PDA

View Full Version : Sharapova win Korea/Hansol ... without playing anyone ranked in the top 50


Volcana
Oct 3rd, 2004, 01:33 PM
of course, since the #2 and #3 seeds were ranked 42 and 50, respectively, she didn't have much of a chance to PLAY a player ranked in the top 50. This was Brazil playing a high schoool team in football/soccer, or Lance armstrong racing the kids in your neighborhood on bikes. The opponent may be skilled, and try their best, but this was an exhibition for Sharapova, or a glorified practice.

I can't quite bring myself to say 'congratulations' or 'job well done'. I will say, she probably helped that tournament a LOT. I hear the crowds were great. That'll help them with sponsorship next, and will surely inspire Korean players to develop their games to the next level. It'll certainly help her where Asian sponsorships are oncerned.

All in all, it was good for tennis that she did this. I rather doubt it helped her much athletically though.

Frank
Oct 3rd, 2004, 01:39 PM
I believe there are already numerous threads about this.

vettipooh
Oct 3rd, 2004, 02:04 PM
I think the highest ranked player she played was ranked 81.She made good on her "gift", though.;)

switz
Oct 3rd, 2004, 02:14 PM
yes although it was hardly a career highlight i think it's a bit harsh to relate players like gagliardi etc to children.

it's not like anyone with a brain is going to use this as evidence of sharapova's brilliance. it's simply good in all the positive aspects you mentioned in your post.

i'm sure she didn't do it for these altruistic reason by ultimately it's a good thing IMO. what kind of attention would marta defeating marlene in the final have brought the tournament? answer: a one paragraph reuters article and maybe a mention in john's article.

MLF
Oct 3rd, 2004, 02:20 PM
I'm rather indifferent to Sharapova but whatever the criticisms may be she was good for this event in it's debut year. Crowds were good, sponsors flocked to support the event and apparently until it was confirmed she was playing the tv networks in Korea weren't that interested in the event but then were falling over each other to secure the rights to it, so the event definitely made a profit. At the end of the day Maria secured at least another couple of years of this tournament in Korea for the organisers.

Experimentee
Oct 3rd, 2004, 02:39 PM
I think most tennis fans would rather see a competitive final between Kremer and Domachowska, than a 6-1 6-1 thrashing. If I was at this tournaemnt I would have avoided all Sharapova's matches in favour of some decent competition.

Volcana
Oct 3rd, 2004, 03:03 PM
I think most tennis fans would rather see a competitive final between Kremer and Domachowska, than a 6-1 6-1 thrashing. If I was at this tournaemnt I would have avoided all Sharapova's matches in favour of some decent competition.But in fact, even after it became clear all her matches would be blow-out, and the #2-#7 seeds all lost their first or second match, Sharapova's matches all sold out, or close-to. So obviously people over there didn't feel the same way you did.

I think this is actually something the WTA should consider instituting on a regular basis. Offer new Tier IV's a STAR player, and further, guarantee them four matches BY that star player. The player could play exhibitions on the days they would have played if they get eliminated early. Naturally, that star player would have to be compensated appropriately.

This might involve creating a 'Platinum Exempt' level, for players in the top twnety, who's popularity outstrips their ranking, plus the #1 player. (The words 'World #1' will always draw crowds, to an extent) Such a group would be the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Capriati and Davenport right now. The point however, is that such a group would be STARS, in the celbrity sense, who are playing well. Kuznetsova is a better player than Sharapova, but she just won't draw the casual fan and non-fan the way Sharapova or Serena Williams will.

You can argue about who should be IN such a group, but remember, the point is to get new tournaments off to a strong start, not to say one player is better than another. If Anna Kournikova came back, and cam back as a player who consistently made it to last eight of Tier I and II tournaments, she'd be in that group for sure. No more of this losing her first or second match crap.

Sharapova showed exactly what you'd want of such a player. She went out and won the tournament easily, as she should have. No tanking, be nice to the crowds, get the tournament a chance to become a regular stop on the tour by getting them off to a good start.

faboozadoo15
Oct 3rd, 2004, 03:37 PM
yes although it was hardly a career highlight i think it's a bit harsh to relate players like gagliardi etc to children.
:haha: so true, but i can't stop!!!

matthias
Oct 3rd, 2004, 04:33 PM
German Teletext wrote she got 300K to play Seoul :eek:

selesbooz
Oct 3rd, 2004, 05:37 PM
there is not much difference in the tier IV that Maria played and the tier III that were the other tournments. their was a 2000 $ difference in prize money for the winner. and the quality of players was a little lower. Maria had to play 5 matches to Elena's 4. there's not that much difference.

