full Version : Is Francesca Schiavone an opportunistic and her Slam just a fluke?


Roookie
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:36 PM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?

spiritedenergy
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:38 PM
nice trolling:tape::awww:

Ferg
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:38 PM
:yawn:


HASNT been done to death the past week.

DualMedia
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:40 PM
no!

cellophane
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:41 PM
Are you trying to be NA-GOAT? :scratch:

I guess it's kind of rude to call it a fluke, but yes, it was lucky.... :o Of course she beat whoever was in her way, so kudos to her. Is she going to win another slam? Not unless she gets the same kind of draw.

Otlichno
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:42 PM
Does it matter? :rolleyes: She won a Slam, I think anyone would be happy to win a slam, whether it was by getting an easy draw or by winning tough matches.

young_gunner913
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:42 PM
She beat the best player of the clay season to win her slam. I think not.

Slutiana
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:42 PM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?
Lord.

shoparound
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:43 PM
It's as fluke-ish as Ana's slam thats for sure

miffedmax
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:46 PM
Fluke is too harsh a word, as it's not like she was just rolling dice or laying a bet on a roulette wheel, and it was strictly up to the mathematical odds.

She worked her ass off to win her trophy.

But on the other hand, some draws are easier than others. If she'd been on Stosur's side of the draw, I doubt she's in the final.

But, as they say, you play who's in front of you, and she is hardly the only slam winner who's had a few breaks go her way.

Is she likely to duplicate it? Probably not. Does that mean she didn't earn it? Definitely not.

Ferg
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:48 PM
Lord.

Hes just angry shes got as many Slam finals as his darling JJ. :awww:

Slutiana
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:50 PM
The thing is, in a normal environment her run wouldn't be weak at all. :shrug: She had to play three top 11 players, the defending champion killa and had a tough first round match. The only reason people call her draw weak is because of who Sam faced, most draws are not that hard but she thoroughly outplayed Sam, her owner and the heavy favourite, in the final so it is completely well deserved.

Dav.
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:51 PM
A top ten player is a journeywoman? :spit:

Fran has had a consistent career of good results and top 15-20 level of play, bar the expected slump periods that come with sustained professional play. It took long enough, but she finally made the step to the next level at the tail end of her career.

MH0861
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:54 PM
Definitely a fluke, but she totally deserved it.

franklinbouvier
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:55 PM
She's not a fluke in that she earned her win fair and square. But she ain't gonna be doing it again.

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 13th, 2010, 10:57 PM
The thing is, in a normal environment her run wouldn't be weak at all. :shrug:

It would. Just like Ivanovic two years ago she didn't face a single GS champion en route to the title. Nevertheless, both played very good tennis to win their slams.

Pops Maellard
Jun 13th, 2010, 11:39 PM
Yes it was very opportunistic. Wozniacki is Wozniacki. Don't fall into the trap of long rallies and give her stupid errors and the match is yours. A retirement in the semis is always a sure sign of that as well, especially while nursing a torn calf muscle, Lena still took it to a TB.

I wouldn't call Sam a journeywoman but Fran certainly got the best possible opponent for the final in Sam. Yeah she took down 3 giants in a row but as soon as she was the favourite to win she faltered, as so often has happened in her career.

tennisbum79
Jun 13th, 2010, 11:46 PM
Either answer put Schiavone in a bad light

Unfair, rigged poll

Lucemferre
Jun 13th, 2010, 11:47 PM
100% yes.Anyone who says other wise must be delusional.

Mightymirza
Jun 13th, 2010, 11:50 PM
I dont really understand the poll.. :shrug: She is opportunistic for sure but the slam was also a fluke :lol:

Sammy Stones
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:04 AM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?

:rolleyes:

Slutati
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:18 AM
LOL at people saying no. :happy::happy::happy::happy:

With that said, I wish my fave was a fluke slam winner. :tears:

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:36 AM
A mix of both things

edificio
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:38 AM
It is no more a fluke than any other Slam final. Also, you need to be opportunistic if you want to win a match and a tourney.

tennnisfannn
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:38 AM
The great Agassi once said it took hard work and a whole lotta luck to win slams. Sometimes you need the draw to open up for you, if maria was in the opposite half of the draw, even she too could have been able to get past the players that Schivone beat.

AcesHigh
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:42 AM
No.. she played well to win and her victory was as good as anyone's in the last decade on clay.. simply b/c unless you face an in-form Henin at RG.. there really arent any great claycourt champions.

