PDA

View Full Version : If only Justine wouldn't have played that poorly...


Kim-the-bomb
Jul 4th, 2007, 09:33 PM
While Serena was serving some superb tennis today, Justine was really ďunder parĒ. She made soooooooo many unforced errors and her serving was as bad as it gets.
The first and third set Justineís level was barely acceptable, but OMG that second set: Juju really handed those two breaks to Serena. And of course when Serena is on like today, you cannot recover from two breaks.
I donít know what Serena had under the tape, but she was racing around the court like Iíve never seen her! Wow!!! What I also liked a lot about Serena was the fact that, besides powering the ball excellently, she was really thinking out there. Trying to mix it up with the slices. You know those little tactics, Ö wonderful!!! I think itís a real improvement to her game. She already used that technic a lot in Roland Garros, unfortunately there her slice was floating too much. But today she really seemed to be knifing it. Maybe that tape on her left hand was there to balance her out, so she could hit those wonderful slices. Of course it wasnít perfect yet, but for such a technically talented player, it will only be a matter of time before she masters it perfectly.

Well with the facts being as they are, Serena playing excellently and Henin clearly under her normal level, I wonder what the outcome would have been, if Justine also played at her normal level. I could really have been an amazing match!!!

THIS IS A NON PROVOCATIVE TREAD !!!

Now the actual question for you guys and girls:
What can we consider as THE NORMAL LEVEL of a tennis player? Do we measure their level against a few peak performances? Or should we consider their average level (Also taking into account bad wins in early rounds?)

Examples to clarify my questions:
Is Justineís NORMAL level serving 75% first serves in, only because she once had such a high percentage in one match?
Is Serenaís NORMAL level hitting TWO unforced errors in a match?

OR are all these questions irrelevant: Should we assume that any given player always tries to play their best in any match? And that itís all about the performance on that given day, against a certain player? Thus making it senseless to talk about them not playing at their NORMAL LEVEL? Or the players themselves stating that they only played at 50%?

ADDITIONAL QUESTION

When was the last time anyone played a great match against Justine and still lost? Because from reading posts on the forum, some people really seem to think that Justine only wins matches because the other player is playing badly.

PLEASE KEEP IT NICE AND CIVILIZED IN THIS TREAD !!! :) :bounce: :)

Jasmin
Jul 4th, 2007, 10:11 PM
Hopefully someone else will be playing much better.

jujufreak
Jul 4th, 2007, 10:34 PM
You think Justine was "under par" and her level "barely acceptable" or worse and you can't stop :drool: about Serena... and you call that non provocative :) ?

Do you really think Justine can beat an excellent Serena if Ju's not playing well :confused: So that means that if Justine would have reached a high level of play, the score would've been something like 6-1 6-1 :tape: ?

the normal level is the average level. Justine's normal first serve % isn't 75 (even though she has been serving brilliantly in all her other matches on grass this year)

Tamira Paszek played a great match against Justine in Dubai and still lost :) and there are many more examples

Shane54
Jul 4th, 2007, 10:50 PM
Yes I agree with the starter of this thread, to me it looks like Justine was only at 41% of her top play

DavidEllul
Jul 4th, 2007, 10:50 PM
got to like the viewpoint in this article

Mileen
Jul 5th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Yes I agree with the starter of this thread, to me it looks like Justine was only at 41% of her top play

I agree with that too. (At the FC she played her best tennis: really phenomenal and really out of this world.)
I think today she played tensed and self-conscious in a way. I was so glad when finally those two, back-to-back backhands appeared, finally Juju had arrived.

Bruno71
Jul 5th, 2007, 12:32 AM
I agree with that too. (At the FC she played her best tennis: really phenomenal and really out of this world.)
I think today she played tensed and self-conscious in a way. I was so glad when finally those two, back-to-back backhands appeared, finally Juju had arrived.

I agree that Justine was well below her normal level, and I think much of this had to do with nerves about the situation. But another thing is that Justine is a rhythm player, and Serena's level of play with injury (although I think likely would have been the same without) just didn't give her any kind of rhythm. She didn't know if Serena was going to hit a shot with interest, mishit, or play a touch shot. I think that's why she looked less than excellent against Schnyder too...Patty's a player that just doesn't give Justine any kind of rhythm to work with, as is Serena.

