PDA

View Full Version : Tracy Austin...BITCH wannabe.


VS Fan
Jun 26th, 2005, 02:50 PM
I did not copy it, but Tracy Austin's new column on MSNBC.com is horrible.

Serena was wrong to play here injured, but she LOVES Wimbledon, so a poor decision was made by her to play anyway. Ask Richard!

According to Tracy, Serena is just a has been who cannot compete with most of the players anymore. I guess she did not see the Serena / Maria match at the AO this year.

She also says outside interests are affecting her play. (Another BONEHEADED kneejerk comment.)

She did say Serena offered no excuses, but we have to remember that the Williams sisters are NEVER really injured or sick. (according the the media)

I guess this is the end of my rant.

Andrew..
Jun 26th, 2005, 02:52 PM
She never said that Serena's injury was fake. :retard:

Paneru
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:04 PM
Ms.Austin is a wannabe biatch indeed! :lol:

Everytime I heard her name I start laughing
thinking about Richard firing at her at last years US Open. ;)

VS Fan
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:04 PM
Let me put it another way:

Just how many slams and tourneys did Tracy win???

Did she have a lot of outside interests going when she was playing??

What is her excuse??

serenafan08
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:08 PM
Yeah, I just read the column myself and it is pretty harsh. I want to see Tracy walk in Serena's shoes for one week and then see how much she criticizes her.

Andrew..
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Let me put it another way:

Just how many slams and tourneys did Tracy win???

Did she have a lot of outside interests going when she was playing??

What is her excuse??
30 singles titles.

Her excuse is that she broke her back, and then almost lost her life in a car accident.

K-Dog
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:15 PM
Just read it. Boy Tracy takes one strange, but could've been expected loss like it is the end of the world for Serena. Serena knows that she needs to work harder and get in decent shape. She realizes that she is overweight. She rushed herself into action TOO quickly. All Serena needs to do is get into the gym for 3 weeks and practice everyday and just come out to play in Canada. Forget Fed Cup, Stanford, San Diego or LA, just focus on returning in Canada. Get your match play there and get ready for the US Open. She isn't an afterthought if she trains harder. She played Wimbledon in about the worst shape ever, injured, and rusty, yet she makes the third round. Take some positives Serena, and motivate yourself to play better and train harder. The talent is obviously still there!

K-Dog
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:16 PM
Let me put it another way:

Just how many slams and tourneys did Tracy win???

Did she have a lot of outside interests going when she was playing??

What is her excuse??

Yeah, as much as Tracy can be a bitch, she was NO slouch when playing!! Her only downfall was not winning more majors!! Her career ended unfairly in my opinion.

VS Fan
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Andrew:

SLAMS ??? Tier 1??? Tier 2???

Steffica Greles
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:23 PM
30 singles titles.

Her excuse is that she broke her back, and then almost lost her life in a car accident.

LOL!!!

So funny! You know, I never did understand it when people said Americans can't do sarcasm. They can, they just need to understate it like you just did so well.

I agree. And I agree with Tracy - I think she's more than qualified to talk about Serena's career. Poor Tracy would have given anything to be able to play past the age of 21, so much so that she returned to the tour at 31. I think she probably gets frustrated that one who has the ability to be the greatest of them all is wasting her career away.

I'm sure she doesn't REALLY mean that Serena's a has been, because we all know that she has the ability otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I think the point she's trying to make is that if you look at Serena's results over the last 2 years -- apart from about 2 of them -- then she doesn't deserve the hype that she gets. And don't even mention Venus. In that sense, the "on paper" sense, they're has beens.

Tennisaddict
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Hmm, saying that Serena is a has been is a joke since she has won the first slam of the year and showed the rest of the field what she is capable of when she's not 100%. Tracy Austin wants Serena to be over but that won't happen until Serena decides to hang up her racket for good (I hope that will be in the very far future:p). Serena should have stayed home as she wasn't ready for Wimbledon but she wanted to give it a try and made it to the third round with almost no practice. It's sad that she lost but she will be back and win slams. I have no doubt about that when it comes to Serena. The fact that she is the best among active players in terms of results, confirms my believe that she''ll be in the winner's circle on a consistent basis again, barring injury of course.

Steffica Greles
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Andrew:

SLAMS ??? Tier 1??? Tier 2???

2 slams, if I'm right. One at 16 years, 9 months (youngest ever, until Seles in '90 and Hingis in '97). One two years later - both at the U.S Open. 1979&1981, I think. And let's not forget that that was at a time when most of the top women only played Wimbledon and the U.S Open.

The French Open was, from c1976-1982, in a slump, and the Australian Open was not taken seriously - and played on grass, anyhow. So 2 slams ain't bad, considering grass wasn't ever going to be her best surface given that she was around 5'2 (she still reached the semi-finals, nonetheless).

A number one in the world at 17, another record at that time, and she interrupted Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova's long established dominance of the game, defeating both (who are two of the greatest 4 or 5 players of all time) in major finals.

And, for good measure, she snapped a record of Chris Evert's that will probably never be broken: her 4 year-long undefeated run on clay.

All that by the age of 19, which was when injuries set in.

And then at 31, 10 years since she left the tour, she reached the top 75 once again.

Not a bad CV, really. May I see yours? ;)

thelittlestelf
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Idk... I think her predictions are usually the most accurate but I hate her writing style. She also spells stuff wrong, and that ruins it for her. CRAYBAS, Tracy! NOT Craybus.

VS Fan
Jun 26th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Steffica Greles:

Acknowledged: I knew Tracy's resume was good at one time. Obiviously better than I had imagined.

But.... This is NO EXCUSE to rail on Serena. ANYone with a brain could see that Serena was not playing well in ANY of her three matches at Wimbledon this year.

This is very uncharactistic of Serena, who usually blows through early rounds, then sometimes struggles in later rounds. I think this is her first loss before the Quarters in a major since 1999.

MLF
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:00 PM
Tracy in addition to her 2 slams and 30 singles titles, also made #1 squeezing past Navratilova & Evert for a while. She also has a slam mixed title. She was on course to be an all time great before the injuries set in. She's definitely in a position to comment on the game.

harloo
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:05 PM
I am so over this bitch. Richard let her have it at the US Open and she is just beyond bitter. Trace is not concerned about Serena either, she is just falling in line with the rest of the commentators. Typical bullshit.:lol:

cheesestix
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:14 PM
I knew Tracy's resume was good at one time.