OsloErik
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:49 AM
The great Agassi once said it took hard work and a whole lotta luck to win slams. Sometimes you need the draw to open up for you, if maria was in the opposite half of the draw, even she too could have been able to get past the players that Schivone beat.

No way she beats Stosur. That took extremely good tactics based off of athleticism and an ability all over the court. Sharapova has none of those qualities.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:53 AM
The great Agassi once

Won Roland Garros thanks to a fluke

Kworb
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:54 AM
She has been a top player for years. She was always capable of this.

The Kaz
Jun 14th, 2010, 01:17 AM
Yes. It was a fluke.

If Sam had won it wouldn't of been a fluke. Harsh but true.

tennnisfannn
Jun 14th, 2010, 03:24 AM
No way she beats Stosur. That took extremely good tactics based off of athleticism and an ability all over the court. Sharapova has none of those qualities.
You do realise maria would not have needed Schaivone's tactics to beat Sam. The only difference might have been Sam would not have been quite so complacent, she would have arrived at the final without feeling that it was already a done deal!

HippityHop
Jun 14th, 2010, 03:39 AM
Is any player who wins only one slam a fluke?

Pops Maellard
Jun 14th, 2010, 03:44 AM
Is any player who wins only one slam a fluke?
When you face Wozniacki in the QF, have your SF opponent retire and face a headcase with a bad finals record in the final, yes.

darrinbaker00
Jun 14th, 2010, 04:16 AM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?
TRANSLATION:
"I lost a bundle betting on Sam Stosur to win."

darrinbaker00
Jun 14th, 2010, 04:18 AM
Is any player who wins only one slam a fluke?
No. If they weren't capable of winning, they wouldn't have won. Period.

simonsaystennis
Jun 14th, 2010, 04:23 AM
Definitely a fluke. But hey, I'd rather be a one-slam wonder than a no slam wonder.

To the people who say Ivanovic's slam was a fluke, she had reached two slam finals before she won. At the rate she was playing in 07 and 08 it was really bound to happen. If she was still playing how she was back then, maybe she'd have won another.

moby
Jun 14th, 2010, 05:22 AM
It would. Just like Ivanovic two years ago she didn't face a single GS champion en route to the title. Nevertheless, both played very good tennis to win their slams.Ivanovic's draw was much weaker. She didn't even face anyone who's ever been in a slam final (until Safina, who was in her first slam final). And the only top 10 player she faced was her Jankobitch.

adner
Jun 14th, 2010, 06:07 AM
Ivanovic's draw was much weaker. She didn't even face anyone who's ever been in a slam final (until Safina, who was in her first slam final). And the only top 10 player she faced was her Jankobitch.
Still, Jankovic >>>> anyone Schiavone met. It was just a lucky run, and it definitely was nothing like Rezai's or MJMS's dream run. All was done by Stosur, and had Stosur not been able to defeat all the big names before failing badly in finals, Schiavone would never ever be close to winning the title.

tievae
Jun 14th, 2010, 06:24 AM
I think Francy was indeed lucky that the stars aligned just perfectly (the draw), but I also have to applaud her mental strength, because so many people would have fallen apart in her place. She was given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and she performed perfectly.

AcesHigh
Jun 14th, 2010, 06:25 AM
Yes. It was a fluke.

If Sam had won it wouldn't of been a fluke. Harsh but true.

Bitter

AcesHigh
Jun 14th, 2010, 06:25 AM
Definitely a fluke. But hey, I'd rather be a one-slam wonder than a no slam wonder.

To the people who say Ivanovic's slam was a fluke, she had reached two slam finals before she won. At the rate she was playing in 07 and 08 it was really bound to happen. If she was still playing how she was back then, maybe she'd have won another.

So a fluke is determined by your progress before it? :weirdo:

Slutiana
Jun 14th, 2010, 06:37 AM
I love the fact that everybody was hyping Sam up as the best claycourter in the world and talking about her playing incredible tennis. As soon as somebody decides to actually play their best tennis against her, come to court with the perfect tactics and completely outplay and outthink her in straight sets, Stosur is suddenly a "journeywoman" and a player not worthy of playing in a slam final.

Beat
Jun 14th, 2010, 07:48 AM
wow, you're quick.
and: winning a slam is NEVER a fluke.

saki
Jun 14th, 2010, 08:24 AM
She saw an opportunity and grasped it with both hands. Is that opportunistic? Maybe but that's not a bad thing. Plenty of players don't grasp their opportunities, is that somehow better?

