PDA

View Full Version : SI Experts' Picks for Wimbledon


saarsngg
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:53 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/tennis/06/17/wimbledon.womens.picks/index.html

Thoughts?

Chris Hunt and Bruce Jenkins picking Goerges as sleeper :help:
4 out of 8 picking Caro to flameout :oh:

jrollaneres25
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:58 AM
What does "flameout" mean?

jrollaneres25
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:59 AM
It's funny Not one of them picked BOTH Williamses

saarsngg
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:11 AM
What does "flameout" mean?

It means surprisingly early loss.

serenafann
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:16 AM
What does "flameout" mean?

Someone who will fall apart/lose early.

Curtos07
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:19 AM
You should not even be allowed to pick Ana as a "flameout" pick anymore. Way to go out on a limb, Andrew Lawrence! In her last 7 slams, Ana has had four 1st round exits and two 2nd round exits. Ana losing early in slams is not surprising or unexpected anymore. It's sadly become the norm. :(

Jean-Henri
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:19 AM
It means surprisingly early loss.

Andrew Lawrence's flameout pick is Ivanovic. Is that technically possible by this definition ? Loss before 1'st round ?

LShang
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:25 AM
Well if Caro loses early, 50% people already know it, so it will not be surprising.
It means surprisingly early loss.

MaBaker
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:28 AM
It's amazing how no.1 was picked only for a flameout.

joy division
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:34 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/tennis/06/17/wimbledon.womens.picks/index.html

Thoughts?

Chris Hunt and Bruce Jenkins picking Goerges as sleeper :help:
4 out of 8 picking Caro to flameout :oh:

I know that she goes to bed early with the chickens and loves to get up latest possible. So they call her a sleeper with reason.:wavey:

it-girl
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:36 AM
You should not even be allowed to pick Ana as a "flameout" pick anymore. Way to go out on a limb, Andrew Lawrence! In her last 7 slams, Ana has had four 1st round exits and two 2nd round exits. Ana losing early in slams is not surprising or unexpected anymore. It's sadly become the norm. :(This.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:36 AM
Andrew Lawrence's flameout pick is Ivanovic. Is that technically possible by this definition ? Loss before 1'st round ?

:tape: :facepalm: :lol:

Pops Maellard
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:41 AM
Poor Karolina :lol:. Even the experts have no faith in her.

Someone picking Kaia as a sleeper. :haha:

Reptilia
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:41 AM
Where are the picks that they usually put out with like Shriver, Fernandez etc?!

Chrissie-fan
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:42 AM
I like the fact that so many tennis 'fans' and experts alike are predicting an early exit for Caroline. If she makes it to the second round it will look like a major achievement.

Mistress of Evil
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:21 AM
Каролина Велика :bowdown: will bitchslap all these so-called experts by winning it all :rocker2:

Langers
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:26 AM
Ana as a 'flameout'. :haha:

silverwhite
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:26 AM
I like the fact that so many tennis 'fans' and experts alike are predicting an early exit for Caroline. If she makes it to the second round it will look like a major achievement.

She's the #1 seed. A loss before the QF would qualify as early

silverwhite
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:27 AM
Anyway, isn't this the panel on which many picked Goerges as the RG winner? :spit:

Patrick345
Jun 18th, 2011, 10:02 AM
Poor Karolina :lol:. Even the experts have no faith in her.

Someone picking Kaia as a sleeper. :haha:

That is smart. When I saw her quarter I thought the same thing.

Patrick345
Jun 18th, 2011, 10:05 AM
Anyway, isn't this the panel on which many picked Goerges as the RG winner? :spit:

Don´t know what was wrong with that either? She lost 4-6 in the 3rd set to an eventual semi-finalist. It´s not like she lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost Na Li. :oh:

TheBoiledEgg
Jun 18th, 2011, 11:30 AM
Goerges on grass LOL

Miracle Worker
Jun 18th, 2011, 11:50 AM
They don't believe in Caroline? How? She is so amazing.

silverwhite
Jun 18th, 2011, 11:56 AM
Don´t know what was wrong with that either? She lost 4-6 in the 3rd set to an eventual semi-finalist. It´s not like she lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost Na Li. :oh:

I quite like Goerges so you don't have to be so defensive :help: What was wrong with a bunch of them (almost, if not half of the panel) picking Goerges as the RG winner? Is that a serious question? :oh:

misty1
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:01 PM
the womens picks are funny..but the mens picks for some are hilarious

i mean raonic and tipsarevic as sleepers?

