PDA

View Full Version : Why do people think Sharapova is so great on grass?


chris_d08
May 25th, 2009, 09:21 PM
During her match today, the commentators said Sharapova should be focusing on using the French Open as match practice for Wimbledon? why do people always say Sharapova is soooo great on grass? just becuz she won one? serena won the french open and people always say she sucks on clay! and sharapova has gotten thrashed by venus in 2 of the past 4 years!! so whats the big obsessions with sharapova on grass?? someone explain

Vaidisova Ruled
May 25th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Sharapova is not SO great ongrass but good. She won Wimbledon. That's why

Temperenka
May 25th, 2009, 09:25 PM
I always thought she was better on hard courts, personally. But of course she did have her 04 win at Wimbledon and some other successful results there. I like her chances at the USO much more. She is better than most on grass though.

Kworb
May 25th, 2009, 09:26 PM
It is her strongest surface with a 47-8 W/L record.

AnomyBC
May 25th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Wimbledon 2004. That's why. But hard is probably her best surface.

ETA: OK, according to the stats above, maybe grass is her best surface. She's pretty good on hard too though :)

Tennisation
May 25th, 2009, 09:29 PM
She lost to Venus, the best grass court player of this generation. That is not something to be ashamed of, Maria is still very good on grass.

Galsen
May 25th, 2009, 09:31 PM
but after Wimbly 2004 she sucks toally sucks 4rd Round 2nd Round in 2007 and 2008

madmax
May 25th, 2009, 09:32 PM
well, she has the best record on grass actually...that means she must be good on it:unsure:

Tripp
May 25th, 2009, 09:36 PM
Her agressive gamestyle suits faster surfaces better. Grass being one of the fastest surfaces available on the women's tour, that means she's comfortable on it and therefore is able to play at her best. Simple as that.

SelesFan70
May 25th, 2009, 09:44 PM
Serve and nerve are of utmost importance on grass. That's why Venus is so good. ;)

darkangel5452
May 25th, 2009, 09:58 PM
but after Wimbly 2004 she sucks toally sucks 4rd Round 2nd Round in 2007 and 2008

Don't be so stupid even if I know it must be tough for u, if it wasn't for Vee, Sharapova would have won more than 1 wimbledon. ANd you forgot her semifinals in 2005/6, but you did it on purpose:rolleyes:

joão.
May 25th, 2009, 10:12 PM
People don't even think that she is that great.
And if they demonstrate it a bit, it's probably because of the way she won her first Slam, Wimbledon.
Hater. :weirdo:

Noctis
May 25th, 2009, 10:16 PM
are you for serious :spit:
She won a slam there and beat Serena Goat Williams in the final :weirdo:

Expat
May 25th, 2009, 10:20 PM
1 win and 2 semis are not good on grass :confused:
After Venus and Serena she is the third best player on grass right now if her shoulder is healthy.
If you have to bet on Maria winning any slam would you rather go on the French or Wimbledon?

Keegan
May 25th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Because it's a surface that suits her style of play, that's why. Clay is too slow for her, extinguishing the power of her serve and groundstrokes and she also feels very uncomfortable on the surface. She also has good results at Wimbledon because it suits her style.

Wasn't that hard to come up with.

Tennisstar86
May 25th, 2009, 10:22 PM
During her match today, the commentators said Sharapova should be focusing on using the French Open as match practice for Wimbledon? why do people always say Sharapova is soooo great on grass? just becuz she won one? serena won the french open and people always say she sucks on clay! and sharapova has gotten thrashed by venus in 2 of the past 4 years!! so whats the big obsessions with sharapova on grass?? someone explain

Thats because she is Good on Grass.... So she got thrashed by the greatest grass court player of her era and arguably all time. Sharapova's game is very much like Venus' the difference is shes not as atheletic or as quick. thats why when they meet on grass she gets destroyed....With the exception of last year her Wimbledon Record is superb..... any loss to Venus on grass isnt "embarrassing"

faboozadoo15
May 25th, 2009, 10:47 PM
At Wimbledon, since winning, her only bad loss is to Alla K. Mauresmo and Venus X 2 have been the players to beat her, and they've gone on to win the title.

Leo_DFP
May 25th, 2009, 10:53 PM
This thread = EPIC FAIL.

And it has been fundamentally shut down by every poster since.

lizchris
May 25th, 2009, 10:54 PM
Don't be so stupid even if I know it must be tough for u, if it wasn't for Vee, Sharapova would have won more than 1 wimbledon. ANd you forgot her semifinals in 2005/6, but you did it on purpose:rolleyes:

Actually, if it were not for that controversial tiebreak in the second round for Venus in 2004, we may not have heard of Maria Sharapova (Venus was in her half of the draw).

faboozadoo15
May 25th, 2009, 10:56 PM
Actually, if it were not for that controversial tiebreak in the second round for Venus in 2004, we may not have heard of Maria Sharapova (Venus was in her half of the draw).

Yes, of course.

HenryMag.
May 25th, 2009, 10:58 PM
Actually, I think hard is her best surface.

Corswandt
May 25th, 2009, 11:05 PM
Actually, I think hard is her best surface.

Nowadays it certainly is. Since 2005, Sharapova has been somewhat vulnerable and upset prone on grass; or at least the SuperMasha of late 2006 and of the 2008 AO wasn't the one who showed up there. Still a top 10 player on grass I suppose, for the little that is worth.

Malva
May 25th, 2009, 11:09 PM
Actually, I think hard is her best surface.

That's my opinion too.

StephenUK
May 26th, 2009, 12:15 AM
You can't compare Serena's FO win with Maria's Wimbledon. Maria won Wimbledon when she was not even a top 10 seed and beat Serena handsomely in the final. Any unbiased commentator would put her maybe third or fourth best of active players on grass, after the Williams sisters and maybe Mauresmo.

Serena won the FO when she was in total dominance of the game; she has not won a single tournament on red clay since. Maria's much shorter career on grass has been much more successful than Serena's on red clay - Maria has made two Wimbledon semis in the subsequent four years; Serena has made one semi in seven years.

Dunlop1
May 26th, 2009, 12:20 AM
During her match today, the commentators said Sharapova should be focusing on using the French Open as match practice for Wimbledon? why do people always say Sharapova is soooo great on grass? just becuz she won one? serena won the french open and people always say she sucks on clay! and sharapova has gotten thrashed by venus in 2 of the past 4 years!! so whats the big obsessions with sharapova on grass?? someone explain

People think SHarapova is great on grass because she is. If you did a little research you would realise this.

Venus isn't 'not-great' on hardcourt because her last slam win on the surface was 8 years ago.

GeeTee
May 26th, 2009, 12:36 AM
The only reason Sharapova's so good on grass is that pretty much everyone else (cept maybe the sisters) are so pathetic on it.

LightWarrior
May 26th, 2009, 12:50 AM
are you for serious :spit:
She won a slam there and beat Serena Goat Williams in the final :weirdo:

You can't really take that one into account because all tennis experts will tell you that it is the only GS final when Serena choked (all WS finals don't coun't).
Rallies are shorter on grass and she's a bad mover, doesn't know how to slide on clay, in short plays the same game on grass as on clay. She reminds me of Davenport.

franny
May 26th, 2009, 01:28 AM
Winning Wimbledon + losing to eventual Champion 3X in the last 5 years is good. Aside from last year when she was injured and had that bad loss, she's been GOOD on grass. That is why commentators are saying she should use French Open to prep for Wimbledon, AND that is why she is using French to prepare for Wimbledon. Hard Courts is def her best surface though.

Dawson.
May 26th, 2009, 02:22 AM
Hardcourts are her best surface, but given the amount of grass court tournaments and the few active players who can call themselves Wimbledon champion, it would be stupid not to call her a condtender.

miffedmax
May 26th, 2009, 02:42 AM
It's not like Wimby is her only grass title, either.

starin
May 26th, 2009, 02:43 AM
People think SHarapova is great on grass because she is. If you did a little research you would realise this.

Venus isn't 'not-great' on hardcourt because her last slam win on the surface was 8 years ago.

Venus has accomplished more on hard than Sharapova has on grass in the last 3 years.

Dunlop1
May 26th, 2009, 02:49 AM
Venus has accomplished more on hard than Sharapova has on grass in the last 3 years.

Duh! Way to state the obvious.
It wasn't meant to be a literal comparison.

pepaw
May 26th, 2009, 03:36 AM
Venus has accomplished more on hard than Sharapova has on grass in the last 3 years.

:rolleyes: i would sincerely hope so. theres one notable grass tournment in the year whereas theres like 10 big hardcourt ones.

venusallday
May 26th, 2009, 06:19 AM
Actually, if it were not for that controversial tiebreak in the second round for Venus in 2004, we may not have heard of Maria Sharapova (Venus was in her half of the draw).

hahah love this.

Matt01
May 26th, 2009, 10:29 AM
The only reason Sharapova's so good on grass is that pretty much everyone else (cept maybe the sisters) are so pathetic on it.


People have said the same about Justine and her domination on clay. Let's give credit where credit is due. Pova is very good on grass (even though she arguably is better on hardcourts).

starin
May 26th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Duh! Way to state the obvious.
It wasn't meant to be a literal comparison.

well it stands that if Venus has accomplished more on hard in the last 3 years than Sharapova has on grass and Venus is not considered great (according to you) on hard then Sharapova can hardly be considered great on grass.

Vaidisova Ruled
May 26th, 2009, 06:15 PM
well it stands that if Venus has accomplished more on hard in the last 3 years than Sharapova has on grass and Venus is not considered great (according to you) on hard then Sharapova can hardly be considered great on grass.
Ok, Sharapova is shit on grass (even though she won wimbledon) , happy?

starin
May 26th, 2009, 06:26 PM
Ok, Sharapova is shit on grass (even though she won wimbledon) , happy?

I never said that. I think Sharapova is great on grass.

W!MBLEDON
May 26th, 2009, 06:56 PM
sharapova's win/loss and percentage:

HARD - 150W/32L - 82.4%
CLAY - 51W/15L - 77.3%
GRASS - 47W/8L - 85.5%
INDOOR - 55W/16L - 77.5%

:wavey:

alfonsojose
May 26th, 2009, 07:06 PM
On Paris's clay, she's the cow on ice. On Wimby's grass ... a cow can't be happier :yeah: :D

Volcana
May 26th, 2009, 07:18 PM
I've never heard anyone refer to Sharapova as a 'great' grass court player.

Ju's backhand
May 26th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Well because she IS good on grass. She didn't JUST win Wimbledon. She reached the SF twice there, and she has two other titles on grass.

RenaSlam.
May 26th, 2009, 07:32 PM
I think she's much better on hardcourts, too.

She's very good on grass, just doesn't move as well as the better grass courters...ahem.

2Black
May 26th, 2009, 07:42 PM
Sharapova is great...PERIOD!

homogenius
May 26th, 2009, 07:55 PM
She's good on grass but not at the level of Venus or Amelie for example.
She has a great record at Birmingham but the only time she faced a top10 player she lost (JJ in 2007)and at Wimbledon only her 2004 magical run (with a little help of the rain btw)was impressive.In 2005 and 2006 she beat respectively Petrova and Dementieva (not that hard)in qf and lost to Venus and Amelie who are GREAT grass players and have too much game for her on the surface.

Her game is more effective on hard than on grass imo.

serenus_2k8
May 26th, 2009, 07:59 PM
I dont get this fuss around her at all tbh. She is obviously a decent club player, with a few lucky titles here and there, but how she ever managed to enter the top 100 shocks me to the core!

cn ireland
May 26th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Let me see... Wimbledon Champion 2004;)!

Plus 2 more Wimby SFs & titles at Birmingham!!!

2Black
May 26th, 2009, 08:02 PM
I dont get this fuss around her at all tbh. She is obviously a decent club player, with a few lucky titles here and there, but how she ever managed to enter the top 100 shocks me to the core!

lol

WowWow
May 26th, 2009, 08:04 PM
I dont get this fuss around her at all tbh. She is obviously a decent club player, with a few lucky titles here and there, but how she ever managed to enter the top 100 shocks me to the core!

:lol::lol::lol:

Russianboy
May 26th, 2009, 08:11 PM
I dont get this fuss around her at all tbh. She is obviously a decent club player, with a few lucky titles here and there, but how she ever managed to enter the top 100 shocks me to the core!

yeah, lets face it... serena was her role model for playing in a club in Afghanistan for like her whole life. so maria said to herself 'if she can win a slam, i can do it 2'

Sharapower
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:12 AM
You can't really take that one into account because all tennis experts will tell you that it is the only GS final when Serena choked (all WS finals don't coun't).
No tennis expert would say Serena "choked". "Choking" refers to a player having a huge score advantage and blowing it off. That was absolutely not the case in that final.
Serena stated she lost because she put too much pressure on herself. Even that doesn't sound plausible to me. It looked more like she underestimated Maria and wasn't prepared to have that kind of play from the other side of the net. Honestly if I were in Serena's place, I would have had the same problem. Sharapova struggled her way to the finals in several 3-setters and a bit of luck with the rain delay vs. Davenport who was leading 1 set love and 5-2 in the 2nd if I remember right, you wouldn't expect her to be so poisonous in a GS final at that point. When Serena realized she needed to bring her A-game it was too late to reverse the momentum.

Anyway that's history... For the matter at hand Maria is not "great" on grass, at least not anymore. Since she grew so tall, the low bounce of the surface became a big problem for her.

ikarinokami
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:17 AM
No tennis expert would say Serena "choked". "Choking" refers to a player having a huge score advantage and blowing it off. That was absolutely not the case in that final.
Serena stated she lost because she put too much pressure on herself. Even that doesn't sound plausible to me. It looked more like she underestimated Maria and wasn't prepared to have that kind of play from the other side of the net. Honestly if I were in Serena's place, I would have had the same problem. Sharapova struggled her way to the finals in several 3-setters and a bit of luck with the rain delay vs. Davenport who was leading 1 set love and 5-2 in the 2nd if I remember right, you wouldn't expect her to be so poisonous in a GS final at that point. When Serena realized she needed to bring her A-game it was too late to reverse the momentum.

Anyway that's history... For the matter at hand Maria is not "great" on grass, at least not anymore. Since she grew so tall, the low bounce of the surface became a big problem for her.

i'm pretty venus and lidnsey are as tall as her? she has been unlucky, the times she wasn't injured, she ran into venus williams.

m'moiselle
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:21 AM
Sharapova's best surface is a quick indoor court no matter her love for grass. Same with Davenport.

Overall, grass calls for more athleticism to be more successful. As a result, Sharapova hasn't even made another final and is consistently declining in her Wimbledon results. Outside of 1 time winners Davenport, Sharapova everyone else have been good movers and considerably more athletic ESPECIALLY the multi-winners are the most historically athletic in the game.

The speed of grass as it works for attacking players works against them and you can't be in control of every point which is why Graf, Venus, Navratilova are the most successful they in their eras were the best athletically.

DefyingGravity
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:24 AM
i'm pretty venus and lidnsey are as tall as her? she has been unlucky, the times she wasn't injured, she ran into venus williams.

Mauresmo in 2006?

Knizzle
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:25 AM
No tennis expert would say Serena "choked". "Choking" refers to a player having a huge score advantage and blowing it off. That was absolutely not the case in that final.
Serena stated she lost because she put too much pressure on herself. Even that doesn't sound plausible to me. It looked more like she underestimated Maria and wasn't prepared to have that kind of play from the other side of the net. Honestly if I were in Serena's place, I would have had the same problem. Sharapova struggled her way to the finals in several 3-setters and a bit of luck with the rain delay vs. Davenport who was leading 1 set love and 5-2 in the 2nd if I remember right, you wouldn't expect her to be so poisonous in a GS final at that point. When Serena realized she needed to bring her A-game it was too late to reverse the momentum.

Anyway that's history... For the matter at hand Maria is not "great" on grass, at least not anymore. Since she grew so tall, the low bounce of the surface became a big problem for her.It was 6-2, *2-1 for Davenport. Putting so much pressure on yourself that you go out and vastly underperform because of it, IS choking.

m'moiselle
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:27 AM
Why are people saying she "ran" into Venus Williams as an excuse. If Sharapova wants to win Wimbledon chances are at some point she was going to face Venus or Serena. Whatever the round she lost and convincingly.

Who expects to win Wimbledon without beating at least one of the Williams Sisters if they are both in the draw at the start of the tournament? No one. With they way that match went Sharapova was going to lose whatever round. Not an excuse at all.

It's because you need to be athletic enough to win on grass consistently. Credit to Maria for taking her chance in '04, but I knew she was never going to dominate the surface. Look at the history of champions almost all of them are great movers AND hitters. The ones that aren't usually are great hitters AND they only win ONCE.

Sharapower
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:28 AM
i'm pretty venus and lidnsey are as tall as her? she has been unlucky, the times she wasn't injured, she ran into venus williams.
I think Maria's slightly taller than Venus, officially Maria 1.88, Venus 1.85 and Lindsay 1.89
But Venus and Lindsay have a big edge in terms of raw-talent for shot-making. They hit with a lot of "natural" fluidity regardless of position, height of ball and so on; definitely not Masha's case.

T-rex
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:29 AM
During her match today, the commentators said Sharapova should be focusing on using the French Open as match practice for Wimbledon? why do people always say Sharapova is soooo great on grass? just becuz she won one? serena won the french open and people always say she sucks on clay! and sharapova has gotten thrashed by venus in 2 of the past 4 years!! so whats the big obsessions with sharapova on grass?? someone explain
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __

Two issues.


First, the William sisters are held to a much higher standard in regard to EVERYTHING!




Secondly, I would ask the question, "Why do people think Sharapova is so great PERIOD!" She is not a bad player. She has won her fair share of tournaments. But she is not among the top players of the game. She not in the class of a Serena Williams or (in years past) Justine Henin.



It's hard for people to be objective. They see Sharapova and are "star struck" by beauty, marketability, and that imaginary date they are never going to get in real life. But look at her results. This year imparticular has been terrible for her. Yes, I know she has been injured, but when you become this injury prone, it is no longer an excuse and is now a part of the resume. With all of the hype, an argument could be made that she is the most overrated player on the WTA tour.

ikarinokami
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:30 AM
Mauresmo in 2006?

is there shame in losing to the eventual winner and someone who aslo has a great grass court game?

DefyingGravity
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:32 AM
is there shame in losing to the eventual winner and someone who aslo has a great grass court game?

No, but it shoots holes in the "she only loses to Venus" excuse. Sharapova was my pick to win the title, as she was playing lights out tennis, and Mauresmo junk balled her and she couldn't handle the slice.

VS Fan
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:43 AM
Why?... Because she won against Serena there in 2004 when she wasn't even expected to be competetive. Since then.... not so much.

T-rex
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:56 AM
Why?... Because she won against Serena there in 2004 when she wasn't even expected to be competetive. Since then.... not so much.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _


Good point.


Sharapova and the media PR machine took one great match (that she only could have pulled off maybe 2 or 3 out of 10 times) and turned it into an entire career of supposedly fantastic championship level tennis.


I wasn't shocked at all when she went out early at Wimbledon. But apparently a lot of other people were.

ikarinokami
Jul 3rd, 2009, 05:59 AM
granted i think sharapova on grass is overrated, but she is one of the better grass court players. she has an excellent win% and if she is healthy there are only a handful of people who can beat her, and she was good enough to beat serena.

Sharapower
Jul 3rd, 2009, 06:36 AM
Secondly, I would ask the question, "Why do people think Sharapova is so great PERIOD!" She is not a bad player. She has won her fair share of tournaments. But she is not among the top players of the game. She not in the class of a Serena Williams or (in years past) Justine Henin.

Justine, I agree, she had a very special career, like a movie played at accelerated motion. But then she burnt-out...
Serena vs. Sharapova can't be compared yet in terms of lifetime achievements: Serena's been on the tour for 14 years vs Sharapova's 8. However, if we take their records since 2004, Serena won 4 GS titles vs. Sharapova's 3. Obviously that makes Serena better than Maria but arguably, they're in the same league, so far.
The big question-mark is about Maria's ability to recover her level after the injury. If she does and can last on the tour as long as Serena does, I'm pretty sure Maria's records won't look ridiculous at all. She's not as overrated as it seems...

PhoenixStorm
Jul 3rd, 2009, 07:04 AM
You are so right! What on earth has this girl done on grass? Smoke it? I mean, really, has she even done anything remotely special as to be considered a great grass player? Hmm, what's that? Oh, really? In 2004? The final? Oh, the title? Yeah, well there's that of course.

bandabou
Jul 3rd, 2009, 08:34 AM
She's probably 3rd best on grass...but that doesn't mean all too much, because the gulf between the sisters and the rest is soooo huge. It's a given: When the sisters are healthy and committed..they are the cream of crop on grass..and the rest are just playing for SF's at best.q

Sharapower
Jul 3rd, 2009, 09:38 AM
She's probably 3rd best on grass...
Not really, I'm a big fan of Masha, but I can acknowledge her relevance on grass in the 2-3 last years is not one of an outstanding grass-player.

choi15
Jul 3rd, 2009, 09:43 AM
Because she is a "Big Babe" according to Mary Joe and the other two hags :tape: :devil:

bandabou
Jul 3rd, 2009, 09:44 AM
Uhum...but that's why I said. It doesn't matter if she's a great grasscourter or not. As long as the WS are mentally there and healthy, then what the rest of the field does..doesn't matter.

Thanx4nothin
Jul 3rd, 2009, 10:00 AM
Justine, I agree, she had a very special career, like a movie played at accelerated motion. But then she burnt-out...
Serena vs. Sharapova can't be compared yet in terms of lifetime achievements: Serena's been on the tour for 14 years vs Sharapova's 8. However, if we take their records since 2004, Serena won 4 GS titles vs. Sharapova's 3. Obviously that makes Serena better than Maria but arguably, they're in the same league, so far.
The big question-mark is about Maria's ability to recover her level after the injury. If she does and can last on the tour as long as Serena does, I'm pretty sure Maria's records won't look ridiculous at all. She's not as overrated as it seems...

If you do that though you make the argument MORE subjective as opposed to less so, through introducing many intangibles. I mean, Serena was recovering from injury and serious surgery. The age gap between them perhaps means we should either compare their achievements at the starts of their careers for a certain period OR maximal achievement over a period of a few years? Serena's maximal achievement being 4 slams in 12 months, Maria's being 3 slams in almost 6 years.

Point being, shortening the criteria of comparison can distort the results hugely. Either compare their entire career achievements or not.

I would hasten NOT to compare them. Maria is much younger and has had much less time to amount achievements. Though, I'm not sure if MANY expect Maria to EVER be a match away from HER 11th slam? Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm a Maria fan, afterall, but reality is, she isn't (yet) in the same league as Serena, and comparisons with Serena should really be reserved only for Venus among active players. Other such comparisons only serve to reveal how FAR ahead Serena is in achievements.

I think Maria has had a few bad years and tough losses on grass. I don't think her talent on grass warrants 2nd round exits, nor though, do I believe she'll ever 'DO A VENUS'. I do however expect her to consistently reach the semis there, anything else is a relative UNDERACHIEVEMENT!:help:


2007 her serving confidence was obliterated, 2009 much the same, and general ring rust, still inexcusable/inexplicable that she should reach the 1/4s of the french. Though, clay gives her more time, whereas if that rust is there, errors and games get away from her more rapidly on grass.

I'm not sure what her future holds. She has only beaten a healthy Serena once in her career, though, she was ubber close in AO 05. Since then she hasn't been close. She hasn't beaten Venus in a slam, albeit they have only had 2 meetings and both were at Wimbledon. It seems the Williamses are the thorn in her side in many big matches.

Still, should she fully recover from her shoulder woes, she is as likely as any (not named Williams ;)) to lift the Venus Rosewater dish aloft once more.

Markus
Jul 3rd, 2009, 10:23 AM
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __

Two issues.


First, the William sisters are held to a much higher standard in regard to EVERYTHING!




Secondly, I would ask the question, "Why do people think Sharapova is so great PERIOD!" She is not a bad player. She has won her fair share of tournaments. But she is not among the top players of the game. She not in the class of a Serena Williams or (in years past) Justine Henin.



It's hard for people to be objective. They see Sharapova and are "star struck" by beauty, marketability, and that imaginary date they are never going to get in real life. But look at her results. This year imparticular has been terrible for her. Yes, I know she has been injured, but when you become this injury prone, it is no longer an excuse and is now a part of the resume. With all of the hype, an argument could be made that she is the most overrated player on the WTA tour.
You are not the good old TeeRexx at any chance who disappeared 2004 after the Wimbledon final?

Sharapower
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:34 AM
If you do that though you make the argument MORE subjective as opposed to less so, through introducing many intangibles. I mean, Serena was recovering from injury and serious surgery. The age gap between them perhaps means we should either compare their achievements at the starts of their careers for a certain period OR maximal achievement over a period of a few years? Serena's maximal achievement being 4 slams in 12 months, Maria's being 3 slams in almost 6 years.

Point being, shortening the criteria of comparison can distort the results hugely. Either compare their entire career achievements or not.

I would hasten NOT to compare them. Maria is much younger and has had much less time to amount achievements. Though, I'm not sure if MANY expect Maria to EVER be a match away from HER 11th slam? Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm a Maria fan, afterall, but reality is, she isn't (yet) in the same league as Serena, and comparisons with Serena should really be reserved only for Venus among active players. Other such comparisons only serve to reveal how FAR ahead Serena is in achievements.

