PDA

View Full Version : Rules don't apply- Williams


asheboro
Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:37 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus04/news/story?id=1714996

servenrichie
Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:44 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus04/news/story?id=1714996
:yawn:

Peetz
Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:09 PM
:rolleyes:

This discussion will have an end when Venus wins the Aussies and gets back the equivalent ranking to her potential!

asheboro
Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:21 PM
:rolleyes:

This discussion will have an end when Venus wins the Aussies and gets back the equivalent ranking to her potential!

As far as I am concern Vee has nothing to prove to anyone. She has done it all before and she will do it again. She is determine to take this trophy home.

WtaTour4Ever
Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:27 PM
.......Exhale...Breath....Exhale.....Breath......

not worth commenting on.

Peetz
Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:31 PM
As far as I am concern Vee has nothing to prove to anyone. She has done it all before and she will do it again. She is determine to take this trophy home. Of course!dunno what a four times Gs champion and five timer runner-up(out of four years)would have to prove?!

Paneru
Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:32 PM
:rolleyes:
BULLSHIT!

No bias against V&S!;)
Funny how the rules supposedly don't apply and people bitch, yet Lindsay gets the same treatment when she was injured and nothing was said!:lol:

Another sportswriter who knows nothing
and looks like a horses ass!:cool:

Peetz
Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:36 PM
:rolleyes:
BULLSHIT!

No bias against V&S!;)
Funny how the rules supposedly don't apply and people bitch, yet Lindsay gets the same treatment when she was injured and nothing was said!:lol:

Another sportswriter who knows nothing
and looks like a horses ass!:cool: An absolutly natural instinct to speak more about the better players!;)

lizchris
Jan 23rd, 2004, 12:58 PM
:rolleyes:
BULLSHIT!

No bias against V&S!;)
Funny how the rules supposedly don't apply and people bitch, yet Lindsay gets the same treatment when she was injured and nothing was said!:lol:

Another sportswriter who knows nothing
and looks like a horses ass!:cool:
I was just thinking the same thing.

Imagine if Venus had been seeded at number 9 (which would have been her seed due to Serena's and Jennifer withdrawls) and then met one of the higher seeded players in the quarterfinals and beat them. Then the sportswriters would have complained that the special seeding should have been awarded to Venus. The sisters can't catch a break no matter what they do or don't do.

Peetz
Jan 23rd, 2004, 01:02 PM
I was just thinking the same thing.

Imagine if Venus had been seeded at number 9 (which would have been her seed due to Serena's and Jennifer withdrawls) and then met one of the higher seeded players in the quarterfinals and beat them. Then the sportswriters would have complained that the special seeding should have been awarded to Venus. The sisters can't catch a break no matter what they do or don't do. There are people being payed for seeking everything V&S could do wrong!

dreamgoddess099
Jan 23rd, 2004, 01:12 PM
This guy seems to be complimenting Venus by saying that because she is such a great player, she actually deserves to be seeded highly. Then he claims that she is receiving special treatment. :confused: So if he thinks she is a such a great player who can live up to her seeding, then what the hell is he bitching about? :rolleyes:

Ballbuster
Jan 23rd, 2004, 01:49 PM
The article was fair.

Paneru
Jan 23rd, 2004, 01:58 PM
The article was fair.
And Halle Berry is my mistress!:p

Don't hate the player,
hate the game!:cool:

Cam'ron Giles
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:06 PM
:confused: me...? I dont get it...I must say I read the article this morning before my coffee...but I dont see the problem with the article...:confused:

bandabou
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:08 PM
It doesn´t matter.....no matter where Venus was seeded, it´d still have picked her over Momo, Lindsay and all those lower seeds ANY day.

And the two top seeds, know that they got their work cut-out for them when facing Venus no matter where she´s ranked/seeded.

Paneru
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:20 PM
:confused: me...? I dont get it...I must say I read the article this morning before my coffee...but I dont see the problem with the article...:confused:

It's the insinuation that somehow V&S are getting some kind of special treatment. Conviently or otherwise the fact that Davenport got the same treament when she was injured is overlooked.

DA FOREHAND
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:20 PM
Good article...the writer doesn't seem bitter, only pointing out the obvious.

Now I must go and read Amelie's interviews

DA FOREHAND
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:22 PM
That's odd...they have Samantha Stousor's interview...but no Amelie? HMMMM?