What does that mean? :confused:

VS Fan
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:19 PM
Thanks, Harloo.

I could not have said it better.

When Justine lost in round 1, all we heard was that she should not have played, after winning the RG. With Serena, the reaction is different for some reason.

As we know, Serena won RG, Wimby back to back in 2002.

I just get tired of the hating from comentators and fans.

cheesestix
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:23 PM
When Justine lost in round 1, all we heard was that she should not have played, after winning the RG. With Serena, the reaction is different for some reason.

:confused:

No. The reaction is generally the same. Now that Serena lost, aren't a lot of people (even WS fans) saying that "she should not have played" also???

VS Fan
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:29 PM
Cheesestix:

I was refering mainly to Tracy's reaction in her column.

dansnewbeg
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:30 PM
I think Tracy Austin's article was spot-on about Serena Williams, though I thought the one paragraph about "Serena stumbling the red carpet" was harsh.

It's Austin's job to commentate the way she sees things, regardless of her accomplishments. You don't need to be a multi-Slam winner (which she is) to notice the same things about Serena Williams.

Remember, Austin was pretty much the only critic who picked Sharapova to win the final last year. She must be doing something right.

Andy T
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Imo, Serena's loss, like Justine's, means f**k all. Justine is still not totally over the viral problem and after a gruelling two weeks in Paris was obviously too tired and short of grasscourt preparation (not having played on grass for two years). Serena is also struggling with injury and is short of match practice on any surface - especially grass. Graf lost early at Wimby in 94 then won the title in 95 & 96. Justine lost early at RG last year then won the title this year. Seles lost early at the US in 90, then won it 91.
The list is endless.

GogoGirl
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Hey All,

We discuss players that usually make the quarters of a slam, and/or later rounds in other tourneys, based on their rankings and most current play. In recent years - some have complained that this indeed is the case and that it is boring. And that those same ones usually sail thru the early rounds, therefore making it all predictable. Then you have the ones that bet on tourneys. They usually go by the head to heads - current form and rankings. So what this tells me is that the same ones that complain that there is no depth on the womenís tour are also some of the same ones that stick to their bets and predictions, because they donít expect an upset.

So my question is - why is it and why should the lesser ranked players even play if they donít have the desire and hope to one day beat a player where the odds were against them in doing so?

Then you have the ones, and Iím included, that say that on any given day - players can up the level of their play and take out the fave for that particular match. So again - what is the point of having a tour for women if the other ladies should just not show up so that the top 16 or 32 can go at it alone? I suppose thatís what the year ender is about - eh?

Folks complain about this. And they complain about that. They are quick to judge, suggest a certain player retire or quit, suggest that a player sucked, lost their form, shoulda - woulda - coulda, and they proclaim very strongly which player shouldnít have lost to so-in-so, and that they should train harder - practice more and some more stuff with little reality behind some of their explanations for the losses of some.

Some are quick to say that there should be no excuses when a player loses, but at times, the same said ones are equally quick to offer up excuses for some losses. Naturally there are times when most agree when a player was outplayed as being the reason for a loss, but for the most part, some hurry up and state things that have little or no real substance of their beliefs and as it pertains to a loss.

The sad truth is that for the tour to grow, there needs to be others willing to try and step up to add to the mix, shake/shape things up a bit at times, and bring on some upsets. Otherwise and again, the tour needs to scale back the entry level of those allowed to even participate on the tour to a round number of letís say 100.

People used to complain about the sisters not winning, then winning too much, and now not winning enough. Ok - now how does that all sound?

Tracey needs to pull out her rants about numerous other players and give the sisters a break. If some canít see that - then they are suffering from the same biases as she and some of the other commentators and pundits. And just because a ex player won some tourneys in the past doesnít make said ex a fair and balanced pundit.

Some fans need to stop knocking any kind of injuries the players we love to watch develop, because we know what they say about what goes around comes back around.

Lastly, does anyone get tired of seeing the same ones make the quarters and so on? Or is it ok that they make that stage of a tourney because they are on top now? And, why do some like to build some players up just to tear them down later? One of the saddest things in tennis and some other sports today is that past champions are the main ones that are vilified and crucified when they are not performing as well as they once did - and for whatever reason. Some folks just love to be negative and cruel to them and/or their circumstances. They get up in the morning never forgetting to take their bitter pills.

cheesestix
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:43 PM
You tell 'em, Norma Rae! :lol:

icequeen
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:45 PM
Just read it. Boy Tracy takes one strange, but could've been expected loss like it is the end of the world for Serena. Serena knows that she needs to work harder and get in decent shape. She realizes that she is overweight. She rushed herself into action TOO quickly. All Serena needs to do is get into the gym for 3 weeks and practice everyday and just come out to play in Canada. Forget Fed Cup, Stanford, San Diego or LA, just focus on returning in Canada. Get your match play there and get ready for the US Open. She isn't an afterthought if she trains harder. She played Wimbledon in about the worst shape ever, injured, and rusty, yet she makes the third round. Take some positives Serena, and motivate yourself to play better and train harder. The talent is obviously still there!

FYI Serena is not overweight.

Steffica Greles
Jun 26th, 2005, 04:50 PM
I would suggest that some people here are just angry and frustrated that Tracy is so right. VS seems to exemplify that. When I saw her prediction that Serena would lose to Craybas/bus ;) , I too laughed. Surely she couldn't lose to a journeywoman? And she has. She managed to play that badly. Are we really talking about THE Serena Williams here, who sees herself as a legend?

Myself - I'm sad that Tracy is right. Serena could be so, so good - but if I'd never seen her play, I wouldn't know that. She'd be long past her best if I'd only seen her results, and even at her best, she would not be in the same league as Graf, Seles, Navratilova for consistency (having seen her play, I know that she SHOULD be). Let us remember that there were STILL losses before the later rounds of tournaments even in 02 & 03. Both the Williams' have trouble with keeping their focus 12 months of the year.

But I'm going off the point. What Tracy seems to be saying sounds more and more reasonable with each tournament. It's been 2 years now since Serena regularly defeated everybody in the draw. When Serena was doing just that, she set herself a standard - and that's the standard she will always be judged by (it's also the standard -- before people lament how unfair that is -- that Serena judges herself by). People in life are always judged by their best effort.

So, relative to what she "has been", she is a "has been" - one way of putting it.

