PDA

View Full Version : Ok look at this scenario


maccardel
May 11th, 2003, 11:48 PM
In all the posts that were mentioning Kim will be #2 seed at RG, we all fail to realize that the semis will mean more than likely we will all lose cos Justine and kim will be in the same half and venus and serena will be in the same half....therefore for everyone to be happy, we all have to be routing for venus to stay number two.

With Kim at number 2:

semis- Serena vs. Venus; Kim vs. Justine.

Venus at number 2:

semis-Serena/Kim; Justine vs. Venus.

The funny thing is that Justine to me is the favorite to win cos venus is injured and kim and serena were defeated by her recently. I think who ever wins between the Justine and Venus match has the better chance to be the champion eventhough I personally want Serena to defend her title.

In scenario #1 Justine has a 95% chance of being the winner.

In scenario number two, she has 80% chance of being the champion. These are based on recent results of course.

CJ07
May 11th, 2003, 11:54 PM
not neccesarily
Venus could still be on the other half

starr
May 12th, 2003, 12:02 AM
I think it unlikely that Kim will be seeded number 2 at RG. I've been saying this all along. Things really need to fall her way to be number 2.

Second, Serena is the clear favorite to defend her title. She's had ... what 2 lossses in a gagillion matches? Plus she is the clear number one. You seem to have just pulled your percentages out of a hat. Is there any mathematical principle at work in arriving at those percentages?

Third, there is no guarantee that even if Kim is number 2 that Justine will be in her half and Venus in Serena's half. And if Venus is number two, Kim isn't necessarily going to be in Serena's half nor Justine's in Venus's half.

disposablehero
May 12th, 2003, 02:35 AM
In all the posts that were mentioning Kim will be #2 seed at RG, we all fail to realize that the semis will mean more than likely we will all lose cos Justine and kim will be in the same half and venus and serena will be in the same half....therefore for everyone to be happy, we all have to be routing for venus to stay number two.

With Kim at number 2:

semis- Serena vs. Venus; Kim vs. Justine.

Venus at number 2:

semis-Serena/Kim; Justine vs. Venus.

The funny thing is that Justine to me is the favorite to win cos venus is injured and kim and serena were defeated by her recently. I think who ever wins between the Justine and Venus match has the better chance to be the champion eventhough I personally want Serena to defend her title.

In scenario #1 Justine has a 95% chance of being the winner.

In scenario number two, she has 80% chance of being the champion. These are based on recent results of course.

Justine an 80% chance of being the champion? Are you insane? Incidentally, your assumptions on the draw are totally incorrect.

Rtael
May 12th, 2003, 02:41 AM
let's see....2 out of the 3 most recent matches on clay vs. Serena, Justine won....in the last 3 matches on clay versus Kim, Justine has won 2...Her only win against Venus came on....Clay...let's see where were headed with this one..... hmmm JUSTINE'S GONNA WIN YOU STUPID FUCKING HATERS! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lisbeth
May 12th, 2003, 02:44 AM
Besides the fact that it's only one possibility, why would we all lose from Serena-Venus and Kim-Justine semis? That would lead to a Belgian-Williams final which I would think would make many people happy and probably be a fantastic match. I for one would love to see those semis!

ys
May 12th, 2003, 02:49 AM
I would like final without Williamses as well without Belgians. Even Mauresmo-Capriati final would do just fine..

spencercarlos
May 12th, 2003, 03:02 AM
In all the posts that were mentioning Kim will be #2 seed at RG, we all fail to realize that the semis will mean more than likely we will all lose cos Justine and kim will be in the same half and venus and serena will be in the same half....therefore for everyone to be happy, we all have to be routing for venus to stay number two.

With Kim at number 2:

semis- Serena vs. Venus; Kim vs. Justine.

Venus at number 2:

semis-Serena/Kim; Justine vs. Venus.

The funny thing is that Justine to me is the favorite to win cos venus is injured and kim and serena were defeated by her recently. I think who ever wins between the Justine and Venus match has the better chance to be the champion eventhough I personally want Serena to defend her title.

In scenario #1 Justine has a 95% chance of being the winner.

In scenario number two, she has 80% chance of being the champion. These are based on recent results of course.
Lets see Henin has never beaten either Kim, Serena or Venus in a slam... so i give her 0% by now..

Another stat Henin has never won a slam.... so i give her 0% by now...

So her numbers against the best players at slams are more improbable than in favor of her right now.

shap_half
May 12th, 2003, 03:27 AM
Lets see Henin has never beaten either Kim, Serena or Venus in a slam... so i give her 0% by now..

Another stat Henin has never won a slam.... so i give her 0% by now...

So her numbers against the best players at slams are more improbable than in favor of her right now.


hmmm, justine's never played either sister in the french open and when justine lost to kim at a clay slam was 2 years ago since then justine has defeated kim twice on clay. it's funny how justine can have a better h2h on clay against serena and kim and 1-1 against venus and yet people don't give her a chance at winning. i mean you don't have to say she's going to win but saying she has no chance at winning is just denying the facts and being an idiot.

and since when did it mean that if a person did well in one slam mean they're going to do just as well on another. justine is a clay court specialist [and very good on grass as well] the only time she's played serena at a gs was at the usopen in 2001 and venus in wimbledon twice and the ausopen [where she made her personal best of a semi]. none of these are clay, btw.

spencercarlos
May 12th, 2003, 03:32 AM
hmmm, justine's never played either sister in the french open and when justine lost to kim at a clay slam was 2 years ago since then justine has defeated kim twice on clay. it's funny how justine can have a better h2h on clay against serena and kim and 1-1 against venus and yet people don't give her a chance at winning. i mean you don't have to say she's going to win but saying she has no chance at winning is just denying the facts and being an idiot.

and since when did it mean that if a person did well in one slam mean they're going to do just as well on another. justine is a clay court specialist [and very good on grass as well] the only time she's played serena at a gs was at the usopen in 2001 and venus in wimbledon twice and the ausopen [where she made her personal best of a semi]. none of these are clay, btw.
I did not say she had 0% percent of chance of winning lol. I was making the statement that her numbers are 0 (wins)-something in both categories i mentioned.
Both Kim and Henin most probable slam and matches to win against the Williams sisters are on clay, and RG is a pretty good place for both Kim and Henin. But i may say giving her plus 80 percent of chances of winning is just ridiculous based on a player who has never won a slam event, has has never beaten the 3 other players ahead of her at slam events.

Fingon
May 12th, 2003, 04:22 AM
Lets see Henin has never beaten either Kim, Serena or Venus in a slam... so i give her 0% by now..

Another stat Henin has never won a slam.... so i give her 0% by now...

So her numbers against the best players at slams are more improbable than in favor of her right now.


let me see if I understand.

0% means no chance.

so, if a player hasn't beaten other certain player in a Grand Slam, her chances of doing that in a future GS are 0 :confused:

but Serena, Venus, Lindsay, they all at some point faced a player they haven't beaten before in a Grand Slam.

Let's say, Serena draws a player she has never played before in a GS.

So, Serena has 0% chances of beating her, and the other player has 0% chance of beating Serena (she has never beaten Serena either), so I guess it would be a tie.

Also, she gets 0% chances because she hasn't won a Grand Slam, so, only players who have won a Grand Slam have chances of winning one :confused:

so how do players get their first Grand Slam? :confused:

Dawn Marie
May 12th, 2003, 04:34 AM
imho it wouldn't hurt me a bit if Venus faced Serena in semi's instead of Justine. Imho Justine is more the threat on red clay then Serena is.

Also what if the draw has Venus, Serena and Kim on the same side? Or Venus, Serena and Justine? I think whoever is not on the side of the Williams and a Belgian is in the best position to win RG!

Or what if Venus and Serena are on opposite sides of the draw and Henin and Clijsters are on the same side? So many options to think about.. :)

WtaTour4Ever
May 12th, 2003, 04:37 AM
I don't think 3 of top 4 seeds can be on the same side of the draw. 1 and 2 are placed on sep sides....as are 3 and 4 ....so its 1 vs 3/4 and 2 vs 4/3

Dawn Marie
May 12th, 2003, 04:38 AM
To think let alone state that Justine Henin has no chance to win Roland Garros is ludicrus. I personally think she has a better chance than Kim or even Venus at the moment. With Venus though we never know what were going to get. I sure am not going to underestimate her though. nor Justine.

Fingon
May 12th, 2003, 04:40 AM
Or what if Venus and Serena are on opposite sides of the draw and Henin and Clijsters are on the same side? So many options to think about.. :)
if Serena and Venus are in opposite side, Kim and Justine will be in opposite sides as well.

If Kim is # 2, then the two posibilities for the semis are:

1)

Williams - Williams
Belgian - Belgian

2)

Williams - Belgian
Belgian - Williams

:)

Dawn Marie
May 12th, 2003, 04:47 AM
Okay thanks Fingon, I was just stating some scenarios. I don't trust the slam draws..and I wouldn't be surprised if they put Williams/Williams/Belgian on the same side. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Wimbeldon ranked Kim ahead of Vee.

What about this scenario? Since the USA made bad remarks to France they fight back and stick all Americans on the same eaxact side? Or they try to kiss USA butt. ( dont know why) and help out all the American's ESPECIALLY V@S and give them opposite side with a #2 Kim seeding?!?! lmao:)

WtaTour4Ever
May 12th, 2003, 04:53 AM
*ahem

maccardel
May 12th, 2003, 01:06 PM
let's see....2 out of the 3 most recent matches on clay vs. Serena, Justine won....in the last 3 matches on clay versus Kim, Justine has won 2...Her only win against Venus came on....Clay...let's see where were headed with this one..... hmmm JUSTINE'S GONNA WIN YOU STUPID FUCKING HATERS! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think based on the head to head between the four players, then Justine and venus have a better chance...but also take into consideration that kim and serena's chances for the title will be greatly improved if Venus defeats Justine in the semis....then serena will have a 90% percent chance of retaining her title and Kim will have a 75% chance of defeating venus. It's not scientific and all that other bull but rather an observation. I'm sorry I'm not saying what y'all want to hear. My favs are venus and serena and I'm not hating on anyone.

per4ever
May 12th, 2003, 01:16 PM
Imo their are only a few contenders for this title:
1. Serena
2. Justine
3. Kim
4. Venus

With equal chances for Justine and Serena, and equal chances for Kim and Venus (although a lil lower then Justine and Serena imo)

spencercarlos
May 12th, 2003, 01:17 PM
I did not say she had 0% percent of chance of winning lol. I was making the statement that her numbers are 0 (wins)-something in both categories i mentioned.
Both Kim and Henin most probable slam and matches to win against the Williams sisters are on clay, and RG is a pretty good place for both Kim and Henin. But i may say giving her plus 80 percent of chances of winning is just ridiculous based on a player who has never won a slam event, has has never beaten the 3 other players ahead of her at slam events.
Fingo, Dawn marie and everybody else :)

I did not say she is 0% of chances of winning.!!!!!
Iīll just quote what i said

fleemkeģ
May 12th, 2003, 01:17 PM
Well I hope that Justine wins RG but look at last year and you know that Serena, Kim, Venus and Justine CAN fall in the 2th round. Talking about semi-finals is fun but be realistic and remeber that every match must be played first ..

But Justine will winn RG ;)

maccardel
May 12th, 2003, 01:18 PM
Okay thanks Fingon, I was just stating some scenarios. I don't trust the slam draws..and I wouldn't be surprised if they put Williams/Williams/Belgian on the same side. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if Wimbeldon ranked Kim ahead of Vee.

What about this scenario? Since the USA made bad remarks to France they fight back and stick all Americans on the same eaxact side? Or they try to kiss USA butt. ( dont know why) and help out all the American's ESPECIALLY V@S and give them opposite side with a #2 Kim seeding?!?! lmao:)


lol Didn't think about that Dawn....LOL :bounce: :wavey:

I imagine that from Davenport down, the americans capriati, Rubin, Seles and Shaughnessy all have a chance of being placed with their higher ranked compatriots.....I could see the french licking their chops as we watch american eliminating american match after match while in the other half, the other players are having a regular tourney.....lol :fiery: I could see posters getting out the sticks and matches for my ass.....no I won't burn in hell.....it's only tongue n cheek... :devil: :fiery: :mad:

Chance
May 12th, 2003, 01:22 PM
I hope Venus is healthy in 2 weeks time...

rikvanlooy
May 12th, 2003, 01:31 PM
I hope Venus is healthy in 2 weeks time...

Right, I just hope Justine and Kim are healthy in 2 weeks time.

Justine is injured now and Kim didn't look that good in the final against Kim, so...

I will be happy if they reach the semi final. Everything else is a bonus.

The Crow
May 12th, 2003, 01:41 PM
Based on this thread: why don't we skip all rounds before the semi's? The others apparently don't stand a chance anyway :p

maccardel
May 12th, 2003, 01:54 PM
Based on this thread: why don't we skip all rounds before the semi's? The others apparently don't stand a chance anyway :p

sI didn't think of that. I say they should just let the four of them play in a round robin format...
;)

starr
May 12th, 2003, 01:58 PM
Dawn Marie

The senario you are talking about could not happen. It is impossible for the 1, 2, and 3 seeds to be all on the same side. Even if somehow the Roland Garros authorities were able to put out a draw that looked like that, the uproar would be tremendous. There are rules about the draw, you know. And the draw isn't just made up in some back room and then made public. The draw is assembled PUBLICALLY. There are players and press at the draw. The only players that are preset in the draw are the one and two seeds. There after the draw is made PUBLICALLY with the seeds being arranged by twos but selected by chance.

Talking about rigged draws drives me nuts.... particularly since no one who claims the draws are rigged or capable of being rigged will say HOW they think this might be achieved.

Diya
May 12th, 2003, 02:34 PM
I hope Monica , Jennifer ,Lindsay and Mary P. :eek: make the SF's at RG . Now that would be something :eek: lol :D

ans
May 12th, 2003, 02:56 PM
let me see if I understand.

