PDA

View Full Version : How dumb is Lindsay for not playing RG?


Danke Anke
Jun 1st, 2008, 12:02 PM
Not saying she would definitely win the tournament, but she would be competitive against any of the remaining players, even on clay. I think she would even have a better chance here than at Wimbledon where both Williamses will be at their best. It's this constant defeatist attitude she's shown that explains why shes only won 3 slams. You have to at least SHOW UP if you want to give yourself a chance to win something. Not to mention the fact that even if she got to a QF or semi at RG that would greatly improve her seeding at Wimbledon. What a dumbass.

The Kaz
Jun 1st, 2008, 12:05 PM
I know :sad:

TennisFanForever
Jun 1st, 2008, 12:09 PM
Lindsay just needs more time to take care of his son. It's not that difficult to understand that tennis is not her priority any more.

anon57
Jun 1st, 2008, 12:11 PM
Lindsay just needs more time to take care of his son. It's not that difficult to understand that tennis is not her priority any more.
Agreed, she has a son now, her #1 priority isn't tennis anymore and she felt it was better to not be playing RG on a surface she's not too fond off.

roxi
Jun 1st, 2008, 12:16 PM
My thoughts exactly!!! Next year she'll be smarter!!!

The Daviator
Jun 1st, 2008, 12:18 PM
Lindsay would have lost to Pova, Sveta, Vera, Dinara, Lena, JJ, Ana, so it was pointless her going, she could have made the 16s and that would have been great for her ranking, but she'll just have to make up for that on the grass :angel:

Dave.
Jun 1st, 2008, 12:47 PM
Lindsay has alot of self-belief and confidence in herself. She didn't play the French because she has a life.

The way the draw has opened up you have to wonder what Lindsay could have done but if Serena and Venus lost early there's nothing saying Lindsay wouldn't have either.

twight6
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:38 PM
Lindsay is over 30, has a son (which she had less than a year ago), has been plagued by injuries that keep her out a year or more in her career, and she has only made the quarters here 3 times (at least 8 at every other event).

It would be way to risky for Lindsay to play here. And to say she has a defeatist attitude is just :spit:. The fact that she came back from a pregnancy shows she does not. She has stated numerous times that she does NOT care about her ranking, just to win another big tournament and be competitive. Well, by playing here, you said it yourself: she wouldn't have won the tournament, and against Ivanovic, Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Safina, Zvonareva, Dementieva even Serena, Venus and Sharapova she would NOT have been competitive nonetheless beaten them.

The last 2 times she played here I thought she had a good shot; she was fighting hard, getting good wins, ESPECIALLY in '05 (beating Clijsters, Razzano). Then she just came out and got crushed in her next round (by Pierce and Dementieva), who aren't even that good of clay courters.

She'd have lost to Suarez Navarro for Christ's sake.


Yes, I miss her playing and would've liked to see her here and get to the 4th round or maybe even the quarters, but that's not good enough for her and it's not good enough for me. With her age, injuries, it'd be too much to play here and at Wimbledon almost back to back. Plus, she's getting time with Jagger right now!

cellophane
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:39 PM
She doesn't like playing on clay?

NeeemZ
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:44 PM
Who's to say that Lindsay wouldn't have lost in the early rounds like Serena or Venus? I can imagine alot of people on this forum would have been critisizing Lindsay for choosing to play RG if she did lose in the early rounds.

Ksenia.
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:48 PM
not dumb at all. she has a baby she has to take care of. that's enough, huh?

fufuqifuqishahah
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:50 PM
I wouldn't call it dumb, but I would like to have seen her be a 100% fighter and give at an effort... But she's already done enough in her career :worship:

AnomyBC
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:50 PM
I don't think Davenport would have made it very far. I think she would have probably lost in the first week. And the likelihood of her ever winning a major again is extremely small. I mean, she hasn't won one in 8 years now.