Are they tryig to silence her ?

ico4498
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:25 PM
It's the insinuation that somehow V&S are getting some kind of special treatment. Conviently or otherwise the fact that Davenport got the same treament when she was injured is overlooked.

Davenport was mentioned.

ico4498
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:27 PM
And Halle Berry is my mistress!:p

Don't hate the player,
hate the game!:cool:

the critism was about the game, not the player.

spartanfan
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:28 PM
Yea this sounds like the hack job of some sportswriter who doesn't fully understand the WTA or seeding system or what having an injury protectd ranking or seeding means. Notice he failed to even mention the press release the WTA put out concerning this matter. Just another article to try and stir up some shit.

Hulet
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:33 PM
How come the author didn't give a description of the rule that is not being applied? No detailed discussion of the IPR rule in article and how it is not being applied.

Poor article overall.

morbidangle
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:42 PM
I have always been against the injury protected ranking rule, but I think it was a wise decision on WTA's part to give Monica, Steffi and Lindsay special rankings after their injury lay offs.. and so giving Venus a special ranking only makes sense, she is certainly better than the players ranked below her.. we'll see how she fares against Kim and Justine. Of all the players in the field, I still think she has the best chance to win the AO. I hope Justine proves me wrong though ;)

servenrichie
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:51 PM
The paranoid android hyenas are at it again... Unbelievable. :eek:The second board leprosy patient:rolleyes:

Infiniti2001
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:52 PM
Why bother to even get upset? It's just another person with absolutely no grasp of how seedings have traditionally worked. :rolleyes: :tape:

Paneru
Jan 23rd, 2004, 02:58 PM
If you would have taken the time to READ the article (not just a couple of random lines) you would have noticed the writer talks about Linsday also receiving the same treatment in the past.

Got me!:p

However, why bait with the "rules don't apply"?
To get people to read what they will precieve from the beginning that is a negative article about V&S and somehow they're getting something that others dont'. And slipping towards the end that Davenport benfitted somehow makes it better.

If he had explained the system and not written it the way it sounded all would've been fine. You get the notion that it isn't fair and show other players bitching and then slip in another top player got it but doesn't explain why and how that leaves no questions.

The article wasn't written well.

Paneru
Jan 23rd, 2004, 03:05 PM
Why bother to even get upset? It's just another person with absolutely no grasp of how seedings have traditionally worked. :rolleyes: :tape:
Yeah, I know.
Just feeling a little fiesty this morning.:devil:

Cybelle Darkholme
Jan 23rd, 2004, 03:29 PM
Bullshit.

Venus' seeding is criticized as unfair while lindsay's seeding last year was hailed as appropriate? How biased and ridiculous considering both came off injuries that took them away for over six months.

It makes no sense except the writer wants to take another jab at a williams sister even if he has no basis to do so. If he had cricized lindsay's seeding last year he might have a leg to stand on but not only didn't he do that but he gives her a free pass on it?

Looks like another lame ass journalists trying to play the williams card.

William Hunt
Jan 23rd, 2004, 03:29 PM
I think it's an excellent article. Personally I think it's unfair that players get a higher seed than their ranking. It's especially unfair to the people who are ranked a bit higher. The official WTA ranking should be followed in determining the seeds and not personale choice !

Cybelle Darkholme
Jan 23rd, 2004, 03:30 PM
If you would have taken the time to READ the article (not just a couple of random lines) you would have noticed the writer talks about Linsday also receiving the same treatment in the past.

yes he talks about lindsays getting the same treatment and he endorses it when its for lindsay. didn't you read the article? :confused:

griffin
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:10 PM
Just for fun, the actual article (I added the bold):
If just-back-on-the-circuit Venus Williams plows on through the next week or so and ultimately lives up to the No. 3 seed bestowed upon her by the good folks at the Australian Open, she's going to prove one of two things, if not both:

· The seeding process in professional tennis is just exactly as arbitrary and easily manipulated as it needs to be; and

· The Williamses rule the world.

As to the second count, we should probably go ahead and declare a winner. If you don't understand by now the myriad ways in which the women's pro tennis industry revolves around the stars named Venus and Serena, well, there's no helping you.

But what could be genuinely interesting here is the concept of leap-frogging seeds in order to place someone like Venus at or near the top, on the grounds that ... well, she was terrifically good last July, anyway.

It was back then that Venus suffered the abdominal injury that essentially ended her year. She didn't play in another competitive tournament, her ranking slipped from No. 2 to No. 11, and it was generally agreed that she was likely to make a long, slow and steady climb back up near the top of the list, the length and height of that ascent primarily depend upon how much tennis Venus really wanted to play.

But with sister Serena still sidelined by a knee injury suffered last August, there was suddenly an opening at the Aussie for a No. 3 seed. And just like that, the officials of this major tournament announced that they had decided to ignore the traditional system, follow a seeding suggestion by the Womens Tennis Association, and place Venus at No. 3, ahead of Amelie Mauresmo and Lindsay Davenport.

What gives? Well, stature, on so many levels. Venus Williams' seeding at the Australian is the rough equivalent of someone receiving a lifetime Oscar or being voted to an All-Star team despite having an off year. The woman was so good for so long, and good enough as recently as last summer's Wimbledon, that the thinking was basically, "She's good for it."

Good for the attention, certainly; by now it has been established beyond question that any tournament with one of the Williams sisters in it is much the better for that player's presence. It is money, it is attention, it is competition. People want to see Venus and Serena, but they'll happily settle for one or the other if they can't have both.

And give Venus Williams her due: She is still held in such regard as a tennis force that there was minimal squawking over the Australian Open's decision to vault her eight spaces above her world ranking, even if she hadn't played against top-level competition in six months.

Mauresmo was unhappy, but Davenport was strikingly noncontroversial on the topic, saying, "The Williamses have obviously, when they've played, been extremely dominating." And Kim Clijsters, the No. 2 seed in Melbourne, saluted Venus' high seed: "She's definitely the player that should be up there."

What we're seeing, once again, is the curtain being pulled back on seeding and ranking systems that don't always have a fat lot to do with one another. A player's world ranking is generally compiled on a rolling 12-month scale; it's to do with numbers of tournaments entered and points accrued and the like. You can be having a lousy August and still rank terribly high overall come the end of the month. It doesn't mean you're in any shape to contend in a good tournament.

Ideally, a tournament's seedings are determined on a more timely, topical basis: Who's good right now? Who's best on this surface? It's a tough question to ask about the Australian, of course, coming as it does in January, and as a result the championship generally uses the ATP and WTA year-end rankings from the previous December to seed the men's and women's fields.

Then again, who are we kidding? These are the Williamses we're talking about. Even if we understood the rules, they don't apply.

There won't be a right or wrong answer coming out of Australia over the next 10 days. If Williams bows out relatively early in the tournament, she'll likely join a host of other high seeds who don't get all the way through the championship's competitive field. It isn't as if there's no precedent for top seeds being upset at the majors.

For that matter, the leapfrog system is hardly new, just infrequently used. Davenport once benefitted from such a generous seeding shuffle when coming back from an injury. It was almost credit for time served, and it didn't feel inappropriate at all.
Come now Venus Williams, the woman who went from No. 11 to No. 3 faster than you could say, "Serena's out." That long, slow climb we talked about turned into a rocket ride. But ask anyone, including Venus herself: The getting there is usually nothing compared with what it takes to stay there.

I think he clearly doesn't understand the "rules" (namely, injury protect rankings and the difference between rankings and seedings), and the article seems like something of a brain dump - a couple of random ideas strung together but not really thought out - but I don't see how he's picking on Venus.

Foot_Fault
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:11 PM
:confused: me...? I dont get it...I must say I read the article this morning before my coffee...but I dont see the problem with the article...:confused:
The only problem with the Article that I see, is that it was so....Three Weeks ago. Y is he printing it now?:rolleyes:

griffin
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:17 PM
The only problem with the Article that I see, is that it was so....Three Weeks ago. Y is he printing it now?:rolleyes:

my theory: 'cause "tennis" reporters are lazy bitches.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:18 PM
I think he clearly doesn't understand the "rules" (namely, injury protect rankings and the difference between rankings and seedings), and the article seems like something of a brain dump - a couple of random ideas strung together but not really thought out - but I don't see how he's picking on Venus.

Look at the bottom of his article where he mentions lindsay benefitting from the same situation and yet he calls that appropriate where he feels the same situation for venus is not.

That is how this article is blantantly biased and it also reveals that the man is an idiot for not understanding the rules he's commenting on.

griffin
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:21 PM
I did look at the bottom - and at the top, and the middle. My reading of this is that he very much sees V's special seeding as appropriate (although again he doesn't understand the rules that make it possible and proper), in fact the whole article reads to me like a (badly written) defense of her seeding.

BigTennisFan
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:38 PM
Griffin is right. The writer does not understand the difference between seedings and rankings.

Remember all the brouhaha with the clay courters and the Wimbledon seedings? Venus is stilled ranked #11. :confused:

Now out of mischief I really, really, REALLY wanted Venus to be seeded #11 this year. :devil:

It would have been a hoot. :lol:

DA FOREHAND
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:41 PM
Griffin is right. The writer does not understand the difference between seedings and rankings.

Remember all the brouhaha with the clay courters and the Wimbledon seedings? Venus is stilled ranked #11. :confused:

Now out of mischief I really, really, REALLY wanted Venus to be seeded #11 this year. :devil:

It would have been a hoot. :lol:


Yeah, until she knocked off one of your favs. in an early round :tape:

BigTennisFan
Jan 23rd, 2004, 04:43 PM
Yeah, until she knocked off one of your favs. in an early round :tape:
That's the point! She is my fave. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

SerenaSlam
Jan 23rd, 2004, 05:08 PM
i see nothing wrong with the article personally. it made a good point. but i personally think Amelie has been the only one to give notice that she feels she can compete with the williams (especially venus) and didn't appreciate the special seeding. I don't think she was really "complaning" i think she was personally making a statement, that Venus could've been kept where she was at, and tried to prove herself, and if that happend to be against her (Amelie) she really didn't mind cuz she felt she could take her out.


On the other hand, you have Justine, kim and Lindsay talking more so like, im glad she got this special seeding, b/c it allows us not to run into her, and get more ranking points blah blah blah, and most likely eventually loose to her in the semis or finals. They to me, don't have the confidence that they can beat a williams like Amelie does. She beat both of them last year, and has kept her spirits high. Justine beat serena two times, but i honestly believe that trounce by serena at wimbledon gave justine a big wake up call, that serena is still gonna trounce her when serena is on her game.

harloo
Jan 23rd, 2004, 05:12 PM
I really did hope Venus would be #11 so she could meet some top players early and show them the door.:)

go venus!!!!!

Ballbuster
Jan 23rd, 2004, 05:24 PM
What's with the over sanitizing of post?

This is getting lame.

venusfan
Jan 23rd, 2004, 05:54 PM
I am going to be calm today.. and will repond this person from california after Venus last match at the Aus Open. Come on Venus, u can do it... I tell u.. u will make us feel so great if you can walk away with that trophy.

Foot_Fault
Jan 23rd, 2004, 06:16 PM
my theory: 'cause "tennis" reporters are lazy bitches.
Agreed!

Cybelle Darkholme
Jan 23rd, 2004, 06:23 PM
I did look at the bottom - and at the top, and the middle. My reading of this is that he very much sees V's special seeding as appropriate (although again he doesn't understand the rules that make it possible and proper), in fact the whole article reads to me like a (badly written) defense of her seeding.

wow i completely disagree. The whole thing reads to me like a criticism of venus' special seeding.

lizchris
Jan 23rd, 2004, 06:31 PM
i see nothing wrong with the article personally. it made a good point. but i personally think Amelie has been the only one to give notice that she feels she can compete with the williams (especially venus) and didn't appreciate the special seeding. I don't think she was really "complaning" i think she was personally making a statement, that Venus could've been kept where she was at, and tried to prove herself, and if that happend to be against her (Amelie) she really didn't mind cuz she felt she could take her out.


On the other hand, you have Justine, kim and Lindsay talking more so like, im glad she got this special seeding, b/c it allows us not to run into her, and get more ranking points blah blah blah, and most likely eventually loose to her in the semis or finals. They to me, don't have the confidence that they can beat a williams like Amelie does. She beat both of them last year, and has kept her spirits high. Justine beat serena two times, but i honestly believe that trounce by serena at wimbledon gave justine a big wake up call, that serena is still gonna trounce her when serena is on her game.
Keep in mind that the victory againt Venus was a retirement and both victories were on clay. She may have to confidence that she can beat the Williams sisters, but having the confidence and actually doing it are two different things.

tennisIlove09
Jan 23rd, 2004, 07:13 PM
I just don't understand why the IPR is such a big deal when Venus and Serena use it. But at the 02 US Open, Davenport's IPR wasn't mentioned.

It just doesn't make sense.

Richie77
Jan 23rd, 2004, 07:21 PM
I don't think the author was picking on Venus at all...maybe he didn't understand the IPR rule, but he understood that Venus should've been seeded third.