0% means no chance.

so, if a player hasn't beaten other certain player in a Grand Slam, her chances of doing that in a future GS are 0 :confused:

but Serena, Venus, Lindsay, they all at some point faced a player they haven't beaten before in a Grand Slam.

Let's say, Serena draws a player she has never played before in a GS.

So, Serena has 0% chances of beating her, and the other player has 0% chance of beating Serena (she has never beaten Serena either), so I guess it would be a tie.

Also, she gets 0% chances because she hasn't won a Grand Slam, so, only players who have won a Grand Slam have chances of winning one :confused:

so how do players get their first Grand Slam? :confused:

lol :)

disposablehero
May 13th, 2003, 02:34 AM
Dawn Marie

The senario you are talking about could not happen. It is impossible for the 1, 2, and 3 seeds to be all on the same side. Even if somehow the Roland Garros authorities were able to put out a draw that looked like that, the uproar would be tremendous. There are rules about the draw, you know. And the draw isn't just made up in some back room and then made public. The draw is assembled PUBLICALLY. There are players and press at the draw. The only players that are preset in the draw are the one and two seeds. There after the draw is made PUBLICALLY with the seeds being arranged by twos but selected by chance.

Talking about rigged draws drives me nuts.... particularly since no one who claims the draws are rigged or capable of being rigged will say HOW they think this might be achieved.

Besides, if you are going to rig a draw, don't do one that any idiot could realize was in contravention of the seeding rules.

Knizzle
May 13th, 2003, 03:05 AM
All this talk about Belgians beating Venus or Serena. It's not likely that Kim or Justine will beat a healthy Venus or Serena. The clay will help their confidence some, but the fact of the matter is that the WS are the best players on any surface, Justine may be winning the most clay titles right now, but they are not GS. No one has beaten Serena in her last 5 slams except for Venus once. No one outside of Serena has beaten Venus in her last 7 slams except Seles in Australia, my point is this, the WS are money at the Slams. They thrive on competing well at the Slams no matter what happens at a smaller tournament during the year. In my opinion Kim should want to be on the opposite side of the draw than Venus and here's why. She has no answer for Venus Williams, neither does Henin. Even though Serena has won the four slams in a row she is more vunerable to the Belgians than Venus is. Henin and Clijsters should both pray they are not on the same side as Venus. They seem to have developed a strategy against Serena. Kim's is to get all the balls back that she can until Serena makes an error. Justine's is to change the pace with slices and also get as many balls back as she can. This strategy is not going to win many matches vs. Serena, but Serena can get impatient at times during rallies and try to make something happen too soon and make an error. Venus is more patient with her points and keeps Henin and Clijsters off balance and attacks the net often. Net play is the key to defeating Clijsters easily, I don't know why more players don't apply this strategy. Until Clijsters and Henin can learn how to beat Venus, then it won't matter what surface they play on.

Knizzle
May 13th, 2003, 03:15 AM
Based on this thread: why don't we skip all rounds before the semi's? The others apparently don't stand a chance anyway :p

Right. The belgians are definitely not a lock for the semis. While the WS are not a lock either, they have been to the last 4 GS finals and numerous semifinals so it's a pretty sure bet that they will do the same at RG 2003.

Dawn Marie
May 13th, 2003, 05:18 AM
people who think draws are not rigged are not true tennis lovers or sports lovers.. IMHO.

Becasue.. sports are about money and politics .. keep on dreaming.

I mean u people really don't believe Corina got Serena in the first round at the US Open do u by accident? Computers can be rigged ...

It was great to have Corina's story aired in primetime though. She is a fighter.

I also find it nice how they place a strong junior from one's country to face a top high profile seed to gain match experience infront of the cameras.

I did like that Jane O'Donahue who faced Venus at Wimbeldon.. who is also from Britian.

DRAWS ARE RIGGED.. SPORTS ARE ABOUT MONEY AND POLITICS. :)

Fingon
May 13th, 2003, 05:45 AM
All this talk about Belgians beating Venus or Serena. It's not likely that Kim or Justine will beat a healthy Venus or Serena. The clay will help their confidence some, but the fact of the matter is that the WS are the best players on any surface, Justine may be winning the most clay titles right now, but they are not GS. No one has beaten Serena in her last 5 slams except for Venus once. No one outside of Serena has beaten Venus in her last 7 slams except Seles in Australia, my point is this, the WS are money at the Slams. They thrive on competing well at the Slams no matter what happens at a smaller tournament during the year. In my opinion Kim should want to be on the opposite side of the draw than Venus and here's why. She has no answer for Venus Williams, neither does Henin. Even though Serena has won the four slams in a row she is more vunerable to the Belgians than Venus is. Henin and Clijsters should both pray they are not on the same side as Venus. They seem to have developed a strategy against Serena. Kim's is to get all the balls back that she can until Serena makes an error. Justine's is to change the pace with slices and also get as many balls back as she can. This strategy is not going to win many matches vs. Serena, but Serena can get impatient at times during rallies and try to make something happen too soon and make an error. Venus is more patient with her points and keeps Henin and Clijsters off balance and attacks the net often. Net play is the key to defeating Clijsters easily, I don't know why more players don't apply this strategy. Until Clijsters and Henin can learn how to beat Venus, then it won't matter what surface they play on.

Well, first of all, Justine is 2-1 against Serena on clay, they have never played in a Grand Slam on clay (ready RG), so, Justine hasn't beaten Serena in a GS on clay, but Serena hasn't beaten Justine either.

Justine is 1-0 against Venus on clay, similar scenario.

Justine won because she got many balls back? I am sorry but I don't think you have ever seen her, she did that a lot in Charleston but she attacked whenever she had a chance.

Kim gets the ball back until Serena makes the error? did you see Australian Open? even though Serena won, Kim was outplaying Serena until she choked. true that Serena raised her level but that's another matter, when Kim was winning she was hitting winners all over the place, she just couldn't keep it up.

Plus I've seen many Venus-Justine matches and I just didn't see Venus winning by attacking the net. Venus's net game seems to have become an urban legend, everyone claims it's there but I just don't see it. Don't misunderstand me, Venus is a great player, very fast, a lot of power, great backhand, great determination, but net game isn't her strong point.

Knizzle
May 13th, 2003, 05:58 AM
Well, first of all, Justine is 2-1 against Serena on clay, they have never played in a Grand Slam on clay (ready RG), so, Justine hasn't beaten Serena in a GS on clay, but Serena hasn't beaten Justine either.

Justine is 1-0 against Venus on clay, similar scenario.

Justine won because she got many balls back? I am sorry but I don't think you have ever seen her, she did that a lot in Charleston but she attacked whenever she had a chance.

Kim gets the ball back until Serena makes the error? did you see Australian Open? even though Serena won, Kim was outplaying Serena until she choked. true that Serena raised her level but that's another matter, when Kim was winning she was hitting winners all over the place, she just couldn't keep it up.

Plus I've seen many Venus-Justine matches and I just didn't see Venus winning by attacking the net. Venus's net game seems to have become an urban legend, everyone claims it's there but I just don't see it. Don't misunderstand me, Venus is a great player, very fast, a lot of power, great backhand, great determination, but net game isn't her strong point.