And let's look at these losses in closer scrutiny. In Rome she claimed she couldn't move for a shot because she didn't have the energy. Strange how Justine with the respiratory infection doesn't lack energy. In Miami she became one of the only top 10 players in 2 years to fall to her sister. She didn't show up at the French Open when she had declared herself to play Rome (and hadn't injured herself since), did not play in any grass warm-ups, and then played, I thought, fairly decently agaisnt an inspired Angela Haynes in round 1.

Serena has always been a drama queen, or in her own words in 2001, a hypochondriac: she thinks there's something wrong with her when all that's wrong with her is she's not mentally focused on the job because she hasn't practiced enough and tries to juggle too many things in her life.

She says she....umm....err.....practices very, very hard, but needs to practice more. What's her idea of practicing hard, I'd like to know? Because even she agrees that it's not enough. And when, in her own words, she confesses that she is too busy to know about other players and their careers, then how would she know how hard they're practicing and what she's up against?

I'm a lazy git myself sometimes. I call hard work a few hours reading my history books - I study. And then I get reading about people who worked 20 hours a day 100 years ago and realise that I'm not a hard worker.

Serena needs to really take a look at her game and her approach, because at the moment, her peak "has been", and gone. Tracy is correct.

Martian KC
Jun 26th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Yes, every commentators are after the sisters. They're all jealous.

Steffica Greles
Jun 26th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Yes, every commentators are after the sisters. They're all jealous.

You could look at it like that, although it's a little narrow minded.

Maybe they're jealous that Serena has so much potential and doesn't put in nearly the effort they had to. So maybe they are jealous, but the essence of what they're saying -- the facts -- is bang on. Correct.

hingis-seles
Jun 26th, 2005, 05:10 PM
I don't see what was wrong with the article. Everything Tracy said was right on the money.

Black Mamba.
Jun 26th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Serena and Vee have work to do. It can't just be idle chatter that they say before they enter big tournements, they must improve their games. As much as I like Vee and Serena I'm not clouded by that fact and I know and understand that if Vee still wants to win majors she needs work on her forehand and serve because giving away free points off of dfs and Ues isn't good. Serena during the AUS open showed us she can still win without being in her best shape, but she needs to get healthy and motiviated because she still has all the tools to win more majors.

lizchris
Jun 26th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Here is the link to the entire article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8336456/

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but this was unusually harsh, like the comment about her tripping on the red carpet. I think the reason why she says some of the things she does about the Williams sisters (espeically Serena) is that what Richard said last year really bothered her becuase they both know he was right.

SelesFan70
Jun 26th, 2005, 06:03 PM
Here is the link to the entire article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8336456/

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but this was unusually harsh, like the comment about her tripping on the red carpet. I think the reason why she says some of the things she does about the Williams sisters (espeically Serena) is that what Richard said last year really bothered her becuase they both know he was right.

What Richard said about Tracy was NOT right. Tracy had a very stable environment during her tennis years. He was the one that was bothered because someone criticized his daughters. That's understandable...he is their father. But for him to launch into a personal attack on Tracy was just way over the top. :o

As far as the article, the red carpet comment was too much, but overall it was spot on.

the cat
Jun 26th, 2005, 06:04 PM
I have no problem with Serena playing Wimbledon being far from 100% healthy. She came and lost. But what if she had found her game and somehow gotten to the second week and was feeling better? Her magic and guts could have kicked in just like in Oz in January. But that didn't happen and she suffered a bad loss. She's more than entitled to a bad loss in a grand slam because there have been so few for Serena in her career. And he ankle injury led to her loss against Craybas. Jill played well and deserved the win. But that wasn't the real Serena Williams in that match.

And Serena's problem is not her weight. And anyone who wants her to lose weight is nuts. :crazy: :mad: She's always been generously plentiful of physique! :D :bounce: But unfortunately Serena was not in good match condition because she hasn't played much tennis since the hard court season ended.

P.S. - Serena's had a good year no matter what happens the rest of 2005 because she's already won a grand slam singles title this year.

lizchris
Jun 26th, 2005, 06:23 PM
What Richard said about Tracy was NOT right. Tracy had a very stable environment during her tennis years. He was the one that was bothered because someone criticized his daughters. That's understandable...he is their father. But for him to launch into a personal attack on Tracy was just way over the top. :o

As far as the article, the red carpet comment was too much, but overall it was spot on.


That isn't wat I was talking about.

She insulted Richard and Oracene by implying they didn't have the intellect to take their daughters' game to another level. Richard was rightly bothered by that, considering he coached one of his daughters to a career Grand Slam by taking her tennis to another level, something her coarch (Robert Landsdorp) never did with all the puplis he had under his wing. Having said that, he didn't need to go below the belt by insulting her upbrining; he should have dealt with her comments and make her look like the damn fool she did by making them.

selking
Jun 26th, 2005, 06:26 PM
haha i loved when pam admitted that she swore at tracy when they were teens playing in a tournament.

the cat
Jun 26th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Liz, intellect and tennis knowledge from being a tennis player or years as a tennis coach are 2 different things. I seriously doubt Tracy meant that Oracene and Richard didn't have the intellect to coach their kids. I think she meant they didn't have the tennis knowledge to properly coach their kids. But they've done well coaching their girls as the fact speak for themselves.

lizchris
Jun 26th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Liz, intellect and tennis knowledge from being a tennis player or years as a tennis coach are 2 different things. I seriously doubt Tracy meant that Oracene and Richard didn't have the intellect to coach their kids. I think she meant they didn't have the tennis knowledge to properly coach their kids. But they've done well coaching their girls as the fact speak for themselves.


She might not have meant that, but Richard must have thought she was implying something or else he wouldn't went of on her the way he did.

harloo
Jun 26th, 2005, 06:58 PM
Liz, intellect and tennis knowledge from being a tennis player or years as a tennis coach are 2 different things. I seriously doubt Tracy meant that Oracene and Richard didn't have the intellect to coach their kids. I think she meant they didn't have the tennis knowledge to properly coach their kids. But they've done well coaching their girls as the fact speak for themselves.

Traci knew what she was implying and was adamant about stating it on live television. Has she ever questioned the coaching of Stefano Capriati when Jen did not win a tournament in a year?

You see I could understand if the commentators consistently criticized other players in this manner but they seem to only single out the sisters at times. This has been going on for years and I'm sick of it.

What makes all them so bitter is that Richard proved them wrong because all of them said the sisters would never win a slam. Now after the sisters have won a combined 11 singles slams and are not winning as much it's time to go beserk. Well I'm not buying it and any rational person wouldn't either.;)

Julia1968
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:04 PM
2 slams, if I'm right. One at 16 years, 9 months (youngest ever, until Seles in '90 and Hingis in '97). One two years later - both at the U.S Open. 1979&1981, I think. And let's not forget that that was at a time when most of the top women only played Wimbledon and the U.S Open.

The French Open was, from c1976-1982, in a slump, and the Australian Open was not taken seriously - and played on grass, anyhow. So 2 slams ain't bad, considering grass wasn't ever going to be her best surface given that she was around 5'2 (she still reached the semi-finals, nonetheless).

A number one in the world at 17, another record at that time, and she interrupted Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova's long established dominance of the game, defeating both (who are two of the greatest 4 or 5 players of all time) in major finals.

And, for good measure, she snapped a record of Chris Evert's that will probably never be broken: her 4 year-long undefeated run on clay.

All that by the age of 19, which was when injuries set in.

And then at 31, 10 years since she left the tour, she reached the top 75 once again.

Not a bad CV, really. May I see yours? ;)

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Julia1968
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:12 PM
At last years US Open when the sisters weren't doing well, Tracy made a comment that they should consider ADDING coaches to their game. Richard went on the attack. Austin was only giving constructive criticism then. Austin wasn't implying that they needed to dump their parents as coaches.

I don't begrudge Austin if she's harshly critical now, considering the way Richard spouted off to her. Too many commentators have held back in fear of Richard's mouth. However, those days are over.

How on God's green earth can Richard defend he and his wife's coaching when their once dominant daughters are playing poorly????

Diesel
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:20 PM
I think the point she's trying to make is that if you look at Serena's results over the last 2 years -- apart from about 2 of them -- then she doesn't deserve the hype that she gets. And don't even mention Venus. In that sense, the "on paper" sense, they're has beens.

If Serena and Venus don't deserve the hype why do people give it to them? The media, the fans, non fans. Why when Serena loses is it a bigger deal than when the hottest player everyone said would win loses first round? Why care about what they do, what they don't do, how much they do it? They deserve the hype and the article proves it.

harloo
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:26 PM
If Serena and Venus don't deserve the hype why do people give it to them? The media, the fans, non fans. Why when Serena loses is it a bigger deal than when the hottest player everyone said would win loses first round? Why care about what they do, what they don't do, how much they do it? They deserve the hype and the article proves it.

That's what I don't understand at all? It amazes me how she is still the standard even when her results are not as great as they use to be. It's downright hilarious.:lol:

harloo
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:28 PM
Too many commentators have held back in fear of Richard's mouth. However, those days are over.

How on God's green earth can Richard defend he and his wife's coaching when their once dominant daughters are playing poorly????

What commentator has ever held back in fear of Richard's mouth? You have got to be smokin some good shit to come up with that lie.

Jules get off the hate train, it's not a good look.:haha: :haha: :haha:

Diesel
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:29 PM
That's what I don't understand at all? It amazes me how she is still the standard even when her results are not as great as they use to be. It's downright hilarious.:lol:


That's what makes me so mad and yet shake my head. If Venus and Serena aren't worth it, why make them? I'm a fan so I'm interested and I care, but if you are already inclined to not like them or think they are good for the sport or worth the hype, why help them out with the hype? How can they say Serena and Venus aren't the standard, the best, and yet when they are beaten it's the loss of the tournament and someone has their career made :confused: These people need to be writing articles on themselves.

Julia1968
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:30 PM
If Serena and Venus don't deserve the hype why do people give it to them? The media, the fans, non fans. Why when Serena loses is it a bigger deal than when the hottest player everyone said would win loses first round? Why care about what they do, what they don't do, how much they do it? They deserve the hype and the article proves it.

The media interest can be explained by once semi-dominant tennis players losing early and often. Generally "dominant" tennis players who have won multiple grand slams don't do this early to mid-stream in their careers. That is, unless the hype never materialized. Like I previously said, this generation of tennis players will never reach the heights like others have historically.

harloo
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:31 PM
That's what makes me so mad and yet shake my head. If Venus and Serena aren't worth it, why make them? I'm a fan so I'm interested and I care, but if you are already inclined to not like them or think they are good for the sport or worth the hype, why help them out with the hype? How can they say Serena and Venus aren't the standard, the best, and yet when they are beaten it's the loss of the tournament and someone has their career made :confused: These people need to be writing articles on themselves.

EXACTLY!!!:lol:

pav
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:34 PM
Dunno about Her Serena comments but She has an obsession with praising any shot made that She deems a slice and with Her accent it always sounds like they "sleece" the ball,She should also be hauled off any Masha commentaries as She seems to have an almost indecent obsession with Her,going on how Maria wasn't quite happy with Her serve, so She went out after play and spent an hour practicing, etc. etc,never caring if the Player at the other end had climbed the Tower of London naked .I just know without visual confirmation,where one of Her hands is located during Maria commentaries

http://smileys.******************/cat/36/36_19_7.gif (http://www.******************/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYNZ)

La Reine
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:44 PM
The writing was harsh, no doubt about it. It seemed like she had a personal score to settle with Serena.

And Jill Craybas. Excuse me, when did anybody care about Jill Craybas. All of a sudden she's beaten Serena and she's all that and a bag of chips.

"Unlike Serena, the former University of Florida standout is in terrific shape and has worked extremely hard this year to put herself in contention.

Now the good-natured blonde who hails from East Providence, R.I., and lives in Newport Beach, Calif., has finally grabbed a share of the limelight, while Serena stumbled on the red carpet on the way to the big dance."

And this one is also not so good:

"Hopefully, it will motivate her to right her ship because if she doesn't change her attitude and approach to her tennis very soon, she might end up being an afterthought at the majors -- a scenario that the talented and attention-loving Serena would surely dread."

She doesn't have to make Serena look bad to prove her point. After all Serena has been fighting an ankle injury for quite a while.

It's no different from Justine playing the Olympics and French Open? with her virus.

harloo
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:55 PM
She doesn't have to make Serena look bad to prove her point. After all Serena has been fighting an ankle injury for quite a while.



Of course she could of written a fair constructive article criticizing Serena's performance, but she chose the low road. She did have a score to settle and in this article she made every attempt to settle whatever problem she had with Serena. It's all good though, Traci's poor attempt most likely will roll off of Serena's back. She will dust her shoulder off.;)

Craybas was a lucky loser, but like all low ranked players who manage to get a win over either sister they are exalted to high heavens.

It's beyond hilarious because if the sisters are not the standard anymore, why does anyone who gets a win over either one is seen as the next greatest player on earth?:lol:

lizchris
Jun 26th, 2005, 07:59 PM
The media interest can be explained by once semi-dominant tennis players losing early and often. Generally "dominant" tennis players who have won multiple grand slams don't do this early to mid-stream in their careers. That is, unless the hype never materialized. Like I previously said, this generation of tennis players will never reach the heights like others have historically.


If winning a combined 10 of the 16 Slams between the USO 1999 and Wimbledon 2003, not to mention contesting each other in six of them (four straight, something Chris and Martina never did in their careers), winning gold medals at the Olympics, winning a Y/E Championship, having two of the longest winning match streaks in almost six years (35 for Venus and 24 for Serena) isn't dominant, then what is (in your pathetic mind)?

hingis-seles
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:17 PM
What did Richard say about Tracy at the US Open last year?

tenn_ace
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:33 PM
yeah, let's blame Tracy for designer's pathetic showing...

RVD
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:38 PM
Concerning Tracy's opinion of Serena (or even Venus), I could care less. :shrug:
They are paid to cater to a certain class/culture and sector of fans, and judging from the response in this thread, she has been very successful.

Anyway, after reading the replies here, I'm reminded of when and how the sisters turned pro, and what they went through to prove themselves. I recall at that time many of the past legends of tennis complaining of the sisters' skipping Juniors, as per Richard Williams' goals for his daughters. There was a stark fear that such a move would damage the system (but never did). Then there were the calls of 'arrogance' and 'disrespect' , in large part because these folks had never met such self-confident young teens before in their lives. In fact, this very confident Williams family was so different from what the tennis establishment was used to seeing, that the association never figured out how to package them to the fans. Maybe from fear of reprisal (the legends pulling out and not endorsing the game, or sponsors not wanting these two young ladies representing their products), only they know and they aren't gonna say. Whatever the case may be, it's clear that many of these legends of tennis do not want Venus and Serena representing tennis. And since the bulk of tennis fans see these legends as gods, people considered their words sacred, or make statements like, "Well they are tennis legends so they MUST know the truth about Venus and Serena". this is what I mean by fans seeing Tracy, Martina, et al as tennis gods.

I think the vast majority of new fans see Venus and Serena very differently than the so-called hardcore tennis fans, because these legends have shown a bitterness and jealousy towards only two players. Sure, there are those rare instances when Venus and Serena are not playing that this negative talk is almost bearable, but even when the sisters were out with injuries, the negative press didn't stop. In fact, it gained momentum with talk of 'Venus and Serena are done', or 'They have outside interests and should either dedicate themselves to tennis or retire'. DAMN! these girls can't even have outside interest?!!? WTF?!?!

Many fans of the Williamses see these things so clearly because we care for these wonderful young ladies and their family. Whereas, people with an obvious agenda pretend that Tracy and Martina are correct in their criticism. Case in point...
How many times over the years have we heard these legends suggest that V&S get new coaches? And where is the call for new coaches for other elite players?
There was a time when all you heard for MONTHS was, ďThey should get new coaches because Richard and Oracene have hit their limit.Ē
It was so funny because Serena went on to win more slams, and Venus was usually right there with her in the finals of most tourneys.

Now, I'm all for people having their points of view and their say and all, but when these same people who try to paint Venus and Serena as negative images do so with such unwarranted zest, I have to question their motives.

Look, here's the bottom line:
Justine is a champion that has won multiple slams. She was sick and out for a while, and came back to win Gold in the Olympics and multiple Tier I's. When she was out, where was the negative press? :shrug:
Kim Clijsters is another great champion who was out with injuries, and who came back and wiped the floor with her opponents. But when she was out with injuries, where was the negative press? :shrug:
The same can be said of Jennifer Capriati, and Monica Seles... They are all superb players that have experienced multiple injuries throughout there careers, but return to win tourneys. But where was the bad press AND call for new coaches? :shrug:

For all the posters who feel that we Williams fans are over exaggerating our concern for our girls, keep in mind that there are some or us who can actually think for ourselves and who aren't so simple-minded as to readily accept the criticism of people like Tracy or Martina. We can see the disparity in reporting and the disregard for the obvious (Serena's health, conditioning, injuries, etc.)
Venus and Serena have overcome much as professionals, and if they so desire, they will overcome these setbacks as well. But the one constant that I'm most certain of is that the bad press will continue up and until our young and still active legends retire.

This is just one very supportive Williams fan's opinion. :wavey:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jun 26th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Neither sister can do anything right in the eyes of of these goons.

azinna
Jun 26th, 2005, 09:18 PM
As folks have already said, the tone of Tracy's article was a bit too harsh, the florishes and metraphors (stumbling on the red carpet?) were unnecessary and embarrassing. But the content was spot on. One doesn't actually need to read the article carefully to see that she wants Serena to get back on top and contend for the US Open.

That's not at all typical of a hater. It is, however, typical of a journalist who holds players to professional standards. Serena has openly admitted not following those standards. So there will be criticism. And as a fan of Venus, Serena and Marat, I have over the years come to see the truth and necessity of such harsh criticism. We shouldn't wish it away.

VS Fan
Jun 26th, 2005, 10:12 PM
Well, it boils down to this:

Venus AND Serena are really expected to WIN every match they play.

When they WIN, it is expected.

When they lose, it is BIG NEWS!

I say that even though they have faltered somewhat in the past two years,
they are STILL the STANDARD by which other players are judged.

When Maria or Justine lose to lower ranked players, we don't hear all this crap from the media.

thelittlestelf
Jun 26th, 2005, 10:13 PM
Well, it boils down to this:

Venus AND Serena are really expected to WIN every match they play.

When they WIN, it is expected.

When they lose, it is BIG NEWS!

I say that even though they have faltered somewhat in the past two years,
they are STILL the STANDARD by which other players are judged.

When Maria or Justine lose to lower ranked players, we don't hear all this crap from the media.I agree WHOLE HEARTEDLY! Totally true! Great post.

starr
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:12 PM
I thought this was interesting.

"Serena was embarrassed by her defeat and hopefully she will transform that embarrassing feeling into one of hunger and desire to get back on top."

This is exactly what was said and thought after Serena's defeat in Rome this year. Serena said that was the worst loss of her career and stated flatly that it would not happen again. I, for one, thought that Serena had skipped RG, for which she clearly was not ready, and had gone home to train extra hard for Wimbledon and would come out blazing. We've seen Serena come from very little match play to dominate a tournament. I wasn't ready to count her out for Wimbledon because I really thought she might have been embarassed into practicing hard.

But when I saw her form at Wimbledon, it was not a question of "if" she would be beaten but only a matter of "when."

Julia1968
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:14 PM
If winning a combined 10 of the 16 Slams between the USO 1999 and Wimbledon 2003, not to mention contesting each other in six of them (four straight, something Chris and Martina never did in their careers), winning gold medals at the Olympics, winning a Y/E Championship, having two of the longest winning match streaks in almost six years (35 for Venus and 24 for Serena) isn't dominant, then what is (in your pathetic mind)?

Venus' "dominance" occured while she won four majors between July 2000-September 2001 and the Olympic gold medal. She hasn't won a grand slam singles event since. That's around 15 months. Ranked #1 for 12 weeks (three months) without ending a single year ranked #1. Of course, Jennifer Capriati won three majors from January 2001 to January 2002.

Serena's "dominance" occured while she won five majors between June 2002-July 2003. That's around 15 months, including her win at the US Open in 1999, and the Australian in 2005. Ranked #1 for 52 weeks (one year).

How dare you attempt to compare the careers of either sister to that of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova???? They are not remotely close to their achievements, and most likely will never be.

And don't bring those sorry excuses for injury either. Because history doesn't record poor performance due to injury and poor work ethic. History only records achievement.

And the last I looked, Venus and Serena weren't cajoined twins historically. Singles tennis is an individual sport, of which you are judged individually by history.

Steffica Greles
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:14 PM
But the thing is, Serena set herself higher standards than Justine...and certainly higher than Maria by winning the non-calendar slam a few years ago.

Even if she hadn't, in my eyes she's a...I hesitate at saying "better player" because that implies that she has Justine's complete array when she does not...but she's certainly more dangerous than either of them. I would have thought that Williams fans agreed with this?

Look, at the end of the day as Venus herself says, people are entitled to their opinions. It's their job to not listen to it and to just get on with their lives (otherwise they'd go nuts), and it's our preogative to write what we think is wrong with them. Hopefully Venus and Serena have a self-critical ability to see what's wrong, but at the moment I think they're such positive people that I don't think they're able to do that and they're wasting time.

As a spectator like all of us, however, Tracy's comments are factual, as far as I'm concerned.

starr
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:26 PM
Hopefully Venus and Serena have a self-critical ability to see what's wrong, but at the moment I think they're such positive people that I don't think they're able to do that and they're wasting time.

As a spectator like all of us, however, Tracy's comments are factual, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with this. I've marveled for a long time at how Venus and Serena have thrived on their positive affirmations. And, I'm amazed at their parents ability to instill this manner of thinking. It worked very well for them. The problem is that when things begin to go wrong, there needs to be critical self evaluation in addition to positive affirmation in order to get back on track.

I think that both Venus and Serena, but especially Serena have the idea that they need only to do what they have done in the past in order to succeed, and I can see why it might be confusing for them when that doesn't work, but as these young women age, they are going to have to work harder and harder. That's simply a fact. But Serena especially doesn't seem to embrace that truism as a reality in her life. I sometimes wonder how Serena really defines herself inside her own head. Maybe that has something to do with her thought process.

But do you all remember Serena when she slumped after winning the USO? She said she just decided she wasn't going to be beaten anymore because she realized she shouldn't lose to the people who were beating her. Now, I think that "deciding" was more than just mental. It included hard work too. But, sometimes I wonder if looking back, it seems to her that it was simply her mental state that created her success, and that if now she just has that same mental state things will fall into place.

It's an interesting puzzle.

Julia1968
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:27 PM
As a spectator like all of us, however, Tracy's comments are factual, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree. Tracy Austin is one of women's tennis' best commentators as far as I'm concerned.

Just because Richard Williams gets defensive as his daughters performances decline, doesn't make Tracy a bad commentator when she points out the obvious. What even the most casual tennis hacker can see to be the obvious.

Women's tennis has evolved forward in the past two years. I agree with what Hingis said about this issue: "The train is passing...." Either you are on it, or you are left behind.

lizchris
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Venus' "dominance" occured while she won four majors between July 2000-September 2001 and the Olympic gold medal. She hasn't won a grand slam singles event since. That's around 15 months. Ranked #1 for 12 weeks (three months) without ending a single year ranked #1. Of course, Jennifer Capriati won three majors from January 2001 to January 2002.

Serena's "dominance" occured while she won five majors between June 2002-July 2003. That's around 15 months, including her win at the US Open in 1999, and the Australian in 2005. Ranked #1 for 52 weeks (one year).

How dare you attempt to compare the careers of either sister to that of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova???? They are not remotely close to their achievements, and most likely will never be.

And don't bring those sorry excuses for injury either. Because history doesn't record poor performance due to injury and poor work ethic. History only records achievement.

And the last I looked, Venus and Serena weren't cajoined twins historically. Singles tennis is an individual sport, of which you are judged individually by history.



Well, at least you admitted that there was a period when both werd dominant.

I wasn't trying to compare the careers of Chirs Evert or Martina N. to either sister; I was just pointing out to you that even when they were dominant, Chris and Martina never faced each other in four straight Grand Slams, like Serena and Venus did when they were.

And you were the one who conjoined by mocking their dominance in the game, not me.

RVD
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:33 PM
Man, was I ever correct in my post. :rolleyes:
The tennis gods have spoken, and the lessor mortal-fans worship at their alter. All that's left now is for some of you to offer up a sacrifice. Might I suggest Julia1968? :tape:

Julia1968
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:36 PM
I agree with this. I've marveled for a long time at how Venus and Serena have thrived on their positive affirmations. And, I'm amazed at their parents ability to instill this manner of thinking. It worked very well for them. The problem is that when things begin to go wrong, there needs to be critical self evaluation in addition to positive affirmation in order to get back on track.

Historically speaking, those who rise to the top of the game are resistant to changing their games, even while facing the prospect that they've lost footing against other top players. They might change elements of their service game, or the way they hit a particular shot, but you never saw Chris Evert, Martina Hingis, or Stefanie Graf serve and volley throughout an entire match. And you never witnessed BJK, Court, or Navratilova play baseline unless it was forced upon them.

Again, tennis is such a mental game that once you've lost confidence, it is very difficult to get it back. Which is what made Jennifer's comeback in 2001 such an anomoly in the sport. Jennifer is only women's tennis professional in the Open Era to truly usurp tennis history, in that regard.

However, I don't see either Venus or Serena changing their predominant style of tennis. I believe they have that ability, such as their predecessors, but its not going to happen. It wouldn't make a difference in the world if they did, because if you aren't mentally stong and confident, you cannot dominate.

lizchris
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:38 PM
Man, was I ever correct in my post. :rolleyes:
The tennis gods have spoken, and the lessor mortal-fans worship at their alter. All that's left now is for some of you to offer up a sacrifice. Might I suggest Julia1968? :tape:


:haha: :haha:

God isn't that desperate.

darren cahill
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:42 PM
I just read the article and i dont see what everyone is so angry at Tracy for? i thought she pretty much just rehashed what happened in the match. She said Serena was injured, didnt make excuses etc. people just get so incredibly worked up over something so unimportant. i mean, it is important, but dont make it more important in your own life, its Serenas problem, not ours. dont go and have a stroke over something Tracy said. its just an article. what i got from it is that Tracy just expects more from Serena. She knows what a champ she is. its not like she said "well, i knew she'd lose cause i never thought she was good anyhow'---she did say at the end of it that she knows this will motivate her more and she bets that after some hard work during the summer she'll bounce back. all tracy is saying is something must be wrong is someone of Serenas caliber lost to someone like Jill. its really no different than what everyone else on here said themselves.

and for the record, the comments about the outside interests, well all the commentators have said that, from Carillo to Navratilova to Pam. give tracy a break

switz
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:49 PM
what you don't understand is that you are only encouraging more articles like this to written by the way you are reacting. i'm sure 90% of you have sent venom filled messages back to the magazine and now they'll think "hey this is getting people interested - we must get Tracey to write more about this".

Julia1968
Jun 26th, 2005, 11:54 PM
what you don't understand is that you are only encouraging more articles like this to written by the way you are reacting. i'm sure 90% of you have sent venom filled messages back to the magazine and now they'll think "hey this is getting people interested - we must get Tracey to write more about this".

Oh, I can just imagine the hate mail Tracy, Mary, Pam, Mary Jo, John Wortheim, Patrick McEnroe and every other tennis columnist has had to endure from the Royal Court.

To no avail, all the hate mail didn't improve their Queens performances in tournament play.

lizchris
Jun 27th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Oh, I can just imagine the hate mail Tracy, Mary, Pam, Mary Jo, John Wortheim, Patrick McEnroe and every other tennis columnist has had to endure from the Royal Court.

To no avail, all the hate mail didn't improve their Queens performances in tournament play.


We know Jusitne didn't improve on her French Open at Wimbledon.

Brooks.
Jun 27th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Historically speaking, those who rise to the top of the game are resistant to changing their games, even while facing the prospect that they've lost footing against other top players. They might change elements of their service game, or the way they hit a particular shot, but you never saw Chris Evert, Martina Hingis, or Stefanie Graf serve and volley throughout an entire match. And you never witnessed BJK, Court, or Navratilova play baseline unless it was forced upon them.

Again, tennis is such a mental game that once you've lost confidence, it is very difficult to get it back. Which is what made Jennifer's comeback in 2001 such an anomoly in the sport. Jennifer is only women's tennis professional in the Open Era to truly usurp tennis history, in that regard.

However, I don't see either Venus or Serena changing their predominant style of tennis. I believe they have that ability, such as their predecessors, but its not going to happen. It wouldn't make a difference in the world if they did, because if you aren't mentally stong and confident, you cannot dominate.

Serena will always be confident and mentally strong.....that is why she won the AO.....name one other active player that could come into a slam with no preparation and after suffering a very bad stomach injury and win it.......name one active player besides serena, jules....... :kiss:

Brooks.
Jun 27th, 2005, 12:23 AM
Oh, I can just imagine the hate mail Tracy, Mary, Pam, Mary Jo, John Wortheim, Patrick McEnroe and every other tennis columnist has had to endure from the Royal Court.

To no avail, all the hate mail didn't improve their Queens performances in tournament play.

Its funny because I think what really bothers me about most tennis commentators is that they like to jump on bandwagons and they like to always be the first to say so and so is gonna be dominate blah blah......they basically build you up to tear you down.......its really pretty twisted when you think about it

carling
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:51 AM
I am a long time fan of Tracy Austin as a player and a commentator. I don't understand why people are calling her a "bitch" because Tracy is right on the money about Serena. For the record, I love Serena Williams. She is probably my favorite player, but I was SHOCKED by her appearance at Wimbledon. I have never seen Serena oveweight and out of shape! She's almost sporting a gut like Capriati now. Did any of you dogging Tracy Austin actually SEE her matches? HEL-LO! Serena Williams lost to Jill Craybas in straight sets at Wimbledon Unbelievable!

There's no question that Serena was a shadow of her former self and it was painful to watch her struggle against players she should beat easily. Serena's tremendous success has been due to a combination of skill, speed, power, fitness, and determination. It was ridiculous and arrogant of her to think her 'will' was enough to win Wimbledon. Richard Williams did not want her to play. She should have listened to her dad and stayed her ass at home because she embarrassed herself. A loss to a lower ranked player is not the embarrassment. Hey, it happens. However, Serena was clearly unprepared mentally and physically for Wimbledon. Serena looked like every point was sheer torture for her. There was no joy in her and it really showed.

Like Tracy said, perhaps this loss will motivate Serena to get her shit together. She needs to concentrate on TENNIS rather than clothing lines and reality shows. As a fan, I was deeply disappointed and saddened by what I saw at Wimbledon.

Julia1968
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:54 AM
I am a long time fan of Tracy Austin as a player and a commentator. I don't understand why people are calling her a "bitch" because Tracy is right on the money about Serena. For the record, I love Serena Williams. She is probably my favorite player, but I was SHOCKED by her appearance at Wimbledon. I have never seen Serena oveweight and out of shape! She's almost sporting a gut like Capriati now. Did any of you dogging Tracy Austin actually SEE her matches? HEL-LO! Serena Williams lost to Jill Craybas in straight sets at Wimbledon! Unbelievable!