Pops Maellard
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:02 PM
the womens picks are funny..but the mens picks for some are hilarious

i mean raonic and tipsarevic as sleepers?
Well Raonic game should work on grass.

rechi
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:03 PM
My picks would be:

Winner: Venus Williams Sleeper: Sabine Lisicki Flameout: Caroline Wozniacki

Break My Rapture
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:15 PM
It's amazing how no.1 was picked only for a flameout.
:happy:

FaceyFacem
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:39 PM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=12597&zoneid=9

more picks - from tennis.com

Marlene
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:43 PM
It's amazing how no.1 was picked only for a flameout.

They do this 4 times a year and Wozniacki is a regular flameout subject... at this point it seems like stubbornness; eventually they'll be right. I actually think they're all really bummed they (for once) went with someone else as the French Open flameout. Now it's back to betting safe. As for their other predictions, they seem to have an attention span of two weeks plus a list of previous slam winners, preferably American or blonde, to make their picks from. Basically, Sports Illustrated may be all that glamorous and glittery - but based on proper journalism it ain't.

Patrick345
Jun 18th, 2011, 03:33 PM
I quite like Goerges so you don't have to be so defensive :help: What was wrong with a bunch of them (almost, if not half of the panel) picking Goerges as the RG winner? Is that a serious question? :oh:

I still don´t get it. :confused:

Goerges´ game is perfect for clay, she was high on confidence, well rested and had the best results out of all players on clay in 2011 leading up to Paris. I don´t know what is so outrageous about the pick? I´m sure you picked Na Li to win, when you saw her draw with Cibulkova, Kvitova, Azarenka, Sharapova and the top half finalist and with her 5-6 straight first round exits between the AO-FO. :lol:

swim4life227
Jun 18th, 2011, 03:40 PM
I think Lisciki has to be everyone's sleeper since a sleeper would have to imply a non-seed IMO.

Ryusuke Tenma
Jun 18th, 2011, 03:59 PM
Wozniacki was only picked for flameout? These so called "experts" have no clue what they are talking about. Idiotic picks. Williams sisters, Li and Sharapova as the winnerrs and Goerges, Pavlyuchenkova and Kanepi as sleepers? Experts my arse.

faboozadoo15
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:05 PM
What the hell are these picks? How can a seeded 5 time champion be a sleeper?

swim4life227
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:06 PM
Well they did pick former slam champions so it's not that big of a stretch :lol:

friendsita
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:15 PM
4 Serena
2 Na
1 Venus
1 Maria

Interesting...

Gdsimmons
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Interesting that a woman that has been out for damn near a year is the favorite for 4/8 of the people. And conversely really interesting that our #1 is picked by that same ratio as losing early.

Sylvester
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:44 PM
Peter Bodo picked Roddick to win Wimbledon. I've seen it all now! :haha:

Renalicious
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:50 PM
Goerges will not be a sleeper she's shit on grass. :sobbing:

And so many predicting Serena to win wth. :weirdo: Don't let this be the kiss of death, please.

Renalicious
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:53 PM
How did no one pick roger for the men's title what the eff? :lol:

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:54 PM
Don´t know what was wrong with that either? She lost 4-6 in the 3rd set to an eventual semi-finalist. It´s not like she lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost to somebody, who then lost Na Li. :oh:

Goerges to win the french though, based on what? Her beating Wozniakci on her weakest surface a few times???

That was unbelievably ridiculous for them. She had never reached a quarterfinal in a slam before, and to think she was going to win the title was laughable and quiet sad.

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 05:43 PM
They do this 4 times a year and Wozniacki is a regular flameout subject... at this point it seems like stubbornness; eventually they'll be right. I actually think they're all really bummed they (for once) went with someone else as the French Open flameout. Now it's back to betting safe. As for their other predictions, they seem to have an attention span of two weeks plus a list of previous slam winners, preferably American or blonde, to make their picks from. Basically, Sports Illustrated may be all that glamorous and glittery - but based on proper journalism it ain't.

As an American journalist, it really is embarrassing to see this.

It's like they forgot or totally ignored Wozniacki winning big matches all year.

Oh well. more :lol::lol: in their face when she makes at least the semifinals.

lefty24
Jun 18th, 2011, 05:45 PM
Wozniacki was only picked for flameout? These so called "experts" have no clue what they are talking about. Idiotic picks. Williams sisters, Li and Sharapova as the winnerrs and Goerges, Pavlyuchenkova and Kanepi as sleepers? Experts my arse.

The funny things is that if someone didn't know you were an obsessive Wozniacki fan they would probably think your post was sarcastic.

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 05:46 PM
I still don´t get it. :confused:

Goerges´ game is perfect for clay, she was high on confidence, well rested and had the best results out of all players on clay in 2011 leading up to Paris. I don´t know what is so outrageous about the pick? I´m sure you picked Na Li to win, when you saw her draw with Cibulkova, Kvitova, Azarenka, Sharapova and the top half finalist and with her 5-6 straight first round exits between the AO-FO. :lol:

Ehhh, huge asterisk with those "best results on clay for 2011."

She was fortunate that Azarenka got hurt in Stuttgart, was beaten by Azarenka in Madrid, and was a non factor in Rome.

Grafbestever
Jun 18th, 2011, 05:47 PM
I am surprised everyone didnt pick Wozniacki as the early flameout. She is shit on grass and is sure to do nothing.

Break My Rapture
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:23 PM
Ehhh, huge asterisk with those "best results on clay for 2011."

She was fortunate that Azarenka got hurt in Stuttgart, was beaten by Azarenka in Madrid, and was a non factor in Rome.
Goerges didn't play Rome, numbnuts.

Spring Pools
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:27 PM
What does "flameout" mean?

Flameout means someone who should go deep but loses early.

jbeacinu
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:42 PM
These 'predictions' lose all credibility when we see Roddick as a predicted champion.

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:47 PM
Goerges didn't play Rome, numbnuts.

That's what I'm saying slow guy :lol::lol:

Didn't play=Also a "nonfactor."

Geesh, you fail again :lol: Keep on embarrassing yourself.

Break My Rapture
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:52 PM
That's what I'm saying slow guy :lol::lol:

Didn't play=Also a "nonfactor."

Geesh, you fail again :lol: Keep on embarrassing yourself.
If you are talking about her results in the clay season, then why did you include a tournament she didn't even participate in. That's not a result.

I'd relate 'non-factor' more with losing early instead of not taking part at all.

Raiden
Jun 18th, 2011, 06:52 PM
sluggahjells, don't try to cop out by inventing new meaning

nonfactor = didn't make an impact (automatically implies that the person was present)

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:01 PM
sluggahjells, don't try to cop out by inventing new meaning

nonfactor = didn't make an impact (automatically implies that the person was present)

Never thought I'd say this, but THIS :lol:

Burisleif
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:15 PM
nonfactor = didn't make an impact (automatically implies that the person was present)

It means "was not a factor". only thing implied is the existence of the subject of the reference.

China was a nonfactor in the Cod war. i.e. China (an existing country at the time) was not a factor (was not involved) in the Cod war.

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:23 PM
If you are talking about her results in the clay season, then why did you include a tournament she didn't even participate in. That's not a result.

I'd relate 'non-factor' more with losing early instead of not taking part at all.

I DID........Rome she was a non-factor because she didn't play, and couldn't build on any momentum from the rest of the season.

Lol, The reading comprehension here on TF sometimes is quite low and sad :help:

:lol:

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:24 PM
Never thought I'd say this, but THIS :lol:

SIGH, :lol:

You believing my legion of haters. Classic.

Marlene
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:33 PM
I still don´t get it. :confused:

Goerges´ game is perfect for clay, she was high on confidence, well rested and had the best results out of all players on clay in 2011 leading up to Paris. I don´t know what is so outrageous about the pick?


Görges would not have been an outrageously stupid pick for a quarterfinalist - but for half of them to pick her as the dark horse is a bit, eh, unimaginative? She did well in Stuttgart and Madrid, agreed, but you can hardly claim her results were unsurpassed. Had Görges and Wozniacki been in opposite halves in Madrid, with Wozniacki losing to someone else in the 3rd round, Görges wouldn't have gotten nearly as much attention. But when Görges beat the #1 twice in two weeks she suddenly became the new best player ever to set foot on this planet. Right?! That's the problem; these so-called tennis reporters making their picks from a most-popular-this-week list.