To address what you said about Kim not just getting balls back I will posts these stats. Notice that Clijsters has only 14 winners for the entire match, but you say she was hitting winners all over the court. You are the one who must not have seen the match!!!

Rod Laver Arena - Women's Singles - Semis

Serena Williams USA (1) 4 6 7

Kim Clijsters BEL (4) 6 3 5



Elapsed Time by Set: 37 38 58

View detailed serve statistics


Match Summary

Williams(USA) Clijsters(BEL)

1st Serve % 45 of 90 = 50 % 80 of 114 = 70 %

Aces 6 0

Double Faults 3 4

Unforced Errors 65 33

Winning % on 1st Serve 32 of 45 = 71 % 42 of 80 = 53 %

Winning % on 2nd Serve 17 of 45 = 38 % 17 of 34 = 50 %

Winners (Including Service) 42 14

Break Point Conversions 7 of 13 = 54 % 5 of 7 = 71 %

Net Approaches 20 of 30 = 67 % 4 of 7 = 57 %

Total Points Won 104 100

Fastest Serve 188 km/h 180 km/h

Average 1st Serve Speed 165 km/h 154 km/h

Average 2nd Serve Speed 130 km/h 135 km/h

As for Venus' net game it is not an urban legend she uses it very effectively, notice what she did to Henin at net at Wimbledon last year. Venus' net game is why she won back to back Wimbledons. You don't remember her hitting countless swing volleys in 2000??

1st Serve % 26 of 56 = 46 % 40 of 63 = 63 %

Double Faults 3 4

Unforced Errors 28 26

Winning % on 1st Serve 20 of 26 = 77 % 23 of 40 = 57 %

Winning % on 2nd Serve 18 of 30 = 60 % 9 of 23 = 39 %

Winners (Including Service) 21 12

Receiving Points Won 31 of 63 = 49 % 18 of 56 = 32 %

Break Point Conversions 4 of 12 = 33 % 1 of 2 = 50 %

Net Approaches 19 of 25 = 76 % 12 of 22 = 55 %

Total Points Won 69 50

Fastest Serve 118 MPH 108 MPH

Average 1st Serve Speed 107 MPH 101 MPH

Average 2nd Serve Speed 80 MPH 84 MPH

You my friend are wrong all the way across the board.

Lisbeth
May 13th, 2003, 06:50 AM
Based on this thread: why don't we skip all rounds before the semi's? The others apparently don't stand a chance anyway :p

Well said, this had crossed my mind too :)

Dawn Marie
May 13th, 2003, 07:19 AM
Fingon are you crazy? Venus's net game is a HUGE factor when she goes to net she wins most of the points. It's funny u state that cause just last night I watched her semi-final match vrs. Hingis and everytime she went into net she won the point. U need to watch Wimbeldon as well ... where she beat Justine many a time. Also Venus beat Justine on clay .. last year Amelia Island. You stated that Venus is 0/1 vrs Henin on clay? Kim has a good defensive game and she is starting to get alot balls back.. but one can only keep that up for so long in a match. In a year.. that will be her downfall imho if she doesn't start to go for it more often. I mean she can win them and yet tire herself out then suddenly start to miss and its game set and match the other player.

Knizzle
May 13th, 2003, 09:06 PM
Fingon are you crazy? Venus's net game is a HUGE factor when she goes to net she wins most of the points. It's funny u state that cause just last night I watched her semi-final match vrs. Hingis and everytime she went into net she won the point. U need to watch Wimbeldon as well ... where she beat Justine many a time. Also Venus beat Justine on clay .. last year Amelia Island. You stated that Venus is 0/1 vrs Henin on clay? Kim has a good defensive game and she is starting to get alot balls back.. but one can only keep that up for so long in a match. In a year.. that will be her downfall imho if she doesn't start to go for it more often. I mean she can win them and yet tire herself out then suddenly start to miss and its game set and match the other player.

You are correct. I don't know what Fingon was talking about.

Kart
May 13th, 2003, 09:12 PM
So much pressure on Justine to win Roland Garros.

I wonder if she can do it.

Or will the French open throw in yet another unexpected champion ?

My vote goes for the latter.

selesfan87
May 13th, 2003, 09:14 PM
Even if Venus is #3 ranked when RG comes round, I'm sure they'll give her a second seeding because she was last years' finalist.

Fingon
May 14th, 2003, 12:01 AM
To address what you said about Kim not just getting balls back I will posts these stats. Notice that Clijsters has only 14 winners for the entire match, but you say she was hitting winners all over the court. You are the one who must not have seen the match!!!

Rod Laver Arena - Women's Singles - Semis

Serena Williams USA (1) 4 6 7

Kim Clijsters BEL (4) 6 3 5



Elapsed Time by Set: 37 38 58

View detailed serve statistics


Match Summary

Williams(USA) Clijsters(BEL)

1st Serve % 45 of 90 = 50 % 80 of 114 = 70 %

Aces 6 0

Double Faults 3 4

Unforced Errors 65 33

Winning % on 1st Serve 32 of 45 = 71 % 42 of 80 = 53 %

Winning % on 2nd Serve 17 of 45 = 38 % 17 of 34 = 50 %

Winners (Including Service) 42 14

Break Point Conversions 7 of 13 = 54 % 5 of 7 = 71 %

Net Approaches 20 of 30 = 67 % 4 of 7 = 57 %

Total Points Won 104 100

Fastest Serve 188 km/h 180 km/h

Average 1st Serve Speed 165 km/h 154 km/h

Average 2nd Serve Speed 130 km/h 135 km/h

As for Venus' net game it is not an urban legend she uses it very effectively, notice what she did to Henin at net at Wimbledon last year. Venus' net game is why she won back to back Wimbledons. You don't remember her hitting countless swing volleys in 2000??

1st Serve % 26 of 56 = 46 % 40 of 63 = 63 %

Double Faults 3 4

Unforced Errors 28 26

Winning % on 1st Serve 20 of 26 = 77 % 23 of 40 = 57 %

Winning % on 2nd Serve 18 of 30 = 60 % 9 of 23 = 39 %

Winners (Including Service) 21 12

Receiving Points Won 31 of 63 = 49 % 18 of 56 = 32 %

Break Point Conversions 4 of 12 = 33 % 1 of 2 = 50 %

Net Approaches 19 of 25 = 76 % 12 of 22 = 55 %

Total Points Won 69 50

Fastest Serve 118 MPH 108 MPH

Average 1st Serve Speed 107 MPH 101 MPH

Average 2nd Serve Speed 80 MPH 84 MPH

You my friend are wrong all the way across the board.

really? tennis matches are played on the court,not in the computer. Do you judge a match by the numbers? "my friend", I actually watched the match and I give a shit for what statistics say. I actually watch the matches on TV or in person when I can, not on the scoreboards. You can't judge a player or a match without watching it you know?

and if you had a remote clue about tennis, you would understand that it's very difficult tohit a winner past Serena because she is very quick and gets a lot of balls back. A shot that is a winner against someone else isn't against Serena because she always puts the racquet on it. :rolleyes:

Knizzle
May 14th, 2003, 01:16 AM
really? tennis matches are played on the court,not in the computer. Do you judge a match by the numbers? "my friend", I actually watched the match and I give a shit for what statistics say. I actually watch the matches on TV or in person when I can, not on the scoreboards. You can't judge a player or a match without watching it you know?

and if you had a remote clue about tennis, you would understand that it's very difficult tohit a winner past Serena because she is very quick and gets a lot of balls back. A shot that is a winner against someone else isn't against Serena because she always puts the racquet on it. :rolleyes:

No, I don't necessarily judge a match by the numbers, but since I cannot post the match for you to watch on this board, our memories and the numbers are the only things to go by. I already knew Kim didn't hit that many winners before I posted the numbers because I saw the match several times and didn't remember that. I know full well how hard it is to hit a winner against Serena. If you had said that Kim was forcing Serena into errors by hitting great shots then it would have been different, but you said she was hitting winners all over the court until 5-1 in the third. Obviously you didn't know it is hard to hit a winner past Serena because you said Kim was doing just that in your post. Just admit it, you were wrong and now you are catching an attitude with me because I pointed it out. Now Kim and Justine don't look as great as you made them out to be, and the WS are getting their just due.

Fingon
May 14th, 2003, 01:32 AM
keep trying to make a case when you don't have it.

You are talking about winners in the statistics, I give a rat ass for that, winners in the statistics mean balls that the other player can't reach.

Kim was hitting balls that Serena couldn't return, for me those are winners, my point was only to show that the statistics don't say anything unless you actually saw, and understood the match. the semantics dont' change the fact that Kim was outplaying Serena.

I give a fuck if she put the racquet on the ball or not, the point is that Kim was winning the points.

and, how does Kim number of winners make Justine not look so good? huh?

Instead of trying so careful to choose the words for your phrases, you should try making a little, just a little sense.

I showed your statistcs were just crap and meanless, the fact that Serena or Venus have not beaten Kim or Justine in GS on clay is what matters, not your conveniently twisted argument.

And to "show" that a player didn't hit as many winners and say that affect other player's performance is so stupid and I didn't even think you would say that.

and who the fuck is WS? :rolleyes:

Knizzle
May 14th, 2003, 01:43 AM
keep trying to make a case when you don't have it.

You are talking about winners in the statistics, I give a rat ass for that, winners in the statistics mean balls that the other player can't reach.

Kim was hitting balls that Serena couldn't return, for me those are winners, my point was only to show that the statistics don't say anything unless you actually saw, and understood the match. the semantics dont' change the fact that Kim was outplaying Serena.

I give a fuck if she put the racquet on the ball or not, the point is that Kim was winning the points.

and, how does Kim number of winners make Justine not look so good? huh?

Instead of trying so careful to choose the words for your phrases, you should try making a little, just a little sense.

I showed your statistcs were just crap and meanless, the fact that Serena or Venus have not beaten Kim or Justine in GS on clay is what matters, not your conveniently twisted argument.

And to "show" that a player didn't hit as many winners and say that affect other player's performance is so stupid and I didn't even think you would say that.

and who the fuck is WS? :rolleyes:

The WS= The Williams Sisters. If you meant unreturnable shots then you should have said it. PERIOD!! You didn't do that therefore you were WRONG. You said you never saw Venus come to the net vs. Justine and I posted the stats for you. You didn't show that the statistics were crap, you just showed your stupid wishful thinking that Kim was blowing Serena away and that was not the case, when Serena cleaned up her errors Kim had no chance, 6 games in a row, Game Set and Match Serena. My argument is not twisted, I showed the facts to back up what I already knew, you are the one who was shooting off at the mouth with untrue statements that you can't prove. You said Venus' net game was an urban legend, anyone who is a fan of tennis knows that when Venus gets to net she wins. You are making no sense whatsoever and should stop talking now. It is clear that I am the superior in this debate and you look like a child trying to argue with a grown-up.

Fingon
May 14th, 2003, 02:18 AM
The WS= The Williams Sisters. If you meant unreturnable shots then you should have said it. PERIOD!! You didn't do that therefore you were WRONG. You said you never saw Venus come to the net vs. Justine and I posted the stats for you. You didn't show that the statistics were crap, you just showed your stupid wishful thinking that Kim was blowing Serena away and that was not the case, when Serena cleaned up her errors Kim had no chance, 6 games in a row, Game Set and Match Serena. My argument is not twisted, I showed the facts to back up what I already knew, you are the one who was shooting off at the mouth with untrue statements that you can't prove. You said Venus' net game was an urban legend, anyone who is a fan of tennis knows that when Venus gets to net she wins. You are making no sense whatsoever and should stop talking now. It is clear that I am the superior in this debate and you look like a child trying to argue with a grown-up.

did you study to be an idiot, or it's just natural?

the fact you base your whole arguments in semantics, what's a winner what's not demonstrate it.

You carefully avoided to answer how Kim's statistics affect Justine.

You think that by expressing something it becomes true, the fact is that you don't have a fucking clue about tennis, and no common sense.

you want it this way, Kim was hitting excellent shots that were winning the points, because Serena couldn't put the fucking little ball on Kim's side, happy?, and when Kim choked, Serena won.

Your facts are crap, again, how do Kim statistics affect Justine? huh? would you mind to answer that or you will just post a useless diatriba?

and if I needed a moron to tell me when to shut up I would have asked you

You are even so stupid that didn't realize that the question about "WS" was a rethoric question.

Knizzle
May 14th, 2003, 02:32 AM
did you study to be an idiot, or it's just natural?

the fact you base your whole arguments in semantics, what's a winner what's not demonstrate it.

You carefully avoided to answer how Kim's statistics affect Justine.

You think that by expressing something it becomes true, the fact is that you don't have a fucking clue about tennis, and no common sense.

you want it this way, Kim was hitting excellent shots that were winning the points, because Serena couldn't put the fucking little ball on Kim's side, happy?, and when Kim choked, Serena won.

Your facts are crap, again, how do Kim statistics affect Justine? huh? would you mind to answer that or you will just post a useless diatriba?

and if I needed a moron to tell me when to shut up I would have asked you

You are even so stupid that didn't realize that the question about "WS" was a rethoric question.

What's a rethoric question??? Do you mean rhetorical question?? And I am a moron?? Kim's stats have nothing to do with Justine, but in my original post I also addressed you saying that Venus has no net game and you never saw her come to the net to beat Justine, so I posted stats to back up my statement that Venus' wins matches against Henin by going to the net. That's the only reason I mentioned Henin in the post. I wasn't saying that Clijsters game had anything with Henin. GOT IT!! You say Kim was hitting excellent shots that were winning points, fine, but Serena got her racket on them and made an error. Did you see the 65 unforced errors Serena made?? Clijsters only made 30- something and she still lost. Serena was giving the match away in the third until 5-1, that's when she decided she didn't want to lose that way and promptly sent Clijsters on her way.

Serena and Venus will always have the matches against Kim and Justine on their rackets, it's all up to the Williams sisters whether they win or lose, Kim and Justine can't control the match.

Hazy
May 14th, 2003, 03:30 AM
It is clear that I am the superior in this debate and you look like a child trying to argue with a grown-up.

The fact that you feel you need to mention this proves that it's not so clear. :p

disposablehero
May 14th, 2003, 03:33 AM
Serena was giving the match away in the third until 5-1, that's when she decided she didn't want to lose that way and promptly sent Clijsters on her way.


Well, the fact that Kim started the 5-1 game by serving 5 consecutive faults may have boosted Serena's confidence a bit as well.

Knizzle
May 14th, 2003, 03:38 AM
Well, the fact that Kim started the 5-1 game by serving 5 consecutive faults may have boosted Serena's confidence a bit as well.

Was it the 5-1 game?? I thought that came at 5-3. I think it was 5-3 because Kim had the two match points at 5-2 on her own serve. Then after that I think she served the 5 faults. Do you believe Kim when she said after the match that she wasn't nervous and didn't choke. I really don't buy it, but if she says it then she knows better than I do. Serena did play amazing for most of those last 6 games though.

Dawn Marie
May 14th, 2003, 03:40 AM
I think it was Serena's painting the lines that actually toyed with Kim's confidence. Kim ran alot of balls down but again playing that defensive has it's negative effects as well. She wasn't able to keep it up through a whole match. Women's Tennis has changed. You gotta go for it and know when to attack and know when to play passive.

Dawn Marie
May 14th, 2003, 03:43 AM
I watched that match again.. and Kim got a bit nervous making those faults.. she was also mentally drained by retrieving many balls. Really though I don't think she choked. Serena played some outstanding tennis to win those 6 straight games. Just like when Vee was down 3/5 vrs Hingis at the US Open 2000. She didn't let up and painted the lines.. she kept going for it and Hingis got tired and Venus ran off 4 straight games. :)

Dawn Marie
May 14th, 2003, 03:47 AM
Fingon, Kim didn't hit many winners past Serena. Face it man, Serena gets balls back. Kim hit some great shots but she sure didn't blow Serena off the court with winners. If anything it was forced errors and Serena hitting the ball in the net.

Oh hell I am outta here... Serena won anyway... why the fuck do I mind? ;)

spencercarlos
May 14th, 2003, 03:52 AM
I watched that match again.. and Kim got a bit nervous making those faults.. she was also mentally drained by retrieving many balls. Really though I don't think she choked. Serena played some outstanding tennis to win those 6 straight games. Just like when Vee was down 3/5 vrs Hingis at the US Open 2000. She didn't let up and painted the lines.. she kept going for it and Hingis got tired and Venus ran off 4 straight games. :)
That is exactly what i have thought of those two matches, Kim and Martina had the same startegy and ended losing with THE SAME SCORE :eek: pretty impressive. They continue to be agressive and that paid off for them. They deserved to be the winners of those matches, when you look at stats you can see the AMOUNT OF UNFORCED ERRORS been too much. Then you can see how Kim and Martina were winning those points.

Knizzle
May 14th, 2003, 03:55 AM
I watched that match again.. and Kim got a bit nervous making those faults.. she was also mentally drained by retrieving many balls. Really though I don't think she choked. Serena played some outstanding tennis to win those 6 straight games. Just like when Vee was down 3/5 vrs Hingis at the US Open 2000. She didn't let up and painted the lines.. she kept going for it and Hingis got tired and Venus ran off 4 straight games. :)

I have that US Open SF between Venus and Hingis and Venus really willed herself to victory that day. If you listen to Venus' celebration after the match she just says, "I don't know, I don't know" as if she doesn't know how she came back.

spencercarlos
May 14th, 2003, 04:04 AM
Well, the fact that Kim started the 5-1 game by serving 5 consecutive faults may have boosted Serena's confidence a bit as well.
This is not true....

You forget this
* Serena served 2 straight double faults to lose the first set 6-4.
* Kimīs 5 straight faults were at 5*-4 0-0 serving for the match the second time... Then Kim played two great points to get to 30-30.. so she still had her chances. Only to see Serena hitting a winner to set up that break point and eventually get even.

FINGON, i just donīt understand what are you trying to say.
Kim won 14 points by hitting winners, and received 65 unforced errors from Serena.
65+14=79 of her TOTAL 100 points
So she won 21 by her forcing play....

Lets see Serena
Serena won 42 by hitting winners, and received 33 unforced errors from Kim.
42+33=75 of her TOTAL 104 points won
So Serena won 29 by her forcing play.

So 42>14 (winners)....... and 29>21 (Forcing play)
In both categories Serena dominated ...
Overall 71>35 based on combined winner/force play from Serena and Kim. Serena won on her own twice as many points than Kim.
I got close cause Serena gave Kim 65 points on unforced errors while Kim did 33, almost twice as many too.

So i donīt really understand what are you trying to prove FIngon???

Knizzle
May 14th, 2003, 04:22 AM
This is not true....

You forget this
* Serena served 2 straight double faults to lose the first set 6-4.
* Kimīs 5 straight faults were at 5*-4 0-0 serving for the match the second time... Then Kim played two great points to get to 30-30.. so she still had her chances. Only to see Serena hitting a winner to set up that break point and eventually get even.

FINGON, i just donīt understand what are you trying to say.
Kim won 12 points by hitting winners, and received 65 unforced errors from Serena.
65+12=77 of her TOTAL 100 points
So she won 23 by her forcing play....

Lets see Serena
Serena won 21 by hitting winners, and received 33 unforced errors from Kim.
21+33=54 of her TOTAL 104 points won
So Serena won 50 by her forcing play.

So 21>12 (winners)....... and 50>23 (Forcing play) In both categories Serena dominated ... So i donīt really understand what are you trying to prove FIngon???

Actually petosp, you looked at the wrong stats for the winners, Serena had 42 winners 65 UFE's, and Clijsters had 14 winners, and 33 UFE's. Honest mistake. So Clijsters 14+65= 79 of 100 points won makes 21 forced errors, and for Serena 42+33= 75 makes 29 forced errors, so if you add the forced errors plus winners it is 71 points won by Serena's good play and 35 points won by Clijsters good play.

spencercarlos
May 14th, 2003, 04:31 AM
Knizzle !!1 thanks

Changes done ;)

Knizzle
May 14th, 2003, 05:17 PM
Knizzle !!1 thanks

Changes done ;)

Your welcome petosp, anytime.

Dawn Marie
May 14th, 2003, 05:58 PM
It looks like you all did your homework.. :)

DA FOREHAND
May 14th, 2003, 06:28 PM
"Venus' net game is an urban legend?"

You're joking right? You either a)Don't watch the matches, or b) have the mute button on, or else you'd hear BJK and Martina N, practically drooling everytime Venus approaches the net.

I was at the recent Fed Cup, and everytime Venus came to net I swear BJK, had an orgasm.

If you polled the players, I'm pretty sure Venus would be at the top of the list of players they wouldn't want to see at the net. Incredible reach and flexibility.

Fingon
May 15th, 2003, 04:07 AM
"Venus' net game is an urban legend?"

You're joking right? You either a)Don't watch the matches, or b) have the mute button on, or else you'd hear BJK and Martina N, practically drooling everytime Venus approaches the net.

I was at the recent Fed Cup, and everytime Venus came to net I swear BJK, had an orgasm.

If you polled the players, I'm pretty sure Venus would be at the top of the list of players they wouldn't want to see at the net. Incredible reach and flexibility.

And, I certainly don't need BJK, Martina or anyone to tell me how a player plays, and I certainly won't accept what they say just because they say it, I have my own eyes and my own brain and can have my own opinions thank you.

And I do have the mute button on frequently, mostly when Pam or Mary Joe are commentating.

I don't know what the players would say until you actually do the poll, you can't base a conclusion on an imaginary poll.

And at the net, reach is an asset, but it's not everything and certainly not the most important factor, touch, anticipation and net coverage (that isn't the same as reach) are the main factors.

Fingon
May 15th, 2003, 04:16 AM
What's a rethoric question??? Do you mean rhetorical question?? And I am a moron??


yes you are, intelligence has nothing to do with the use of the language, especially when it isn't one person's first language. And I don't want to generalize but often I find that people that try to speak with ellaborated sentences and well selected words really are saying nothing, they are just trying to say it in a way it sounds true, but without much substance.


Kim's stats have nothing to do with Justine, but in my original post I also addressed you saying that Venus has no net game and you never saw her come to the net to beat Justine, so I posted stats to back up my statement that Venus' wins matches against Henin by going to the net. That's the only reason I mentioned Henin in the post. I wasn't saying that Clijsters game had anything with Henin. GOT IT!!


yes, I got it, when after several intends you finally said it. Now, you said something like ... now Kim and Justine don't look as good as you said..., my question is, how the way Venus won her matches affects that? just because (according to you) Venus won her matches at the net it makes Justine look bad? :rolleyes: the main fact, that the head-to-head in a Grand Slam on Clay is 0-0 remains true, wherever Venus came to the net 0 or 3000 times, so, you point is at best irrelevant.


You say Kim was hitting excellent shots that were winning points, fine, but Serena got her racket on them and made an error. Did you see the 65 unforced errors Serena made?? Clijsters only made 30- something and she still lost. Serena was giving the match away in the third until 5-1, that's when she decided she didn't want to lose that way and promptly sent Clijsters on her way.

Serena and Venus will always have the matches against Kim and Justine on their rackets, it's all up to the Williams sisters whether they win or lose, Kim and Justine can't control the match.

or you affirm that, Serena this, Serena that, when Serena was losing it was Serena letting Kim, when Serena won it was Serena.

I still think that Serena is the best player out there, better than Kim, better than Justine, that's not the point, but some of her fans can't even accept that some times, just some times she gets outplayed, that day Kim was playing better and she choked big times, pure and simple, that day it wasn't on Serena's racquet.

and finally, if Kim and Justine can't control the match, neither can Venus or Serena, you said it's up to them, whether they win or lose, as I don't think they ever want to lose then it's not up to them is it?

Fingon
May 15th, 2003, 04:22 AM
This is not true....


FINGON, i just donīt understand what are you trying to say.
Kim won 14 points by hitting winners, and received 65 unforced errors from Serena.
65+14=79 of her TOTAL 100 points
So she won 21 by her forcing play....

Lets see Serena
Serena won 42 by hitting winners, and received 33 unforced errors from Kim.
42+33=75 of her TOTAL 104 points won
So Serena won 29 by her forcing play.

So 42>14 (winners)....... and 29>21 (Forcing play)
In both categories Serena dominated ...
Overall 71>35 based on combined winner/force play from Serena and Kim. Serena won on her own twice as many points than Kim.
I got close cause Serena gave Kim 65 points on unforced errors while Kim did 33, almost twice as many too.

So i donīt really understand what are you trying to prove FIngon???

if you are trying to make a point with me, don't use statistics, you can post all the numbers you want but until you make a case about the game, not the numbers posted on a website you won't convince me.

This is not an statistical contest, and the numbers don't say the whole true (they only say a very small part of the true). When I watch a match I know who is playing better and don't even bother to see the numbers, and whatever they say Kim was playing better that day until she choked. By experience I know that when a player is having such a performance, isn't likely to lose unless she chokes or gets injured. Kim was playing great and she only needed to win one more game, but she choked.

You can show me all the statistics showing winners, UE, total points, first serve % and I won't change my mind a bit, I saw the match and that's it for me.

Knizzle
May 15th, 2003, 04:39 AM
And I do have the mute button on frequently, mostly when Pam or Mary Joe are commentating.


I have to agree with you there. Pam and Mary Joe are terrible. Pam is alot worse than Mary Joe though IMO.

Knizzle
May 15th, 2003, 04:47 AM
yes you are, intelligence has nothing to do with the use of the language, especially when it isn't one person's first language. And I don't want to generalize but often I find that people that try to speak with ellaborated sentences and well selected words really are saying nothing, they are just trying to say it in a way it sounds true, but without much substance.



yes I got it, when after several intends you finally said it. Now, you said something like ... now Kim and Justine don't look as good as you said..., my question is, how the way Venus won her matches affects that? just because (according to you) Venus won her matches at the net it makes Justine look bad? :rolleyes: the main fact, that the head-to-head in a Grand Slam on Clay is 0-0 remains true, wherever Venus came to the net 0 or 3000 times, so, you point is at best irrelevant.

You made a point that Justine is 2-1 against Serena on clay and 1-0 against Venus, which is really 1-1. Whatever point you were trying to make must be irrelevant also because they have never met in a grand slam on clay.


or you affirm that, Serena this, Serena that, when Serena was losing it was Serena letting Kim, when Serena won it was Serena.

I still think that Serena is the best player out there, better than Kim, better than Justine, that's not the point, but some of her fans can't even accept that some times, just some times she gets outplayed, that day Kim was playing better and she choked big times, pure and simple, that day it wasn't on Serena's racquet.

and finally, if Kim and Justine can't control the match, neither can Venus or Serena, you said it's up to them, whether they win or lose, as I don't think they ever want to lose then it's not up to them is it?

The match definitely was not on Kim's raquet. Serena was making far too many errors up until 5-1, like I said before when she stopped making errors and raised her level, there was nothing for Kim to do. If Kim in fact had the match on her raquet and she was playing as well as you say then she would have won at least one of those four games to close the match, and remember she had two match points. Kim or Justine can neither control the match against the WS, Kim has stated this right out of her own mouth. She also said she wasn't nervous and she didn't choke, shouldn't we take her word for it??

Fingon
May 15th, 2003, 05:27 AM
You made a point that Justine is 2-1 against Serena on clay and 1-0 against Venus, which is really 1-1. Whatever point you were trying to make must be irrelevant also because they have never met in a grand slam on clay.