Actually I agree 100 % with this. I didn't mean Serena and Maria are in the same league in absolute terms but, in the period of time that they have co-existed on the Tour, that is 2004-2009, they are, in the respect of pure stats. Maria shows to be competitive with the great Serena; maybe that does not make her great yet but a statement like “She is not a bad player. She has won her fair share of tournaments. But she is not among the top players of the game.” from a poster who talks about “objectivity” is surprising for the least. :weirdo:

Objectively, based on what we’ve seen of Sharapova so far, assuming that she can win 5 to 7 more slams doesn’t seem ridiculous to me, providing she fully recovers. 3 slams is not "All-hype".

goldenlox
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:44 AM
They overrate Sharapova on grass because they overrate Serena on grass.
Serena hasn't won Wimbledon since 2003. The only seed she beat last year was Radwanska and Dementieva had a mp this year.

Venus is the great player here, Amelie and Maria the next most recent champions

frenchie
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:45 AM
That raises another question IMO

Why do people think she's so great at all?

Maria Croft
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:48 AM
That raises another question IMO

Why do people think she's so great at all?

Oh, I know it doesn't mean anything to you, but former #1 with 3 Slams, the only player besides Venus to beat Serena in a slam final, one of her other slam victories come over the other legendary player of her generation Henin. Lost to all the eventual champions at the slams and YEC in 2005. Lost to the evntual Wimbledon champion 3 years in a row, almost has 20 titles including a YEC as well.

I think that's maybe some of the reasons?

goldenlox
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:49 AM
Because only Maria and Serena have won more than 2 of the 4 different majors in their careers
And she's still just 22

Thanx4nothin
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:49 AM
Actually I agree 100 % with this. I didn't mean Serena and Maria are in the same league in absolute terms but, in the period of time that they have co-existed on the Tour, that is 2004-2009, they are, in the respect of pure stats. Maria shows to be competitive with the great Serena; maybe that does not make her great yet but a statement like “She is not a bad player. She has won her fair share of tournaments. But she is not among the top players of the game.” from a poster who talks about “objectivity” is surprising for the least. :weirdo:
Objectively, based on what we’ve seen of Sharapova so far, assuming that she can win 5 to 7 more slams doesn’t seem ridiculous to me, providing she fully recovers. 3 slams is not "All-hype".

Don't have a clue what that is going on about.

The rest I'd agree with, though, I don't see Maria winning 5-7 more slams.

Yet another person who took a discussion and turned it into an argument, practically with themselves....:tape:

Nowhere did I mention 'hype' nor did I say she wasn't competitive, but, in retrospect, these days, she really isn't.

And why start in 04, is that the first year Maria played on tour?

Thanx4nothin
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:52 AM
Because only Maria and Serena have won more than 2 of the 4 different majors in their careers
And she's still just 22

How does that answer the question? :confused:

goldenlox
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:55 AM
The question frenchie asked is whe do people thinks she's great at all
I answered the thread question last page, people act like beating Serena on grass is huge and Maria did it on a big stage

Thanx4nothin
Jul 3rd, 2009, 11:59 AM
The question frenchie asked is whe do people thinks she's great at all
I answered the thread question last page, people act like beating Serena on grass is huge and Maria did it on a big stage

Oh right. I'd have said they think she is great due to the whole 3 slam, world no.1 thing lol, why should that even be an argument.

Though it depends on what CONTEXT you use the word 'great'. She is far from one of the GOATS. Perhaps she is one of the GOTEs tho....

VOR
Jul 3rd, 2009, 12:34 PM
Williams haters NEED to believe that there is someone out there who can challenege or dare I say stop them from making "another" final.

When in reality Sharapova is overrated and lunch meat for the girls...

Cause Pova is not at her best, all the hopes and dreams of the "great white hope" are on that spoilt brat Azarenka.

But we all saw what Serena did to her.

Sharapower
Jul 4th, 2009, 04:11 AM
Don't have a clue what that is going on about.

The rest I'd agree with, though, I don't see Maria winning 5-7 more slams.

Yet another person who took a discussion and turned it into an argument, practically with themselves....:tape:

Nowhere did I mention 'hype' nor did I say she wasn't competitive, but, in retrospect, these days, she really isn't.

And why start in 04, is that the first year Maria played on tour?

LOL, not you, T-Rex. I was originally responding to him, then you responded to me, so I was just re-explaining the context of the "same league" statement I made.
And I'm not saying I "predict" 5-7 more Slams, but that it's something in the realm of possibility. She's just 22 after all.