Novichok
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:36 PM
sluggahjells, don't try to cop out by inventing new meaning

nonfactor = didn't make an impact (automatically implies that the person was present)

Non-factor means she wasn't a factor. If she didn't play the tournament then she definitely wasn't a factor.

Why does it imply presence in said tournament?

postalblowfish
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:42 PM
Non-factor means she wasn't a factor. If she didn't play the tournament then she definitely wasn't a factor.

Why does it imply presence in said tournament?

I guess the implication is perhaps that it was included in a list that, other than that, contained references to tournaments she'd played in.

In any case, there really isn't any need to have an argument over it.

Raiden
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:43 PM
It means "was not a factor". only thing implied is the existence of the subject of the reference.

China was a nonfactor in the Cod war. i.e. China (an existing country at the time) was not a factor (was not involved) in the Cod war.The word "factor" has nothing to do with "existence" in the english language.

Hilarious that I (a non-native speaker) am actually teaching basic elementary English to Yankees :lol:

Novichok
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:48 PM
The word "factor" has nothing to do with "existence" in the english language.

Hilarious that I (a non-native speaker) am actually teaching basic elementary English to Yankees :lol:

I'm pretty sure that you're not understanding what he's saying. :lol:

Yes, Americans are so stupid that we need non-native English speakers to teach us. :angel:

Bismarck.
Jun 18th, 2011, 07:53 PM
Non-factor means she wasn't a factor. If she didn't play the tournament then she definitely wasn't a factor.

Why does it imply presence in said tournament?

It implies her presence in the manner which sluggahjells wrote the comment. (S)He had listed previous tournaments in which Goerges had played and his/her judgements over her performances, then including Rome in that list despite her not having played there. Even though (s)he may have known that Goerges wasn't playing there, the structure of that sentence and the idiomatic use of 'non-factor' which in English signifies nowadays something or someone that is present but has very little effect over a situation, suggests that he did not know Goerges was playing in Rome.

That's the way I read it, anyways.

s teddy
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:02 PM
Saying that a she was a non-factor in a tournament IMPLIES that she took part. Literally, of course, it doesn't have to mean that, but before sluggahjells did it, I had yet to see someone call a non-factor a person who didn't play in a tournament. I honestly think he forgot, and now he's trying to cover it up by using a technicality of the English language.

Novichok
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:04 PM
It implies her presence in the manner which sluggahjells wrote the comment. (S)He had listed previous tournaments in which Goerges had played and his/her judgements over her performances, then including Rome in that list despite her not having played there. Even though (s)he may have known that Goerges wasn't playing there, the structure of that sentence and the idiomatic use of 'non-factor' which in English signifies nowadays something or someone that is present but has very little effect over a situation, suggests that he did not know Goerges was playing in Rome.

That's the way I read it, anyways.

I agree with all of this but not with jerriy's definition.

The prefix non- is usually used to represent the reverse of something. If someone is a non-factor then it means that the person wasn't a factor. A factor is something that contributes to an outcome. If something is a non-factor then it doesn't contribute to an outcome. Georges didn't play that tournament so she didn't contribute to the outcome. Jerriy's claim that it "automatically implies that the person is present" is in my opinion not correct.

Bismarck.
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:07 PM
Oh, anyway, who cares? :lol: It's really not important.

s teddy
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:07 PM
I agree with all of this but not with jerriy's definition.

The prefix non- is usually used to represent the reverse of something. If someone is a non-factor then it means that the person wasn't a factor. A factor is something that contributes to an outcome. If something is a non-factor then it doesn't contribute to an outcome. Georges didn't play that tournament so she didn't contribute to the outcome. Jerriy's claim that it "automatically implies that the person is present" is in my opinion not correct.

"Implies" usually refers to something that's not part of the definition.

Burisleif
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:07 PM
The word "factor" has nothing to do with "existence" in the english language.

Hilarious that I (a non-native speaker) am actually teaching basic elementary English to Yankees :lol:

If a thing does not exist, it can not be a factor. if it does exist it can be...

Novichok
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:07 PM
Saying that a she was a non-factor in a tournament IMPLIES that she took part. Literally, of course, it doesn't have to mean that, but before sluggahjells did it, I had yet to see someone call a non-factor a person who didn't play in a tournament. I honestly think he forgot, and now he's trying to cover it up by using a technicality of the English language.

I am a factor in all of Serena's matches.:hearts: Would most people accept that? I don't think so. If I'm not a factor then I'm a non-factor.

I'm a non-factor even though I have not been present at all of Serena's matches.

s teddy
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:10 PM
I am a factor in all of Serena's matches.:hearts: Would most people accept that? I don't think so. If I'm not a factor then I'm a non-factor.

I'm a non-factor even though I have not been present at all of Serena's matches.

My head hurts. :hysteric: :lol:

Anyway, my point is what the term implies, not what it means literally.

And I meant someone who was a tennis player, not anyone who didn't affect a tournament. :lol: But I think you knew that.

(Take note, sluggahjells: you CAN respond to someone who pretends to misunderstand you without resorting to insults.)

Specter
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:11 PM
Lol, The reading comprehension here on TF sometimes is quite low and sad :help:

No, what's low is you trying to weasel your way out of this instead of admitting that you were wrong, and what's sad is how little you know of this sport weighed against the number of comments you make on the subject.

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:11 PM
I guess the implication is perhaps that it was included in a list that, other than that, contained references to tournaments she'd played in.

In any case, there really isn't any need to have an argument over it.

Exactly.......You know it's gotten worse here where the term "non-factor" and usage by me has to be so scrutinized. :lol:

Sammo
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:13 PM
Sports Illustrated Experts? Those guys only know about bikini photoshoots, bull hell they know a lot about it :drool:

http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Daniela-Hantuchova.jpg

Novichok
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:14 PM
Exactly.......You know it's gotten worse here where the term "non-factor" and usage by me has to be so scrutinized.

Yes, you've managed to create 2 linguistic schools of thought on TF. :worship:

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:22 PM
Yes, you've managed to create 2 linguistic schools of thought on TF. :worship:

I have even impressed myself I have to say...........Thanks :wavey:

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:24 PM
No, what's low is you trying to weasel your way out of this instead of admitting that you were wrong, and what's sad is how little you know of this sport weighed against the number of comments you make on the subject.

:lol:

Someone is very :fiery: it appears for reasons that truly are irrational.

Exhale, inhale.........Exhale, inhale.

Specter
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:42 PM
:lol:

Someone is very :fiery: it appears for reasons that truly are irrational.

Exhale, inhale.........Exhale, inhale.

Seeing things that aren't there, are we?


I shouldn't be surprised though, since you also see the potential for a Wozniacki slam win in the near future. :oh:

sluggahjells
Jun 18th, 2011, 08:52 PM
Seeing things that aren't there, are we?


I shouldn't be surprised though, since you also see the potential for a Wozniacki slam win in the near future. :oh:

Yup I do, way more than seeing a current German girl getting to the Finals of a Grand Slam :rolls:

Specter
Jun 18th, 2011, 09:09 PM
Yup I do, way more than seeing a current German girl getting to the Finals of a Grand Slam :rolls:

And why wouldn't you? Based on rankings and overall performances that would be a pretty "out there" pick at this time. :drink:

Linguae^
Jun 18th, 2011, 09:21 PM
Ana as a flameout.... Does this guy even follow tennis? :tape:

it-girl
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:00 AM
These 'predictions' lose all credibility when we see Roddick as a predicted champion.The truth has been spoken.

justineheninfan
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:10 AM
LOL at someone predicting Roddick to win Wimbledon this particular year. Proof most of them are idiots anyway.

CloudAtlas
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:23 AM
Does anyone take these seriously? I love reading these only to follow how wrong they are.

Goerges a sleeper on grass = :tape:

In The Zone
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:31 AM
Wozniacki has a very good draw, given that her game will be eaten up by the first player with pace (Sharapova). Gajdosova might be too error prone to take out Wozniacki. Mirza might be able to do it, too.

I foresee Caroline making it to the QF. Sharapova will have sweet revenge on Caroline for her USO loss.

Sharapova/Serena semifinal with Hantuchova or Azarenka vs. Venus in the bottom.

In The Zone
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:35 AM
I am sorry but Venus Williams cannot be a sleeper. 2005 and 2007 was prove enough that when we count Venus out at Wimbledon, she'll make you regret it.

And LOL @ Ivanovic being a flameout.

ace33
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:46 AM
LOL at someone predicting Roddick to win Wimbledon this particular year. Proof most of them are idiots anyway.
They are saying what they think American tennis fans want to hear.

eck
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:48 AM
Ana as a flameout.... Does this guy even follow tennis? :tape:

:facepalm:

lefty24
Jun 19th, 2011, 02:11 AM
I am sorry but Venus Williams cannot be a sleeper. 2005 and 2007 was prove enough that when we count Venus out at Wimbledon, she'll make you regret it.

And LOL @ Ivanovic being a flameout.

I thought sleeper was a good thing. Like a dark horse.

In The Zone
Jun 19th, 2011, 02:49 AM
I thought sleeper was a good thing. Like a dark horse.

Yes, that's the definition. Why would Venus Williams EVER be a dark horse at Wimbledon?

justineheninfan
Jun 19th, 2011, 03:30 AM
Unless Kvitova plays a shit match somewhere she should be in the semis or even the final. There is nobody in her quarter that should trouble her on grass. Azarenka should be quite easily overpowered by Kvitova on such a fast court if they meet.

Frederik
Jun 19th, 2011, 03:41 AM
Goerges´ [...] had the best results out of all players on clay in 2011 leading up to Paris.

:confused:

What about Li, Kvitova, Azarenka and Sharapova...? They had better results.

Edit:

:lol: One of the "experts" picked Roddick. :lol:

In The Zone
Jun 19th, 2011, 05:40 AM
Unless Kvitova plays a shit match somewhere she should be in the semis or even the final. There is nobody in her quarter that should trouble her on grass. Azarenka should be quite easily overpowered by Kvitova on such a fast court if they meet.

Venus? :confused:

Kvitova is in the 4th QF. Azarenka is in the 3rd QF.

sluggahjells
Jun 19th, 2011, 07:48 AM
Wozniacki has a very good draw, given that her game will be eaten up by the first player with pace (Sharapova). Gajdosova might be too error prone to take out Wozniacki. Mirza might be able to do it, too.

I foresee Caroline making it to the QF. Sharapova will have sweet revenge on Caroline for her USO loss.

Sharapova/Serena semifinal with Hantuchova or Azarenka vs. Venus in the bottom.

If they meet in the quarters, Wozniacki will win this match.

Considering how bad Wozniakci played in Rome, and still had her chances in that match, on a fast surface, she will close more points on Maria more than she could have done there. in addition, she's a better athlete that gives major problems to Sharapova now on fast surfaces, as well as being now mentally tougher than her as well.

Mr.Sharapova
Jun 19th, 2011, 08:16 AM
If they meet in the quarters, Wozniacki will win this match.

Considering how bad Wozniakci played in Rome, and still had her chances in that match, on a fast surface, she will close more points on Maria more than she could have done there. in addition, she's a better athlete that gives major problems to Sharapova now on fast surfaces, as well as being now mentally tougher than her as well.

You still don't admit that Caroline got outplayed in Rome :tape:.

Caroline ain't reaching the QF of Wimbledon:yeah:.

Pops Maellard
Jun 19th, 2011, 08:18 AM
You still don't admit that Caroline got outplayed in Rome :tape:.

Caroline ain't reaching the QF of Wimbledon:yeah:.
That poster will likely say that Maria only won slams because Caro hadn't yet arrived on tour to stop her. :p

terjw
Jun 19th, 2011, 08:40 AM
Does anyone take these seriously? I love reading these only to follow how wrong they are.

Goerges a sleeper on grass = :tape:

Mentality of typical TF poster is to think Worthless and the rest of the experts are jokes until the Caro Flameout predictions when they suddenly in the same breath get all excited and worship the experts for their wisdom.

Mr.Sharapova
Jun 19th, 2011, 08:45 AM
That poster will likely say that Maria only won slams because Caro hadn't yet arrived on tour to stop her. :p

:lol:. IKR :help:

zxcVbnm88
Jun 19th, 2011, 09:30 AM
Andrew Lawrence's flameout pick is Ivanovic. Is that technically possible by this definition ? Loss before 1'st round ?

:haha::haha::haha:

bandabou
Jun 19th, 2011, 01:25 PM
:awww:Caro-fans mad?! Don't worry, the u.s. open is only two more months away..:bounce:

Chip.
Jun 19th, 2011, 02:34 PM
Wozniacki was only picked for flameout? These so called "experts" have no clue what they are talking about. Idiotic picks. Williams sisters, Li and Sharapova as the winnerrs and Goerges, Pavlyuchenkova and Kanepi as sleepers? Experts my arse.

Wozniacki's previous Wimby record hasn't been as good as the others. However, if she's gonna make her first QF here it would have to be this year considering her draw. I haven't a clue how Serena will do given her current situation, but you can't argue with 4 Wimbledon titles. Same for Venus, and if she plays like she did against Ana last week :drool: she could go far. Li and Masha did really well at the FO so they shouldn't be counted out either.

However, Goerges as a sleeper, :tape:

sluggahjells
Jun 19th, 2011, 03:31 PM
You still don't admit that Caroline got outplayed in Rome :tape:.

Caroline ain't reaching the QF of Wimbledon:yeah:.

Um, I have admitted it. She wasn't as focused as Maria to capitalize on every breaks, and Maria was desperate and determined to win against Wozniacki on Caroline's worst surface.

Simple as that.

sluggahjells
Jun 19th, 2011, 03:32 PM
That poster will likely say that Maria only won slams because Caro hadn't yet arrived on tour to stop her. :p

Oh you Shriester fans. make me LOL so very much at your delusional but fun trash talk. :lol:

NadalSharapova
Jun 19th, 2011, 03:35 PM
What exactly has wozniacki ever done on grass to show that she would beat the tournament favourite Sharapova at wimbledon???

Sharapova should win it easily

Mr.Sharapova
Jun 19th, 2011, 04:30 PM
Um, I have admitted it. She wasn't as focused as Maria to capitalize on every breaks, and Maria was desperate and determined to win against Wozniacki on Caroline's worst surface.

Simple as that.

Yes, and In Maria's best one, IKR :yeah:.

MB.
Jun 19th, 2011, 05:20 PM
They don't believe in Caroline? How? She is so amazing.

:lol:

Tech1
Jun 20th, 2011, 12:05 AM
Sunday, June 19, 2011

Picks for Wimbledon championship



Peter Bodo--Maria Sharapova
Richard Pagliario--Serena Williams
Jon Wertheim--Serena Williams
Patrick McEnroe--Li Na
Bruce Jenkins--Serena Williams
Kamakshi Tandon--Maria Sharapova
Pam Shriver--Maria Sharapova
Darren Cahill--Maria Sharapova
Matt Cronin--Maria Sharapova or Petra Kvitova (doesn't make final pick)
Richard Pagliario--Serena Williams
Matt Wilansky--Caroline Wozniacki
Cliff Drysdale--Maria Sharapova
Brad Gilbert--Petra Kvitova
Ravi Ubha--Petra Kvitova
Greg Garber--Maria Sharapova
Ed McGrogan--Serena Williams
Anne Keothavong--Li Na
S.L. Price--Maria Sharapova
Steve Tignor--Maria Sharapova
Mary Joe Fernandez--Maria Sharapova
Todd Spiker--Venus Williams

CloudAtlas
Jun 20th, 2011, 01:15 AM
Anne Keothavong picked Li Na , yet Keothavong herself is playing in the main draw :facepalm:

Spring Pools
Jun 20th, 2011, 01:15 AM
Anne Keothavong picked Li Na , yet Keothavong herself is playing in the main draw :facepalm:

Well, it's a safer bet than saying that she herself will win...

Drake1980
Jun 20th, 2011, 01:21 AM
Poor Karolina :lol:. Even the experts have no faith in her.

Someone picking Kaia as a sleeper. :haha:

Who? Pliskova? Sprem?

Chrissie-fan
Jun 20th, 2011, 01:26 AM
Mentality of typical TF poster is to think Worthless and the rest of the experts are jokes until the Caro Flameout predictions when they suddenly in the same breath get all excited and worship the experts for their wisdom.
:worship:

Spring Pools
Jun 20th, 2011, 01:27 AM
Who? Pliskova? Sprem?

Sunshine

sluggahjells
Jun 20th, 2011, 03:16 AM
Yes, and In Maria's best one, IKR :yeah:.

It suits her game the best now, especially with less pure talented clay courters......It hurts Wozniacki way less, she can't generate pace.

justineheninfan
Jun 20th, 2011, 04:20 AM
Anne Keothavong picked Li Na , yet Keothavong herself is playing in the main draw :facepalm:

Well she would have to be pretty delusional to pick herself. :lol: And I doubt she believes she would have any chance if she plays someone like Li Na either (not sure how far she would have to get to play her, but if it is the 2nd week almost no chance she will anyway).

Marlene
Jun 25th, 2011, 01:58 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/v8hu0k.png