Danke Anke
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:50 PM
She absolutely could have lost early as well -- but what I'm saying is that there's no one in this draw she doesn't have at least a 50% chance of beating. Even on clay. Also her son and/or the chance of injury don't have anything to do with it. She went all the way to Poland to get some easy bling, and then doesn't play the only Grand Slam she would need to complete a career GS? I don't care how bad you think you are on a particular surface -- if you've been number 1 in the world, have reached the semifinals and multiple quarterfinals of said slam, and have won several tournaments on clay, get your ass in the draw.

austennis
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:54 PM
shes a mum.. jagger must come first
from tennis perspective bad choice
but from a mum perspective ..well done glad u put things b4 ur tennis

Adal
Jun 1st, 2008, 01:54 PM
Clay is tough for her. It would have taken a lot of energy from her if she had decided to play RG and other clay court tournaments.
I wouldn't be surprised if injuries happened or if she wouldn't have much left for Wimbledon.
She made the best choice for her IMO

Matt01
Jun 1st, 2008, 02:34 PM
Lindsay has alot of self-belief and confidence in herself. She didn't play the French because she has a life.


Sorry but this reasoning a bit ridiculous.

She doesn't play because she has a son and doesn't like playing on clay, not because she has a life. Other players who don't have a son have a life as well, and there are actually players who are playing tennis at RG who have a life as well :eek:

danieln1
Jun 1st, 2008, 02:35 PM
No, this thread is dumb, Lindsay is the smartest player, she won´t come to Europe again to play a surface she hates, even though she had some success on it... She is taking care of her son and training hard for Eastbourne and Wimbledon, the most adequate choice for her

Mateo Mathieu
Jun 1st, 2008, 02:45 PM
Not saying she would definitely win the tournament, but she would be competitive against any of the remaining players, even on clay. I think she would even have a better chance here than at Wimbledon where both Williamses will be at their best. It's this constant defeatist attitude she's shown that explains why shes only won 3 slams. You have to at least SHOW UP if you want to give yourself a chance to win something. Not to mention the fact that even if she got to a QF or semi at RG that would greatly improve her seeding at Wimbledon. What a dumbass.
You're dumb :) She's a mother now and tennis isn't her first priority anymore.

Mileen
Jun 1st, 2008, 03:33 PM
She would have beaten Ana & Jankovic both in the same match :lol:.
Lindsay, we miss you! See you back on grass!

jonny84
Jun 1st, 2008, 04:29 PM
Better preparations for Wimbledon and the grass court season ;)

pov
Jun 1st, 2008, 04:45 PM
Having a child probably has some bearing on her choice but maybe not as much as many people think - her son travels with her to all tournaments.

Noctis
Jun 1st, 2008, 04:48 PM
Shes Not Great At Clay:l She know shes not going to win,So she tested herself in Poland
She Lost to Makiri and Sveta,so really any point? she has a better chance on Grass and Hardcourt,She has a son Btw:l Go Lindsay in Eastbourne!!!!+]]]

Wannabeknowitall
Jun 1st, 2008, 05:00 PM
Dumb.
I saw Lindsay play Justine at Charleston in 2005. She could have won that match.

She has the game to beat any top player on this surface.
I feel she should have given it one more chance.

But she's not as dumb as Justine.
You weren't the only top player, playing crappy on clay this season.

Slutiana
Jun 1st, 2008, 05:39 PM
Oh, come on, Tennis isn't her life, you know?

VeeJJ
Jun 1st, 2008, 05:45 PM
yeah, definetly, she could have done some serious damage with the way this RG has turned out.

zlove
Jun 1st, 2008, 06:08 PM
son>tennis (especially on clay)

its not dumb of her
and it does also give her more time to focus on the upcoming grass season

Lindsayfan32
Jun 2nd, 2008, 03:12 AM
Out of all the slams Lindsay has played over the years she has had the most injury withdrawals at the French open. Another reason it was a smart move clay is Lindsay's worst surface and her chances of winning the French were next to nil. Here is a third reason why it was a smart move she is at home trainnig for the slam she has a great chance of doing well at if not winning the whole thing she come into Eastbourne well rested and gets some match practice and on to Winbledon.

Lindsayfan32
Jun 2nd, 2008, 03:14 AM
yeah, definetly, she could have done some serious damage with the way this RG has turned out.

Some serious damage to herself not in the tournament :)

twight6
Jun 2nd, 2008, 03:35 AM
She absolutely could have lost early as well -- but what I'm saying is that there's no one in this draw she doesn't have at least a 50% chance of beating. Even on clay. Also her son and/or the chance of injury don't have anything to do with it. She went all the way to Poland to get some easy bling, and then doesn't play the only Grand Slam she would need to complete a career GS? I don't care how bad you think you are on a particular surface -- if you've been number 1 in the world, have reached the semifinals and multiple quarterfinals of said slam, and have won several tournaments on clay, get your ass in the draw.

This is such a stupid post.

Even as a fan I can admit that Lindsay's chances of beating Maria are WORSE than 50/50. She'll lose to Maria 75% of the time when Maria is playing well. On top of that, on clay, out of the remaing players Lindsay would lose to: Safina, Zvonareva, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, even Schnyder... over 1/2 the time on clay.

And the end is just :lol:. Being bad on a particular surface has everything to do it. LINDSAY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT "DOING WELL" AT TOURNAMENTS. She has said a thousand times that she is back to win the tournament. Why risk an injury (even if the chances of her getting injured are like 1/100 that's still too bad of odds to waddle around on clay for a few days) when you don't even get anything from it?

She didn't go to Poland for "easy" bling she went there to get back into the swing of things slowly, in a place where she'd be challenge but could still win. And she even said before one of the things she's looking for in her comeback is to travel with her family.

Her son and an injury have EVERYTHING to do with it. She doesn't want to play roland garros, CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT!? She wants to win a grand slam. She doesn't watn to win a couple rounds just to lose in straight sets to Dementieva or Safina or some other low-ER ranked player. She could get injured, and on top of that she is playing tennis 9 months out of the year it's great for her to get another 2 weeks off for her just born son.

And who gives a shit about a career grand slam anyway. First of all, SHE WOULD NOT HAVE WON HERE. Second of all, she has 3 grand slams, 31 QF's or better, an Olympic gold medal, has been #1 for an incredible amount of weeks, and came back over the age of thirty and is competitive LESS THAN A YEAR after giving birth!

:rolleyes:

What a stupid thread. Baiting- delete it now.

homogenius
Jun 2nd, 2008, 03:37 AM
It was the better decision for her.She had no chances here anyway.
At least she can prepare in the best conditions to play a decent Wimbledon.

karimcartoon
Jun 2nd, 2008, 05:32 AM
Lindsay is over 30, has a son (which she had less than a year ago), has been plagued by injuries that keep her out a year or more in her career, and she has only made the quarters here 3 times (at least 8 at every other event).

It would be way to risky for Lindsay to play here. And to say she has a defeatist attitude is just :spit:. The fact that she came back from a pregnancy shows she does not. She has stated numerous times that she does NOT care about her ranking, just to win another big tournament and be competitive. Well, by playing here, you said it yourself: she wouldn't have won the tournament, and against Ivanovic, Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Safina, Zvonareva, Dementieva even Serena, Venus and Sharapova she would NOT have been competitive nonetheless beaten them.

The last 2 times she played here I thought she had a good shot; she was fighting hard, getting good wins, ESPECIALLY in '05 (beating Clijsters, Razzano). Then she just came out and got crushed in her next round (by Pierce and Dementieva), who aren't even that good of clay courters.

She'd have lost to Suarez Navarro for Christ's sake.


Yes, I miss her playing and would've liked to see her here and get to the 4th round or maybe even the quarters, but that's not good enough for her and it's not good enough for me. With her age, injuries, it'd be too much to play here and at Wimbledon almost back to back. Plus, she's getting time with Jagger right now!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Danke Anke
Jun 2nd, 2008, 06:09 PM
The logic by some of you is retarded -- Lindsay absolutely HATED grass until she won Wimbledon in 1999. If your goal is to win a grand slam, then you should at least PLAY all 4. Given how the draw has panned out, I think she would have had a better chance here than she will at Wimbledon, where she'll inevitably run into a Williams or a Sharapova on a surface they're comfortable on. Lindsay has always been a top 10 clay court player -- she just never committed herself to putting in a substantive effort on the surface. I think it's awesome that she's back, she adds a lot to the game, but I think if she really wants to win slams, she needs to at least show up at them -- even her least favourite.

Danke Anke
Jun 2nd, 2008, 06:13 PM
And, as a further point, she even stated she played this year's Miami tournament (a tournament she has in the past said she doesn't enjoy playing and has had bad luck with injuries at) because it was a tour requirement. You're going to play a tier I tournament you hate and not a grand slam? BS. Also, incidentally she had the best win of her comeback there. Good things happen when you show up.

drgray
Jun 2nd, 2008, 06:13 PM
Not dumb at all. Plenty of rest and practice on her best surface, grass. GL at Wimbly and other grass tournies Linds!!

twight6
Jun 2nd, 2008, 08:30 PM
The logic by some of you is retarded -- Lindsay absolutely HATED grass until she won Wimbledon in 1999. If your goal is to win a grand slam, then you should at least PLAY all 4. Given how the draw has panned out, I think she would have had a better chance here than she will at Wimbledon, where she'll inevitably run into a Williams or a Sharapova on a surface they're comfortable on. Lindsay has always been a top 10 clay court player -- she just never committed herself to putting in a substantive effort on the surface. I think it's awesome that she's back, she adds a lot to the game, but I think if she really wants to win slams, she needs to at least show up at them -- even her least favourite.

You're calling us retarted when you just said Lindsay has always been a top 10 clay court player!? :spit: :haha: :speakles:

Henin
Serena
Venus
Jankovic
Ivanovic
Dementieva
Kuznetsova
Sharapova
Pierce
Schnyder
Safina
Myskina
Clijsters
Hingis
Not to mention the ones I could make a strong argument for: Zvonareva, Mauresmo (in the past)...

And the list goes on. All of these players, past and present, and many more, were better than Lindsay on clay.

It hasn othing to do with "liking" the surface. It's about not being able to paly on it- at all. Clay points are long, physical, draw out, because the ball does not move through it like it does on a hard court. When you have a player, like Lindsay, who hits through the ball, hard, she isn't going to succeed on a clay court when that's all her game is. Not even mentioning the fact that she is no where near as physical as the top clay courters and would be warn out instantly in a tough clay court match. But, if you're even a small tennis fan you know all of this so I don't know why I have to explain it to you.

How hard of a concept is this!?: She wants to win a slam, BUT DOES NOT WANT TO GET INJURED DOING IT. HER ODDS OF WINNING ROLAND GARROS ARE WORSE THAN 100/1, YOU CANNOT SIT THERE AND TELL ME THAT HER ODDS OF WINNING WIMBLEDON ARE WORSE THAN 100/1. Why risk getting injured to play a tournament you KNOW you won't even get to the quarterfinals of? Even if the draw is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE and COMPLETELY OPENS UP, you aren't going to win it. Because there's always a Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Schnyder, Jankovic, Ivanovic, in the draw that IS GOING to beat you on this court. No matter how you look at it. Lindsay may have gotten lucky, maybe even made the semis, but she was not going to get lucky more than one match in a row. She got lucky 2 years ago and pulled out a match against Clijsters, only to get anhiliated by Pierce in the next round. The same thing would've happened this year!

twight6
Jun 2nd, 2008, 08:33 PM
Not dumb at all. Plenty of rest and practice on her best surface, grass. GL at Wimbly and other grass tournies Linds!!

And I didn't even mention the rest factor in my last posts! How about the fact that Lindsay is no where near in the shape of the other players on tour, and you want her to play this week, and makea run to what? the quarters? semis, even the final? Play 4, 5, 6 TOUGH matches on a TOUGH court (and yes, they will all be tough matches, just look at her past results here. Tough, physical, long matches) then come out 2 weeks later and try to play Wimbledon? Not going to happen!

You want to talk about Miami? Let's look at Miami, the Australian Open, all the tournametns she has played that are longer than a week. She hasn't gone really deep in any of them because she's not PHYSICALLY READY! She may be able to go two full weeks of tough tennis, but that is IT. If she can even go that much tennis. She cannot play 2 grand slams, 2 weeks each, back to back. She had a tough time doing it when she was over 30 and a mother.

OsloErik
Jun 2nd, 2008, 09:33 PM
You're calling us retarted when you just said Lindsay has always been a top 10 clay court player!? :spit: :haha: :speakles:

Henin
Serena
Venus
Jankovic
Ivanovic
Dementieva
Kuznetsova
Sharapova
Pierce
Schnyder
Safina
Myskina
Clijsters
Hingis
Not to mention the ones I could make a strong argument for: Zvonareva, Mauresmo (in the past)...

And the list goes on. All of these players, past and present, and many more, were better than Lindsay on clay.

It hasn othing to do with "liking" the surface. It's about not being able to paly on it- at all. Clay points are long, physical, draw out, because the ball does not move through it like it does on a hard court. When you have a player, like Lindsay, who hits through the ball, hard, she isn't going to succeed on a clay court when that's all her game is. Not even mentioning the fact that she is no where near as physical as the top clay courters and would be warn out instantly in a tough clay court match. But, if you're even a small tennis fan you know all of this so I don't know why I have to explain it to you.

How hard of a concept is this!?: She wants to win a slam, BUT DOES NOT WANT TO GET INJURED DOING IT. HER ODDS OF WINNING ROLAND GARROS ARE WORSE THAN 100/1, YOU CANNOT SIT THERE AND TELL ME THAT HER ODDS OF WINNING WIMBLEDON ARE WORSE THAN 100/1. Why risk getting injured to play a tournament you KNOW you won't even get to the quarterfinals of? Even if the draw is ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE and COMPLETELY OPENS UP, you aren't going to win it. Because there's always a Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Schnyder, Jankovic, Ivanovic, in the draw that IS GOING to beat you on this court. No matter how you look at it. Lindsay may have gotten lucky, maybe even made the semis, but she was not going to get lucky more than one match in a row. She got lucky 2 years ago and pulled out a match against Clijsters, only to get anhiliated by Pierce in the next round. The same thing would've happened this year!

Well, in fairness, she's made the semifinals of the French more than Venus, Jankovic, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Schnyder, Safina, Myskina...not to mention Zvonarerva, and Mauresmo. She hasn't lost before the 4th round of a slam since 2000. And once you get to the 2nd week, facing mentally weak players like Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Safina... well, it's anyone's game. She's not a favorite, but she'd at least have a chance.

In my opinion, the French Open is probably less strenuous than that Warsaw exhibition (three clay matches in three days?), and if you don't really take it seriously, if you're out there to have fun...where's the harm? She's not getting better by avoiding the top players.

drgray
Jun 2nd, 2008, 09:40 PM
And I didn't even mention the rest factor in my last posts! How about the fact that Lindsay is no where near in the shape of the other players on tour, and you want her to play this week, and makea run to what? the quarters? semis, even the final? Play 4, 5, 6 TOUGH matches on a TOUGH court (and yes, they will all be tough matches, just look at her past results here. Tough, physical, long matches) then come out 2 weeks later and try to play Wimbledon? Not going to happen!

You want to talk about Miami? Let's look at Miami, the Australian Open, all the tournametns she has played that are longer than a week. She hasn't gone really deep in any of them because she's not PHYSICALLY READY! She may be able to go two full weeks of tough tennis, but that is IT. If she can even go that much tennis. She cannot play 2 grand slams, 2 weeks each, back to back. She had a tough time doing it when she was over 30 and a mother.

Are you attacking me or the OP? I think the off weeks are good for her to train physically and get her game ready for grass, a surface she is guaranteed to have better success on than clay.

twight6
Jun 2nd, 2008, 09:48 PM
Are you attacking me or the OP? I think the off weeks are good for her to train physically and get her game ready for grass, a surface she is guaranteed to have better success on than clay.

Sorry :lol: I wasn't attacking you. I was agreeing.. probably quoting you then yelling wasn't a good idea!

drgray
Jun 2nd, 2008, 09:50 PM
Haha. Ok was. I was just like... I though we were on the same page... :confused:

twight6
Jun 2nd, 2008, 10:06 PM
Well, in fairness, she's made the semifinals of the French more than Venus, Jankovic, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Schnyder, Safina, Myskina...not to mention Zvonarerva, and Mauresmo. She hasn't lost before the 4th round of a slam since 2000. And once you get to the 2nd week, facing mentally weak players like Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Safina... well, it's anyone's game. She's not a favorite, but she'd at least have a chance.

In my opinion, the French Open is probably less strenuous than that Warsaw exhibition (three clay matches in three days?), and if you don't really take it seriously, if you're out there to have fun...where's the harm? She's not getting better by avoiding the top players.

Lindsay: 1 French Open semi
Venus: 1 FINAL
Jankovic: 1 semi
Ivanovic: 1 FINAL
Dementieva: 1 FINAL
Kuznetsova: 1 FINAL
Sharapova: 1 semi
Schnyder: okay...
Safina: okay...
Myskina: CHAMPION

"Well, in fairness, she's made the semifinals of the French more than Venus, Jankovic, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Sharapova, Schnyder, Safina, Myskina"
Well, let's see, with the exception of Schnyder and Safina, Lindsay has made the semis the same number of times as all those players... And Venus, Ivanovic, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, and Myskina all did BETTER than her with a final or winning it. So strictly by stats these players are better than Lindsay.

And, I wasn't even talking by stats. Because going by stats Lindsay will obviously look better in most categories because she's been playing a lot longer, and most of these players are in their prime right now (instead of years past it).

And, when you factor in the fact that (with the exception of Schnyder and Venus) Lindsay has played A LOT more French Opens than these players, that makes Lindsay look even worse because she only has 1 semi in all her tries.

But since Ivanovic, Jankovic, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Sharapova are all just now really hitting their prime, you can't even compare them to Lindsay by stats (since Lindsay hasn't been playing). But strictly watching them play, I have no doubt (and you shouldn't have any doubt either) that all these players would beat Lindsay.

Taht means that out of the final 16 (Sharapova, Safina, Zvonareva, Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Azarenka, Kvitova, Kanepi, Pennetta, Suarez Navarro, Radwanska, Jankovic, Srebotnik, Schnyder, Cetkovska, Ivanovic), 6 of them (Maria, Elena, Svetlana, Jelena, Ivanovic, Schnyder, and with how Dinara and Vera and Radwanska are plyaing I'd argue them to) are favored over Lindsay. And, clearly, Lindsay have better than a 50-50 shot of beating Lindsay at Roland Garros.

Dawson.
Jun 2nd, 2008, 11:26 PM
probably the smartest thing shes done all year. She hates RG - away from home, away from HER SON, on her least favourite surface, risks getting injured before the REAL major of the year. clear cut to me