Apoleb
Jul 5th, 2007, 12:51 AM
I really don't know what everyone was watching. The first set was high quality by both of them. Justine's first serve percentage was off, but she did play very good in the first and at start of the third. The last part of the second set was bad, I agree, but in general, it wasn't a low quality match at all by both of them.

thegre8w0n
Jul 5th, 2007, 12:55 AM
1. If Justine played Australia Serena wouldn't of won
2. If Serena was only 40% then she shouldn't of played at all. When is she finally going to give her opponents credit. She had the nerve when Henin beat her in Paris to say "all she had to do was show up". Does she ever think that she just may of lost to the better player right now?

master40
Jul 5th, 2007, 01:09 AM
1. If Justine played Australia Serena wouldn't of won

No, don't you forget in the beginning of the year when Serena was in form (As a reminder: biggest choke ever in the final of Miami from Justine)

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jul 5th, 2007, 02:11 AM
Justine had SEVEN (7) DF in the match compared to NONE from Serena.
Serena got EIGHT (8) Aces compared to only ONE (1) by Justine.
Justine's serve percentage was 50%, while Serena was 63%.

And still, Justine won the match... :eek:

If Serena was not injured, the winner wouldn't be a Belgian...

goldenlox
Jul 5th, 2007, 02:20 AM
I didn't read Serena's interview. Did she say she was 40%? :tape:
Justine was only 36% today.

Kim-the-bomb
Jul 5th, 2007, 09:43 PM
Getting my tread in the spotlight again. ;)

harloo
Jul 5th, 2007, 09:49 PM
Don't worry when Justine's nervous against someone she hits hella double faults and her shots become shaky. Serena is that type of opponent and for most of the match Justine played like crap because of who was across the net. Unfortunately Serena could barely hit a backhand and the only thing really keeping her in the match was her serve. Actually Justine should beaten injured Serena in two easy sets. :)

Kunal
Jul 5th, 2007, 10:10 PM
omg what a desperate thread

supergrunt
Jul 6th, 2007, 12:25 AM
She must have played poorly to let a Serena at 40% take a set... or is Serena just that good of a fighter?

Kim-the-bomb
Jul 8th, 2007, 07:33 PM
omg what a desperate thread

(Off topic: Why should this be a desperate tread?)

OK for the record: I'm belgian, so I'm a Justine fan. But in general I'm a fan of great matches, between whoever they are.

What I wanted to point out is that players and their fans should stop complaining about only "playing 15%" / Not playing their normal level / etc..

To the players:
If you decide to step on the court, you're automatically there for 100%. Excuses can NEVER be made for pre-match injuries. Injuries sustained during a match can be legitimate if you retire during the match, NOT if u retire after you’ve lost. Another perfect excuse for losing a match is being stabbed (That is not due to your own bad physic.)
In post-match interviews you can try to give explanations for your loss, but these should NEVER indicate that you’re opponent’s win is illegitimate or a lucky fluke. (VERY UNPOLITE :rolleyes: ) You lost because your opponent was BETTER on the given day, whether this was physically, mentally, tactically, technically,… or whatever. Because tennis is about all of that!!!
You can say you gave it your 100%, but you didn’t play well IN YOUR OPINION. This WITHOUT suggesting that if you had played better, you would have automatically / easily won. You can always play better tennis, SO CAN YOUR OPPONENT, regardless of their ranking or achievements !!!
Please try NOT to make strong judgements about your opponents play. You can say she played good tennis or high quality. Please don’t say things like she played her best tennis ever. I doubt if you were there in all of your opponent matches. Saying things like “she only had to show up” is REALLY BAD TASTE and suggests a bad upbringing. You’re parents really can’t have done such a bad job if you’re a professional tennis player right now. :rolleyes:

You can of course always think what you want. Besides freedom of thought, there should always be freedom of speech. But please be so smart to use this last one WISELY, because it can reflect REALLY BADLY on you. People could really start thinking not so nice things about you: “She is RUDE, UNCIVILISED, UNMANNERED, DUMB, STUPID, GAMESMANSHIP-LIKE, ARROGANT,…”.
And please take note of the following: Self-confidence is about inner strength. Once expressed it easily tends to arrogance!

To players fans:
Please acknowledge that tennis is about at least two players playing (see above). One player playing good or bad, can easily influence the other player in playing good or bad. All depends on the occasion!
“My player could have played better, so she should have won”. Coulda, woulda, shoulda,… Help!!! Your player surely gave it a 100%, if she could have played better on that day, she would have done it. No doubt about it!!! Even if she had played 1000 times better, you still don’t know if she would have won. I’m sure even god doesn’t know this one! If one player has the right to “Could have played a 1000 times better”, so has the other player. Keeping the score exactly the same! EVERY win is a legitimate, well deserved win!
Sometimes there IS luck involved, for instance when you save match points. Even if the player saving them, is suddenly raising their game spectacularly, it is still LUCK and NO LUCK for the other one. Either way no one should question the winner, history won’t, so why should we. Imagine if every close encounter in history, where it could have gone either way, would get a “shoulda, coulda, woulda”-note in the history books. :help:

On Henin losing to Bartoli:
I’m sure Henin gave it a 100%, but on that day Bartoli just was the better player. It was the first time I saw her play and was quite impressed. I hope she keeps up the good work. She was lovely to watch.

:drool: :bounce: :drool: