PDA

View Full Version : Why does the AO suit Serena's game more than the USO?


rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 03:38 AM
Also, vice versa with Kim and Venus, whose games obviously are better suited to the USO than the AO?

Moveyourfeet
Jul 14th, 2011, 03:49 AM
Whatever the case is, AO is a lot more respectable now than it was in Court's time.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:08 AM
Whatever the case is, AO is a lot more respectable now than it was in Court's time.

:sad: Poor baby. Margaret has 194 career titles, 24 slams and 11 AOs. Serena has 37 career titles, 13 slams and 5 AOs. Please try to deal with it.

Mikey.
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:15 AM
Serena has always done well on mid to slower paced hard courts, like the AO and Miami for example.

Potato
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:19 AM
okay i sometimes question if you even watch tennis

Back in 02-03 the US hard-courts were Serena's best surface as they were very very fast - very suitable for Serena's all out attack game. Her footwork and footspeed was spectacular during this point in time and she could return shots with much more interest, which is why the US courts suit Kim's and Venus's game as well.

Now her game is more conservative, she uses more topspin and point construction than she did back then when she just overwhelmed her opponents with simply brutal flat ball striking - the slower courts in Australia suit her better as they are the perfect medium fast pace which allow her to set up the point. She can also afford to have sloppier movement than usual. The surface does not neutralize her serve like a clay court would.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:21 AM
better question: how many of your posts are NOT about a ws :lol:

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:25 AM
If you look at the distrubition of Serena's majors, there isn't much of a difference..only weak surface is clay.

She's won the other 3, at least 3 times each and has reached the finals at least 4 times. Pretty even, no?! :shrug:
Recently the Oz open seems to suit her game a tad better than the u.s. open, but to say that she can't play on american hardcourts is foolish.

In The Zone
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:55 AM
Serena has always done well on mid to slower paced hard courts, like the AO and Miami for example.

Exactly. Unlike Venus, Serena prefers a ball to sit up, above waist level whereas Venus needs a ball nice and low.

Rebound ace was right up Serena's alley. The US Open is actually probably too fast given Serena's age and movement. She of course can win on any surface on any day. Had it not been for Kuznetsova and Stosur in 09 and 10, Serena would have won the French, no doubt. The ball sits up a bit too much on the clay for Serena and it exposes her movement.

I genuinely believe Serena is going to win the US Open in 2011. Give the girl an obstacle and she'll take it down.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:59 AM
okay i sometimes question if you even watch tennis

Back in 02-03 the US hard-courts were Serena's best surface as they were very very fast - very suitable for Serena's all out attack game. Her footwork and footspeed was spectacular during this point in time and she could return shots with much more interest, which is why the US courts suit Kim's and Venus's game as well.

Now her game is more conservative, she uses more topspin and point construction than she did back then when she just overwhelmed her opponents with simply brutal flat ball striking - the slower courts in Australia suit her better as they are the perfect medium fast pace which allow her to set up the point. She can also afford to have sloppier movement than usual. The surface does not neutralize her serve like a clay court would.

I do watch tennis, but thanks, good points.

Stamp Paid
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:00 AM
Serena has always done well on mid to slower paced hard courts, like the AO and Miami for example.This. Fast hardcourts dont suit her game as well as medium paced/slow hardcourts do.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:01 AM
If you look at the distrubition of Serena's majors, there isn't much of a difference..only weak surface is clay.

She's won the other 3, at least 3 times each and has reached the finals at least 4 times. Pretty even, no?! :shrug:
Recently the Oz open seems to suit her game a tad better than the u.s. open, but to say that she can't play on american hardcourts is foolish.

Who said that she can't play on American hard courts? :confused:

It is just that Serena is more beatable at the USO than AO.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:03 AM
Exactly. Unlike Venus, Serena prefers a ball to sit up, above waist level whereas Venus needs a ball nice and low.

Rebound ace was right up Serena's alley. The US Open is actually probably too fast given Serena's age and movement. She of course can win on any surface on any day. Had it not been for Kuznetsova and Stosur in 09 and 10, Serena would have won the French, no doubt. The ball sits up a bit too much on the clay for Serena and it exposes her movement.

I genuinely believe Serena is going to win the US Open in 2011. Give the girl an obstacle and she'll take it down.

But the switch from Rebound Ace to Plexicushion seems to have made no difference. She's won 2/3 of the AOs that she's played on Plexicushion.

I don't think that she'll win the USO this year. I can't see Kim being beaten there.

In The Zone
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:05 AM
Other than the height in bounce, there is no little to no difference from rebound ace to plexicushion. The speed is right up Serena's alley.

You can think what you want. ;)

Rome
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:09 AM
it's the balls people

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:10 AM
Other than the height in bounce, there is no little to no difference from rebound ace to plexicushion. The speed is right up Serena's alley.

You can think what you want. ;)

I still wonder why they bothered changing it. I can see no difference.

Yes, as can you. We will see in a couple of months. ;)

shoryuken
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:12 AM
it's the balls people

:lol: and lineswomen :oh:

Yoncé
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:14 AM
:sad: Poor baby. Margaret has 194 career titles, 24 slams and 11 AOs. Serena has 37 career titles, 13 slams and 5 AOs. Please try to deal with it.

Margaret also played on grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass oh and RG was Clay.

Also she didn't go pro so was not 'banned' like players such as Laver were for 5 years. There is a reason people only care about the open era.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:20 AM
Margaret also played on grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass, grass oh and RG was Clay.

Also she didn't go pro so was not 'banned' like players such as Laver were for 5 years. There is a reason people only care about the open era.

And did she have the chance to play on hard courts?

VeeJJ
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:25 AM
I thinks it's because right after off season where she is relaxed and refreshed and it's just a long enough break for her to miss tennis and AO is close enough to where she is eager to play again, then after she wins it she gets tired of it and waits till Miami to play again. Then she plays the clay season because she really wants another FO but fails everytime, then wins Wimbledon and is tired of tennis, takes a break and plays USO. Typical process.

In The Zone
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:29 AM
And did she have the chance to play on hard courts?

And did Venus have a chance to play when 3 of the slams were on grass? Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

If you want to draw comparisons, you can't cop out with a post like this.

duhcity
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:30 AM
Exactly. Unlike Venus, Serena prefers a ball to sit up, above waist level whereas Venus needs a ball nice and low.

Rebound ace was right up Serena's alley. The US Open is actually probably too fast given Serena's age and movement. She of course can win on any surface on any day. Had it not been for Kuznetsova and Stosur in 09 and 10, Serena would have won the French, no doubt. The ball sits up a bit too much on the clay for Serena and it exposes her movement.

I genuinely believe Serena is going to win the US Open in 2011. Give the girl an obstacle and she'll take it down.

Have to disagree about the clay there. It exposes her lazy footwork, definitely. But as someone upthread said, she doesn't offensively strike the ball as much anymore. Lots more spin in her game. And on clay, a good Sveta or Sam can play that game better than her.

As for why she does well at the AO, very few players can come out of a long period off and play their best tennis right away. Serena has been doing that for a few years now. She simply knows how to tap into her game better than others.

KBlade
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:36 AM
Serena likes the fast hard-court, and was a great player on it back in the day, unfortunately, a lot of players are also especially decent on the American hard-courts.

My belief is the reason is although the fast hard-court favours her game-style of big serves and ground-game, the speed of the court also requires great movement in order to play decent defence, as on the surface as reaction time is minimised and the ball moves through the court a lot quicker, meaning constant barrages of aggression are difficult to defend from effectively if your movement is not up to scratch. As Serena has lost foot-speed in the past couple of years, it's negatively affected her defensive ability.

That said though, I still think she can definitely win the US Open, however, this tournament isn't like the Australian Open for her. She can't expect to go into the US Open in dubious physical form and win it. Every time she's taken the title, she has been in amazing physical shape, and usually when she's been in poor form, she's been stopped at the Quarter-finals on a regular basis. Endurance and peak movement is a must, and always has been for Serena to win this tournament.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 06:27 AM
Who said that she can't play on American hard courts? :confused:

It is just that Serena is more beatable at the USO than AO.