The match definitely was not on Kim's raquet. Serena was making far too many errors up until 5-1, like I said before when she stopped making errors and raised her level, there was nothing for Kim to do. If Kim in fact had the match on her raquet and she was playing as well as you say then she would have won at least one of those four games to close the match, and remember she had two match points. Kim or Justine can neither control the match against the WS, Kim has stated this right out of her own mouth. She also said she wasn't nervous and she didn't choke, shouldn't we take her word for it??

you are right about the head-to-head with Venus on clay, it's 1-1, I forgot Amelia Island.

you made the point about the Grand Slams, not me, I was saying that as RG is played on clay, I take the head-to-head on clay as more important, I never said anything about GS, you were the one who mentioned they haven't beaten them in GS. My point was the head-to-head on clay, GS or not, your point was the head-to-head in GS and I said that you should take into consideration the head-to-head in RG to say that, and they are 0-0 so they are not relevant,

I wasn't trying to make a point about the grand slam, I was refuting your point that is different, my point was head-to-head on clay.

About Kim, well Kim is some times too nice IMO, she will never say that she choked (players don't like to admit that).

and my point is exactly that, Kim had a huge advantage and got there by playing great tennis. She only needed to win one more game and she couldn't. Serena did raise her level but she wasn't playing that well, I've seen her play a lot better. The match was on Kim's racquet.

And the point that Serena's matches are always up to her is not true. As I said, I don't believe she ever wants to lose, so she doesn't decide the outcome of the match otherwise she would have never lost.

Of course I know the point was that if she is "on" she wins and if she is "off" her opponent has a chance, but that's bullshit, first of all, being on in a consistent basis is part of being a champion. Second, some times she is off because her opponent forces her to, not all players win by serving a 127 mph serve and blowing her opponent off the court. Forcing your opponent to commit errors is part of the game and as valid as a tactic as overpowering your opponent. The fact that you like power doesn't mean that power is the only legitimate way to win.

Just for the record, remember Mary Pierce vs Serena Indian Wells 2000?, I know it was a different Serena but still, it's the only time that I've heard Serena saying that it was nothing she could do, that Mary was playing just too well, that time it wasn't on Serena's racquet, even by your definition, was it?

QUEENLINDSAY
May 15th, 2003, 05:56 AM
I think the semis could be taken by anyone among the top 10, possibly with another darkhorse outside top 10. I wont give a damn on these seedings for nobody is gonna be sure of how it will end up. So I will just based the chances on their latest game performances.

The only real top contenders for the french are the following.

1. Justine
2. Serena
3. Kim

These are the only players who showed great results the past tournaments specially on clay.

I would put Lindsay far next to them for her SF and F performance on American green clay.

Jenn Cap and Mauresmo would come in next. They already showed before they can play on clay.

I would'nt count out Venus, but I will not put my money on her considering her latest results and health issues.

Knizzle
May 15th, 2003, 06:16 AM
you are right about the head-to-head with Venus on clay, it's 1-1, I forgot Amelia Island.

you made the point about the Grand Slams, not me, I was saying that as RG is played on clay, I take the head-to-head on clay as more important, I never said anything about GS, you were the one who mentioned they haven't beaten them in GS. My point was the head-to-head on clay, GS or not, your point was the head-to-head in GS and I said that you should take into consideration the head-to-head in RG to say that, and they are 0-0 so they are not relevant,

I wasn't trying to make a point about the grand slam, I was refuting your point that is different, my point was head-to-head on clay.

About Kim, well Kim is some times too nice IMO, she will never say that she choked (players don't like to admit that).

and my point is exactly that, Kim had a huge advantage and got there by playing great tennis. She only needed to win one more game and she couldn't. Serena did raise her level but she wasn't playing that well, I've seen her play a lot better. The match was on Kim's racquet.

And the point that Serena's matches are always up to her is not true. As I said, I don't believe she ever wants to lose, so she doesn't decide the outcome of the match otherwise she would have never lost.

I am not saying that Serena is God and that she can say I am going to win this match and it is so. I am just saying that if Serena plays her game as it should be played no one outside of her sister can match her, and she showed that at the AO 2003

Of course I know the point was that if she is "on" she wins and if she is "off" her opponent has a chance, but that's bullshit, first of all, being on in a consistent basis is part of being a champion. Second, some times she is off because her opponent forces her to, not all players win by serving a 127 mph serve and blowing her opponent off the court. Forcing your opponent to commit errors is part of the game and as valid as a tactic as overpowering your opponent. The fact that you like power doesn't mean that power is the only legitimate way to win.

This is all that I was saying. If Serena plays well she wins, if she makes errors her opponent has a chance, there is no one who can go out and consistently dictate a whole match vs. Serena, but Serena dictates all the time, whether making a winner or an error. I know that forcing your opponent into errors is a great strategy, Serena does it all the time. But in this match Kim forced Serena into 21 errors out of 100 points. Serena gave away 65 points, that's why they call them unforced errors because those are the shots players made mistakes on all by themselves.

Just for the record, remember Mary Pierce vs Serena Indian Wells 2000?, I know it was a different Serena but still, it's the only time that I've heard Serena saying that it was nothing she could do, that Mary was playing just too well, that time it wasn't on Serena's racquet, even by your definition, was it?

You answered your own question. It was a different Serena then. In that case there was nothing for Serena to do because Mary was just playing too well. Back then I would never say the matches were on either WS raquet because they hadn't separated themselves so far from the field then. The WS are worlds better now then they were then, especially Serena.

moby
May 15th, 2003, 06:49 AM
Kim or Justine can neither control the match against the WS, Kim has stated this right out of her own mouth. She also said she wasn't nervous and she didn't choke, shouldn't we take her word for it??

i think kim was trying to be a gracious loser
i mean, it wouldnt look very nice if kim had said "at 5-1 she really lifted her level and i played 9000 notches below my best"

fifiricci
May 15th, 2003, 09:19 AM
So much pressure on Justine to win Roland Garros.

I wonder if she can do it.

Or will the French open throw in yet another unexpected champion ?

My vote goes for the latter.

I've got a feeling Capriati is going to do really well. If she's up for it I think she's best placed mentally to break the Williams hold.

spencercarlos
May 15th, 2003, 02:49 PM
if you are trying to make a point with me, don't use statistics, you can post all the numbers you want but until you make a case about the game, not the numbers posted on a website you won't convince me.

So what should i use to establish a conversation here that "I Think".......... and "I saw"....... You are ridiculous, i dont care about the % of serves, i just stated winners and unforced errors comparisson.

I can say that "I Think Anna is the favorite for Roland Garros", yes i can think of it, but when you go to the numbers you can see how close i`m on what i said.

When I watch a match I know who is playing better and don't even bother to see the numbers, and whatever they say Kim was playing better that day until she choked. By experience I know that when a player is having such a performance, isn't likely to lose unless she chokes or gets injured. Kim was playing great and she only needed to win one more game, but she choked.

So going by your theory, i can say Serena CHOKE SO HORRIBLE in teh first set, making 2 straight double faults to lose the set 6-4.
So only because Serena made those 2 doubles Kim can`t be considered the winner of that set? LOL

Kim choked in that 4-5 game by doing those doubles, but Serena kept hitting hard when she was down, even in those match points, she was the agressor on those points. Do you think Kim is responsable for having the other player taking risks at match points?

I saw the match and that's it for me.

Yes as i said, that`s your opinion no matter what, and its fine, but you can`t hide numbers.

Serena won the DOUBLE points with winners and forcing play.
Serena GAVE OUT almost THE DOUBLE unforced errors than Kim, that`s why you had a close match.