Volcana
Oct 3rd, 2004, 09:04 PM
there is not much difference in the tier IV that Maria played and the tier III that were the other tournments. their was a 2000 $ difference in prize money for the winner. and the quality of players was a little lower. Maria had to play 5 matches to Elena's 4. there's not that much difference.

Could you explain that response in a little more depth? Especially that part about, 'the quality of the players was alittle lower. Do you realize that the #2 seed at Hansol wouldn't have been seeded at all at Hasselt?

Here are the seeds of the respective tournaments, at the time the seeding was made.

sd rk name -------- rk name -------
-----------------------------------
01 06 Dementieva -- 08 Sharapova
02 07 Clijsters --- 45 Asagoe
03 17 Bovina ------ 50 Weingartner
04 18 Sprem ------- 63 Washington
05 19 Schiavone --- 69 Srebotnik
06 20 Farina Elia - 73 Khurajkova
07 22 Maleeva ----- 78 Obata
08 35 Kostanic ---- 81 Stosur

One tournament has SIX top twenty players. The other has ONE. Is this REALLY your idea of 'not much difference'?

Kart
Oct 3rd, 2004, 09:19 PM
Maybe she did it to prove she could win lower tier tournaments and shrug off another Kournikova comparison.

Fingon
Oct 3rd, 2004, 09:39 PM
oh yeah, we are redescovering the wheel here.

1) I don't agree with Maria playing events like this, nor I agree with Kuznetsova playing Bali, or Dementieva playing Hasselt, or Myskina Sopot, this is exclusively from a tennis point of view.
2) Maria committed to this event before winning Wimbledon. Still she could have pulled out. This is not the same as Myskina in Sopot, in that case, Myskina also committed before winning RG, but she was aiming for the olympics and the US Open, Maria's only big prize now is the YEC, so I don't think it will hurt her.
3) Her presence put the tournament in the news, there was more attention than for the tier 3 events played at the same time.
4) She (it's said) got appearance fees.

Said all of that, it was known she wasn't going to face stiff competition in Seoul, it was a given that she was going to win with ease, the only expectation is that she could have lost and that would have been very bad for her image or confidence.

so it's like duh, of course she didn't face anybody dangerous in a tier 4, she played it, she won it, end of story, it doesn't add or substract anything to her career.

Some people love stating the obvious.

Kart
Oct 3rd, 2004, 09:44 PM
I like your websites Fingon :yeah:.

Fingon
Oct 3rd, 2004, 09:45 PM
I like your websites Fingon :yeah:.
thanks :)

selesbooz
Oct 3rd, 2004, 10:14 PM
Could you explain that response in a little more depth? Especially that part about, 'the quality of the players was alittle lower. Do you realize that the #2 seed at Hansol wouldn't have been seeded at all at Hasselt?

Here are the seeds of the respective tournaments, at the time the seeding was made.

sd rk name -------- rk name -------
-----------------------------------
01 06 Dementieva -- 08 Sharapova
02 07 Clijsters --- 45 Asagoe
03 17 Bovina ------ 50 Weingartner
04 18 Sprem ------- 63 Washington
05 19 Schiavone --- 69 Srebotnik
06 20 Farina Elia - 73 Khurajkova
07 22 Maleeva ----- 78 Obata
08 35 Kostanic ---- 81 Stosur

One tournament has SIX top twenty players. The other has ONE. Is this REALLY your idea of 'not much difference'?


the Quality of players was lower. just what i said. for a tier III it was pretty stack; you have to say that. if you take out clijsters the rest of the field kind of suck. that have the name, but the reat have not played to well this year.
the point that i was trying to make was that there is not that much difference in the two tournments except the Quality of Players.

Volcana
Oct 3rd, 2004, 11:23 PM
oh yeah, we are redescovering the wheel here.

1) I don't agree with Maria playing events like this, nor I agree with Kuznetsova playing Bali, or Dementieva playing Hasselt, or Myskina Sopot, this is exclusively from a tennis point of view.
2) Maria committed to this event before winning Wimbledon. Still she could have pulled out. This is not the same as Myskina in Sopot, in that case, Myskina also committed before winning RG, but she was aiming for the olympics and the US Open, Maria's only big prize now is the YEC, so I don't think it will hurt her.
3) Her presence put the tournament in the news, there was more attention than for the tier 3 events played at the same time.
4) She (it's said) got appearance fees.

Said all of that, it was known she wasn't going to face stiff competition in Seoul, it was a given that she was going to win with ease, the only expectation is that she could have lost and that would have been very bad for her image or confidence.

so it's like duh, of course she didn't face anybody dangerous in a tier 4, she played it, she won it, end of story, it doesn't add or substract anything to her career.

Some people love stating the obvious.Well, it's not being there to refute what I say 'every single time' but it's a start.