Ok Einstein...and then answer this one: How come Court did so well at the Oz open but wasn't as successful at Wimbledon?
You still haven't answer that one. And the disparity is even greater than Serena's Oz/ U.S. open splits.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 06:30 AM
Serena likes the fast hard-court, and was a great player on it back in the day, unfortunately, a lot of players are also especially decent on the American hard-courts.

My belief is the reason is although the fast hard-court favours her game-style of big serves and ground-game, the speed of the court also requires great movement in order to play decent defence, as on the surface as reaction time is minimised and the ball moves through the court a lot quicker, meaning constant barrages of aggression are difficult to defend from effectively if your movement is not up to scratch. As Serena has lost foot-speed in the past couple of years, it's negatively affected her defensive ability.

That said though, I still think she can definitely win the US Open, however, this tournament isn't like the Australian Open for her. She can't expect to go into the US Open in dubious physical form and win it. Every time she's taken the title, she has been in amazing physical shape, and usually when she's been in poor form, she's been stopped at the Quarter-finals on a regular basis. Endurance and peak movement is a must, and always has been for Serena to win this tournament.

This...Serena pre knee-surgery was a total beast on fast surfaces. from ' 99 till ' 02 ( and without knee surgery she would' ve won in ' 03 as well), 3 finals there and 2 titles. Those were her peak years athletic-wise. Then came the surgery and she lost a bit of her speed..so then she needed slower courts to give her time to do her magic. Shows her ability to adapt.

starin
Jul 14th, 2011, 06:42 AM
okay i sometimes question if you even watch tennis

Back in 02-03 the US hard-courts were Serena's best surface as they were very very fast - very suitable for Serena's all out attack game. Her footwork and footspeed was spectacular during this point in time and she could return shots with much more interest, which is why the US courts suit Kim's and Venus's game as well.

Now her game is more conservative, she uses more topspin and point construction than she did back then when she just overwhelmed her opponents with simply brutal flat ball striking - the slower courts in Australia suit her better as they are the perfect medium fast pace which allow her to set up the point. She can also afford to have sloppier movement than usual. The surface does not neutralize her serve like a clay court would.

thread over. This is the answer right here. I will add that Serena has enough power that she can hit through the medium-slow hard courts when she needs to. She can defend better on the slower courts and work the points and when she's ready just smack a winner.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 06:47 AM
And did Venus have a chance to play when 3 of the slams were on grass? Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

If you want to draw comparisons, you can't cop out with a post like this.

I was merely pointing out that Margaret never had the chance to play on hard courts, because they didn't exist back then. :wavey:

I am sure that if she did, she would have excelled just as much as she did on grass and clay. There is no player that has ever excelled on grass and clay, but not on hard. There are those that have excelled on grass and hard, but not clay, and clay and hard, but not grass, but never grass and clay, but not hard.

Anyway, we'll never know, and one can only play who's in front of them, and they surfaces on which they are able to play.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 06:52 AM
Ok Einstein...and then answer this one: How come Court did so well at the Oz open but wasn't as successful at Wimbledon?
You still haven't answer that one. And the disparity is even greater than Serena's Oz/ U.S. open splits.

How is this at all relevant?

Anway, I HAVE answered it. I said that I don't know for sure, maybe because she preferred playing at home, or perhaps conditions in England.

Apoleb
Jul 14th, 2011, 09:31 AM
Serena has always done well on mid to slower paced hard courts, like the AO and Miami for example.

This. Fast hardcourts dont suit her game as well as medium paced/slow hardcourts do.

This.

And the reason I think comes down to her footwork. She struggles with her footwork when she's asked to come up with quick adjustments. The surface at the AO gives her more time to adjust her feet and she has no problem with that. She's got no trouble with junk, cause even if her shots are off, she's got enough shot selection and point construction. To beat Serena, you have to put her under pressure from the start. Justine knew that, and that's why it was imperative for her to get on top of the second serve and send a deep ball in. Rallying mindlessly, even on an off-form Serena isn't good enough, because she's got enough shot selection and point construction to find a way. (like even Pironkova Eastbourne)

It's why I suspect that Kvitova will be a tough matchup for a non Shock&Awe Serena on the fast hard courts, because she'll put her under pressure early on and test the speed of her foot adjustment. And it's also why I think Caroline Pushniacki will be dealt with efficiently cause she gives Serena enough time to adjust, despite her ability to put the ball in time and time again.

KBlade
Jul 14th, 2011, 09:58 AM
This.

And the reason I think comes down to her footwork. She struggles with her footwork when she's asked to come up with quick adjustments. The surface at the AO gives her more time to adjust her feet and she has no problem with that. She's got no trouble with junk, cause even if her shots are off, she's got enough shot selection and point construction. To beat Serena, you have to put her under pressure from the start. Justine knew that, and that's why it was imperative for her to get on top of the second serve and send a deep ball in. Rallying mindlessly, even on an off-form Serena isn't good enough, because she's got enough shot selection and point construction to find a way. (like even Pironkova Eastbourne)

It's why I suspect that Kvitova will be a tough matchup for a non Shock&Awe Serena on the fast hard courts, because she'll put her under pressure early on and test the speed of her foot adjustment. And it's also why I think Caroline Pushniacki will be dealt with efficiently cause she gives Serena enough time to adjust, despite her ability to put the ball in time and time again.

Oh I don't know about this. Kvitova has proven herself on fast surfaces, but her movement still remains a major deficiency. Once Kvitova is placed on the back foot, she either has one or two rally shots left in her before her opponent ends of the point, or she's forced to come up with a high-risk, low percentage rocket that can push her opponent back in the court or off balance.

I think the same can apply for her on fast hard-courts. They may suit her huge hitting, but her reaction time is also minimised, making it extremely difficult for her to defend effectively considering her ability in the movement department at this point in time. I think Serena is probably still much too fast for Kvitova, and Petra is capable of throwing in absolute disasters of matches, although, she has become FAR, FAR better at preventing that these days (pretty obvious from her Wimbledon Victory).

That said, I really enjoy, perhaps even love watching Petra, so I hope she does well this hard-court season.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 09:59 AM
How is this at all relevant?

Anway, I HAVE answered it. I said that I don't know for sure, maybe because she preferred playing at home, or perhaps conditions in England.

well..so then why can't you accept the same for Serena too? The surface works well for her game, the U.S. opens not so much. What's more is it there to it? :shrug:

Helen Lawson
Jul 14th, 2011, 10:11 AM
I think she's had a couple of unlucky matches at the US Open and a few lucky ones in Australia, that's the difference, I don't think it has much to do with the relative speed of the courts.

VishaalMaria
Jul 14th, 2011, 10:37 AM
She does well at the AO because she's learnt over the years to construct the point alot more and use top-spin.

Now, it's not the fact that her game is so good on the surface, it's to do with her mentality too. She's fresh from the off-season and eager to win. So being the strongest player mentally (probably ever), together with her adapted game make it very hard for anyone to beat her there.

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2011, 10:42 AM
I think she's had a couple of unlucky matches at the US Open and a few lucky ones in Australia, that's the difference, I don't think it has much to do with the relative speed of the courts.

Exactly.

Robbed
xtkKdCeQgQM

And robbed
4RJ9IsA59Rk

:help:

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 10:49 AM
I think she's had a couple of unlucky matches at the US Open and a few lucky ones in Australia, that's the difference, I don't think it has much to do with the relative speed of the courts.

:lol: Is a way of looking at it..

Sam L
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:00 AM
She actually has a very complete set of slams on hard courts.

3 on Rebound Ace - 2003,2005,2007 AO
3 on Decoturf - 1999,2002,2008 US
2 on Plexicushion - 2009,2010 AO

That doesn't suggest she has a problem with a certain type of hard court at all.

If she only win two more, she will become the player with the most grand slams on hard courts.

Slutiana
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:02 AM
I agree with Helen Lawson. :lol:

And even at Roland Garros, the problem has never been that the clay is a horrible surface for her game or whatever, but she keeps on putting herself in winning positions in the quarters and then choking/not finishing it off. The problem is mental.

I still think she can win another RG in her career, but she's going to have to get over that mental bump.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:31 AM
well..so then why can't you accept the same for Serena too? The surface works well for her game, the U.S. opens not so much. What's more is it there to it? :shrug:

It was a genuine question, I wasn't attacking Serena. What gave you that impression?

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:33 AM
Exactly.

Robbed
xtkKdCeQgQM

And robbed
4RJ9IsA59Rk

:help:

2004, yes, but not 2009. Anyway, why do people act like she DEFINITELY would have won in 2004 against Jennifer? Jennifer had just won the second set fair and square.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:48 AM
The US Open suits Venus' and Clijsters' game, but they don't have more US Open titles than Serena does. For a surface that does not suit her game, she has won it more than anyone in her generation (= clijsters).

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:48 AM
It was a genuine question, I wasn't attacking Serena. What gave you that impression?

You ain't even a fan yet you keep making these threads all about Serena and Venus. And just ONE thread about your own fav Margaret Court. Just saying.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 11:50 AM
The US Open suits Venus' and Clijsters' game, but they don't have more US Open titles than Serena does. For a surface that does not suit her game, she has won it more than anyone in her generation (= clijsters).

:lol: Ain't it something? I guess Roger 'struggles' at the Oz open too...has only won it 4 times. :lol:

Apoleb
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:03 PM
I think she's had a couple of unlucky matches at the US Open and a few lucky ones in Australia, that's the difference, I don't think it has much to do with the relative speed of the courts.

She was completely outclassed by Clijsters from the baseline in the USO. That would never happen at the AO. Even her victory against JJ (a D version of Kim) wasn't very convincing and she should have lost the 2nd set. OTOH almost all of her renowned kill performances have been at the AO. That can't be just a matter of coincidence.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:10 PM
You ain't even a fan yet you keep making these threads all about Serena and Venus. And just ONE thread about your own fav Margaret Court. Just saying.

Because barely anyone has any knowledge of Margaret's game and accomplishments. If anything, they've only heard her name.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:12 PM
She was completely outclassed by Clijsters from the baseline in the USO. That would never happen at the AO. Even her victory against JJ (a D version of Kim) wasn't very convincing and she should have lost the 2nd set. OTOH almost all of her renowned kill performances have been at the AO. That can't be just a matter of coincidence.

THIS.

I never said that she struggles on it. It just must be noted that she is more beatable there than at the AO. Her record at both is better than Venus's (I would argue, and I think that most would agree, that Kim's USO record is marginally better than Serena's), but Venus is better at the USO than Venus is at the AO. Serena's just in another league, but that's not the point.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:15 PM
The US Open suits Venus' and Clijsters' game, but they don't have more US Open titles than Serena does. For a surface that does not suit her game, she has won it more than anyone in her generation (= clijsters).

end of :lol:

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:18 PM
end of :lol:

That's not the point though. The issue here is that Serena is more beatable at the USO than she is at the AO.

18majors
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:21 PM
The pressure for Serena to win US Open is so much higher than AO.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:24 PM
That's not the point though. The issue here is that Serena is more beatable at the USO than she is at the AO.

why don't you ask why Court was more beatable at wimbledon when it was on the same surface as the AO :lol:

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:26 PM
why don't you ask why Court was more beatable at wimbledon when it was on the same surface as the AO :lol:

Already been asked and answered. And I fail to see the relevance.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:28 PM
Already been asked and answered. And I fail to see the relevance.

with the same depth you seem to want to go into ws? :lol:

relevance:

same surface, different level of success for players...isn't that what you made this thread to discuss IN DEPTH?? why not go in depth for both since it is similar?

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:28 PM
THIS.

I never said that she struggles on it. It just must be noted that she is more beatable there than at the AO. Her record at both is better than Venus's (I would argue, and I think that most would agree, that Kim's USO record is marginally better than Serena's), but Venus is better at the USO than Venus is at the AO. Serena's just in another league, but that's not the point.

Then why don't you make a thread about how come Kim is almost unbeatable at the U.S. open but hasn't been much of a factor at the Oz open? :shrug: Is a way of looking at it too, no?! Is even more interesting really.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:30 PM
Already been asked and answered. And I fail to see the relevance.

:lol: Yeah, with some vague: Court didn't like to travel. what kind of answer is that?

Now you wanna go in depth with: oh Serena doesn't move well on the surface, her backhand is shot, blah blah. You're a complete joke. :lol:

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:30 PM
I think she's had a couple of unlucky matches at the US Open and a few lucky ones in Australia, that's the difference, I don't think it has much to do with the relative speed of the courts.

That too, kinda. She would have been the OVERWHELMING favorite to win the USO in 2003 were it not for her missing it due to injury. And with the way she played on fast courts back then it would have been hard for her not to win it all. Cue 2004, where she was easily cheated out of the match. In 05 she managed to squeeze out an Australian Open before falling into the worst form of her career from then until the Australian in 07. Not saying she WOULD have won one or both of those, just that the timing of her slump plays a big role. I won't comment on the 09 USO. I feel Serena would have made a comeback, but at the same tine Kim played the match of her second career there, so let's just give her that one. That's still four opportunities Serena missed out on at the US Open, compared to only one at the OZ. She would have also been the favorite at both the 2010 US Open and the 2011 OZ as well, if she competed.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:31 PM
Then why don't you make a thread about how come Kim is almost unbeatable at the U.S. open but hasn't been much of a factor at the Oz open? :shrug; Is a way of looking at it too, no?! Is even more interesting really.

exactly...there are other players with the same phenomenon...but this "new" poster seems stuck on ws :lol:

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:37 PM
That too, kinda. She would have been the OVERWHELMING favorite to win the USO in 2003 were it not for her missing it due to injury. And with the way she played on fast courts back then it would have been hard for her not to win it all. Cue 2004, where she was easily cheated out of the match. In 05 she managed to squeeze out an Australian Open before falling into the worst form of her career from then until the Australian in 07. Not saying she WOULD have won one or both of those, just that the timing of her slump plays a big role. I won't comment on the 09 USO. I feel Serena would have made a comeback, but at the same tine Kim played the match of her second career there, so let's just give her that one. That's still four opportunities Serena missed out on at the US Open, compared to only one at the OZ. She would have also been the favorite at both the 2010 US Open and the 2011 OZ as well, if she competed.

Indeed...Serena's play on non-clay in ' 02-' 03..I think she wins the ' 03 u.s. open. Then the ' 04 oz open, would've been a huge favorite there. Some unlucky breaks here and there, but with 13 majors..can't complain too much I guess. :lol:

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:47 PM
Did I, or did I not, mention Venus and Kim in this very thread, in the very OP? :scratch:

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:49 PM
That too, kinda. She would have been the OVERWHELMING favorite to win the USO in 2003 were it not for her missing it due to injury. And with the way she played on fast courts back then it would have been hard for her not to win it all. Cue 2004, where she was easily cheated out of the match. In 05 she managed to squeeze out an Australian Open before falling into the worst form of her career from then until the Australian in 07. Not saying she WOULD have won one or both of those, just that the timing of her slump plays a big role. I won't comment on the 09 USO. I feel Serena would have made a comeback, but at the same tine Kim played the match of her second career there, so let's just give her that one. That's still four opportunities Serena missed out on at the US Open, compared to only one at the OZ. She would have also been the favorite at both the 2010 US Open and the 2011 OZ as well, if she competed.

Out of interest, has it ever been confirmed whether or not the foot fault was the correct call?

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:50 PM
Did I, or did I not, mention Venus and Kim in this very thread, in the very OP? :scratch:

Are you really this foolish or are playing with us?! :facepalm: OMG! the thread titles states SERENA, so who's this thread about?! :banghead:

It don't matter if you mention Kim/Vee here or there, the thread is still about Serena! :lol:

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:56 PM
Are you really this foolish or are playing with us?! :facepalm: OMG! the thread titles states SERENA, so who's this thread about?! :banghead:

It don't matter if you mention Kim/Vee here or there, the thread is still about Serena! :lol:

Well here's the strange part, I thought that the thread didn't have to be "Why does the AO suit Serena's game more than the USO, and why does the USO suit Kim's game more than the AO?" I thought that perhaps putting half in the title, and the other half in the OP, might have been sufficient, but obviously not for you, bandabou.