TennisFan66
Jun 14th, 2010, 08:34 AM
Let me try a translation of this very boring thread:

'My fave(s) didn't win, so it must be a fluke and the winner an opportunist' ..

There! Now I can sleep at night and hold my head high knowing my fave(s) would have won had it not been for the unjust, unfair, fluke of an opportunist.

tennisforadults
Jun 14th, 2010, 10:23 AM
I love the fact that everybody was hyping Sam up as the best claycourter in the world and talking about her playing incredible tennis. As soon as somebody decides to actually play their best tennis against her, come to court with the perfect tactics and completely outplay and outthink her in straight sets, Stosur is suddenly a "journeywoman" and a player not worthy of playing in a slam final.

It's just the OP. Almost everyone can agree Sam is no journeywoman. Neither is Franny.

AdeyC
Jun 14th, 2010, 10:29 AM
No more than Myskina, Barker, Jausovec, Ruzici, Novotna, Martinez, etc, etc

Apoleb
Jun 14th, 2010, 11:15 AM
I love the fact that everybody was hyping Sam up as the best claycourter in the world and talking about her playing incredible tennis. As soon as somebody decides to actually play their best tennis against her, come to court with the perfect tactics and completely outplay and outthink her in straight sets, Stosur is suddenly a "journeywoman" and a player not worthy of playing in a slam final.


I agree, but then I thought Stosur was vulnerable and getting overrated before she played Schiavone.

Yes, it is a fluke, in the sense that she needed the stars to align for her, which they did, and that won't likely happen again. However, she took her chances, and a slam is a slam, so it's fully deserved. Hopefully someone can really step it up on the clay next year, unlike this year.

Jajaloo
Jun 14th, 2010, 11:17 AM
Doesn't really matter. She's the one with a grand slam next to her name. There were a few more "deserving", for lack of a better word, players I would've liked to have seen won. But you can't discount the slam win based on the draw. She didn't pick the draw.

Stosur's run was more "flukey". Henin, Serena and Jankovic far from their best. But, she's the won who played well enough to take advantage of it.

tennisforadults
Jun 14th, 2010, 11:45 AM
Doesn't really matter. She's the one with a grand slam next to her name. There were a few more "deserving", for lack of a better word, players I would've liked to have seen won. But you can't discount the slam win based on the draw. She didn't pick the draw.

Stosur's run was more "flukey". Henin, Serena and Jankovic far from their best. But, she's the won who played well enough to take advantage of it.

Please, let's not start calling Sam's run a fluke just to defend Schiavone. Sam has beaten Serena and JJ before. And made the SF last year.

Jajaloo
Jun 14th, 2010, 11:52 AM
Please, let's not start calling Sam's run a fluke just to defend Schiavone. Sam has beaten Serena and JJ before. And made the SF last year.

If you've seen any of my other posts, I've never defended Schiavone. But a grand slam win is a grand slam win.

Sam was toted as the dragon slayer, because she took down Henin, Serena and Jelena. She played a JJ who was at 20%, ErroRena (not WinneRena) and Henin who was abysmal. She beat some big names but as soon as she played someone that actually played well, lost.

Stosur held her own against some big names who played sub par. "Flukey" isn't the right word, which is why I used quotations, but she was lucky those 3 didn't have their wits about them. Neither of the three were terribly exciting matches to watch.

It doesn't matter. Stosur made the final which is all that counts.

Hian
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:09 PM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?

No. Wozniacki wasn't injured.
Kirilenko, Li, Stosur... I think they are good players and Fran deserved RG more than other players.
Please stop making a nice shit on her and fuck. ;)

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:13 PM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?

It's as fluke-ish as Ana's slam thats for sure

Yes. It was a fluke.

If Sam had won it wouldn't of been a fluke. Harsh but true.

Still, Jankovic >>>> anyone Schiavone met. It was just a lucky run, and it definitely was nothing like Rezai's or MJMS's dream run. All was done by Stosur, and had Stosur not been able to defeat all the big names before failing badly in finals, Schiavone would never ever be close to winning the title.

Aww, look at the bitter JJ/Sam fans.

AndreConrad
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:15 PM
I am not sure what being opportunistic has to do with a fluke. The first rule of any competition is to take advantage and not waste opportunities. Francesca did exactly that. She fully deserved her win and :hatoff: to her!

meteor
Jun 14th, 2010, 12:39 PM
yes, but that's not a bad thing :lol:.

AnywhereButHome
Jun 14th, 2010, 01:01 PM
Absolutely yes.

hdfb
Jun 14th, 2010, 02:48 PM
It was opportunistic for sure, but not a fluke.