There's no question that Serena was a shadow of her former self and it was painful to watch her struggle against players she should beat easily. Serena's tremendous success has been due to a combination of skill, speed, power, fitness, and determination. It was ridiculous and arrogant of her to think her 'will' was enough to win Wimbledon. Richard Williams did not want her to play. She should have listened to him and stayed her ass at home because she embarrassed herself. The loss to a lower ranked player is not the embarrassment. Hey, it happens. However, Serena was clearly unprepared mentally and physically for Wimbledon. There was no fun, no joy. Serena looked like every point was sheer torture for her.

Like Tracy said, perhaps this loss will motivate Serena to get her shit together. She needs to concentrate on TENNIS rather than clothing lines and reality shows. As a fan, I was deeply disappointed and saddened by what I saw at Wimbledon.

Because the Royal Court hates the sport of tennis, its fans, its commentators, its hall-of-famers and anything positive about tennis when their queens are losing. They aren't true fans of the sport. They continually hate. This thread is indicative of their hatred of the sport.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:57 AM
Because the Royal Court hates the sport of tennis, its fans, its commentators, its hall-of-famers and anything positive about tennis when their queens are losing. They aren't true fans of the sport. They continually hate. This thread is indicative of their hatred of the sport.

You really ought to stop consuming expired dairy products. You have damn nerve to even say this, when you hate on two of tennis' biggest players DAILY!!

RenaSlam.
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:57 AM
Because the Royal Court hates the sport of tennis, its fans, its commentators, its hall-of-famers and anything positive about tennis when their queens are losing. They aren't true fans of the sport. They continually hate. This thread is indicative of their hatred of the sport.

Well what'ya know? What you say is a mirror image of yourself...

Julia1968
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:57 AM
Serena will always be confident and mentally strong.....that is why she won the AO.....

Which is why she withdrew from the French Open and lost early at Wimbledon???

Brooks.
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:58 AM
Which is why she withdrew from the French Open and lost early at Wimbledon???

being injured and being mentally weak are two different things ;)

Martian Jeza
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:59 AM
Well what'ya know? What you say is a mirror image of yourself...

don't intervert roles, pls. :wavey:

Brooks.
Jun 27th, 2005, 01:59 AM
Which is why she withdrew from the French Open and lost early at Wimbledon???

and why didnt you answer my question :confused:

K-Dog
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:06 AM
FYI Serena is not overweight.

Excuse me, I meant over playing weight. No way is she "overweight," but she needs to lose about 5-8lbs. She knows it. I'm sure she get rid of the weight from her inactivity. Icequeen, you know that I have been a huge supporter of Serena. I wasn't taking a punch at her.

Jakeev
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:15 AM
Of course she could of written a fair constructive article criticizing Serena's performance, but she chose the low road. She did have a score to settle and in this article she made every attempt to settle whatever problem she had with Serena. It's all good though, Traci's poor attempt most likely will roll off of Serena's back. She will dust her shoulder off.;)

Craybas was a lucky loser, but like all low ranked players who manage to get a win over either sister they are exalted to high heavens.

It's beyond hilarious because if the sisters are not the standard anymore, why does anyone who gets a win over either one is seen as the next greatest player on earth?:lol:

Jill was a lucky loser?:confused:

RVD
Jun 27th, 2005, 02:25 AM
Arrrggghhh...! http://deephousepage.com/smilies/banghead.gif
That's it! I'm nuking this place...

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ut1/redeemerwhore.gif

Oops..miscalculated the blast area. :lol:

vettipooh
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:11 AM
Man, was I ever correct in my post. :rolleyes:
The tennis gods have spoken, and the lessor mortal-fans worship at their alter. All that's left now is for some of you to offer up a sacrifice. Might I suggest Julia1968? :tape:That shit was funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha::haha: Serena and venus will enter the hall of fame like Martina and Tracy, yes??? The tennis history books will be filled with their names, yes??? Carry on folks, carry on!!!!

vettipooh
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:22 AM
We know Jusitne didn't improve on her French Open at Wimbledon.Maybe she should have withdrawn, and saved herself the embarrassment of a FIRST round loss to someone ranked outside the top 75. She knew she couldn't win it any way!!!:lol:

deja_entendu
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:33 AM
When all else fails, attack Justine Henin!

hotandspicey
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:39 AM
Well, it boils down to this:

Venus AND Serena are really expected to WIN every match they play.

When they WIN, it is expected.

When they lose, it is BIG NEWS!

I say that even though they have faltered somewhat in the past two years,
they are STILL the STANDARD by which other players are judged.

When Maria or Justine lose to lower ranked players, we don't hear all this crap from the media.So very true. case in point whenever someone has a win over them, it is classified as 'the biggest win of their career'. Like Serena said, she makes....oh well, you know the rest. ;)

hotandspicey
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:45 AM
Man, was I ever correct in my post. :rolleyes:
The tennis gods have spoken, and the lessor mortal-fans worship at their alter. All that's left now is for some of you to offer up a sacrifice. Might I suggest Julia1968? :tape::haha: :haha: :haha: Her and all her other aliases.:lol:

hotandspicey
Jun 27th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Venus' "dominance" occured while she won four majors between July 2000-September 2001 and the Olympic gold medal. She hasn't won a grand slam singles event since. That's around 15 months. Ranked #1 for 12 weeks (three months) without ending a single year ranked #1. Of course, Jennifer Capriati won three majors from January 2001 to January 2002.

Serena's "dominance" occured while she won five majors between June 2002-July 2003. That's around 15 months, including her win at the US Open in 1999, and the Australian in 2005. Ranked #1 for 52 weeks (one year).

How dare you attempt to compare the careers of either sister to that of Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova???? They are not remotely close to their achievements, and most likely will never be.

And don't bring those sorry excuses for injury either. Because history doesn't record poor performance due to injury and poor work ethic. History only records achievement.

And the last I looked, Venus and Serena weren't cajoined twins historically. Singles tennis is an individual sport, of which you are judged individually by history.That's too much pressure on your brain. you might end up with a stress fracture.:lol:

cabowabo77
Jun 27th, 2005, 07:00 AM
someone else asked this before, but I don't think anyone answered, and I'm curious too: What did Richard Williams say to Tracy Austin at the US Open?