Randy H
Jun 14th, 2010, 02:53 PM
Every match you play is opportunistic, that is tennis :)

Fran did what she had to do in every match in front of her, and no one else was able to do that for 7 in a row :)

Draw was pretty good to her, but again, that's tennis - Lots of players have won slams through the years with draws that have either opened up, or were just the "right" people for them to face.

Volcana
Jun 14th, 2010, 04:24 PM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?Nothing in the least 'flukey' about it. She beat 4 of the top 11 ranked players.
Dementieva retired during a tie-break, so obviously Schiavone was playing her even to that point.
You call Wozniacki 'useless', but take away all 1400 points from last year's US Open final, and she's still ranked #8, so clearly she has ability.

Stosur had a harder draw, but it's only a lot harder if you assume Henin is still the clay court player she was pre-retirement. But her results same she isn't. Pre-RG, Henin accumulated 475 points on clay. Venus was nobody's pick to win RG. But she won 925 points on red clay pre-RG.

You wanna argue Schiavone got hot for the right two weeks of her career? I totally agree. A fluke? No way.

GABRIEL
Jun 14th, 2010, 04:34 PM
She got an easy draw including useless Caro and Dementieva who gave her a semi-walkover. But she did play out of her mind in the final against another journey woman Sam Stosur.

What do you think?
I think you should get a life :rolleyes:

simonsaystennis
Jun 14th, 2010, 04:37 PM
N
You wanna argue Schiavone got hot for the right two weeks of her career? I totally agree. A fluke? No way.

You just basically defined fluke (suddenly playing well for two weeks out of nowhere). She had never come close to winning a slam before, the draw opened up, and she made it all the way. She had never been to a slam semi before this tournament!! Definitely a fluke. I don't think she'll ever make the semis of another slam actually. Maybe a few more QFs.

Edit: 1R Stuttgart, 2R Rome, 3R Madrid. Definitely a fluke.

Ellery
Jun 14th, 2010, 04:39 PM
:weirdo:

She was most definitely opportunistic, but how is that a bad thing?

It also depends on how you define fluke. :shrug:

treufreund
Jun 14th, 2010, 05:16 PM
No way. She worked hard to prepare and played extremely well. How can anyone think that that level of play is a fluke??

Hian
Jun 14th, 2010, 05:32 PM
I think you should get a life :rolleyes:

:worship:

fioredeliberi
Jun 14th, 2010, 06:06 PM
Fran had a much easier draw than Sam, but then she played incredibly well to take out Sam. She deserves the win and the tournament.

Vyacheslavovna
Jun 14th, 2010, 08:21 PM
I don't believe in lucky slam winners. I could say anyone who doesn't face Serena in a slam final is lucky, (Serena is 12 from 15). However you get to the final, you still have to win it.

I respect the players who have toiled away to make number one by winning Donald Duck events, (it might be harder than winning a slam), but I'm not really interested in it. I like sport because of the human drama, what it reveals about your character. I'm interested in what you do on the biggest of big occasions. Can you handle your nerves? Can you rise to the big occasion? Or are you overwhelmed by it? Can you produce your best when it matters most, with everyone watching, on the biggest stage of all, to win what everyone wants most? If you can, that to me defines a champion. A champion is not made by grinding out Donald Duck wins in front of ten fans, a dog and an umpire.

Schiavone is a true champion. She didn't win in the 1920s, she didn't win as an amateur, she didn't win when most of the top players chose not to make the trip. Schiavone won a true slam. She is greater than any other player who hasn't.

OsloErik
Jun 14th, 2010, 10:20 PM
You do realise maria would not have needed Schaivone's tactics to beat Sam. The only difference might have been Sam would not have been quite so complacent, she would have arrived at the final without feeling that it was already a done deal!

I completely disagree. Sharapova wouldn't have USED Schiavone's tactics because she couldn't. That doesn't mean she wouldn't need them. Sharapova's not fast enough to handle what Stosur did that whole event on clay, and hits with too little margin to reliably target Stosur's forehand the way Schiavone did. Sharapova wins matches by hitting players off the court, and nobody was doing that to Stosur. It took speed, consistency, and the kind of variety to neuter Stosur's forehand and serve to knock her off her stride. Those are 3 skills Sharapova doesn't have. Stosur had already handled a Sharapova-style clay courter in faster, more consistent, better-serving form in the quartefinal. No way she loses to the B-model in the final.

Schiavone was the right woman for the right match. And she was fearless. Nothing flukey about that.