Linguae^
Jul 14th, 2011, 12:58 PM
I don't think it suits her game anything much better. Look at her USO losses:
2009 - to Kim, that funky match
2007 - to GOAT Henin
2006 - to Mauresmo, Serena was totally out of her form
2005 - to Venus ( but I don't know that match and her level of play )
2004 - Capriati thing

I don't think she did quite bad there, she just lost some tough and weird matches to some really great players. Her first title also came there. I don't even think that the new surface makes problems to her game.
Same for Ana Ivanovic. I don't think that USO is a reason of those 4th round losses. It's just a question of her form and opponents back then.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:01 PM
transparent... :lol:

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:05 PM
I like the theories about the court speed, but maybe it has a liitle to do with the calendar as well. Serena is able to hit her stride a lot quicker than most players as we've seen throughout the years. so maybe it also works to her advantage that it one of the first events of the year. She has the ability to tap into her best a lot quicker in the season than most players....just another possible explanation.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:08 PM
Well here's the strange part, I thought that the thread didn't have to be "Why does the AO suit Serena's game more than the USO, and why does the USO suit Kim's game more than the AO?" I thought that perhaps putting half in the title, and the other half in the OP, might have been sufficient, but obviously not for you, bandabou.

Really, rimon?! Really, really, really?! :lol: Nice try, my friend. Nice try.
You don't think that after the what is now, 8th or 9th, thread about the WS in a week..that people have already caught up with your act?! Of course you threw Kim in, just to throw people off..but you ain't fooling nobody. :lol:

Yoncé
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:09 PM
Because barely anyone has any knowledge of Margaret's game and accomplishments. If anything, they've only heard her name.

If you love Margaret so much why don't you go back to the 50's kiss her Christian ass and marry her! You could to sermon's at her church, preaching to people about Serena's game being "better" at the AO than USO, heck you might even get a segment on her TV show!

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:13 PM
Really, rimon?! Really, really, really?! :lol: Nice try, my friend. Nice try.
You don't think that after the what is now, 8th or 9th, thread about the WS in a week..that people have already caught up with your act?! Of course you threw Kim in, just to throw people off..but you ain't fooling nobody. :lol:

Think what you want, but it doesn't make it true. I was thinking to myself earlier today, when re-watching the 2009 USO SF, why Kim does better at the USO than she does at the AO, and vice versa with Serena. Hence, I made this thread. I didn't want to make it too lengthy, so that's why I did it the way that I did.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:14 PM
If you love Margaret so much why don't you go back to the 50's kiss her Christian ass and marry her! You could to sermon's at her church, preaching to people about Serena's game being "better" at the AO than USO, heck you might even get a segment on her TV show!

Why are you mentioning Margaret in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with her? :confused:

dsanders06
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:16 PM
Exactly.

Robbed
xtkKdCeQgQM

And robbed
4RJ9IsA59Rk

:help:

The world is against Serena Williams.

Yoncé
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:16 PM
Why are you mentioning Margaret in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with her? :confused:

Correct me if I am wrong, you were the one who bought her up in the first place.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:20 PM
Out of interest, has it ever been confirmed whether or not the foot fault was the correct call?

To this date, no. And at this point it's not really possible. Maybe they should improve Hawkeye so that it can be used to challenge footfaults as well :lol:

Anyways, also a partial answer to the original question would be that crowd support thing we discussed. The only times I can remember her being supported like an AMERICAN were during her 1999 run when she was a slamless 17 year old, and in 2008 for reasons I'm not quite certain on. Compare that to Aus where out of her 5 wins, the only matches I can certainly remember her not being equally supported or favored right off the bat were her 03 Semi versus Kim and her 2010 F versus Justine. I mean I'm sure against lesser ranked players who were never expected to take a set the crowd tried to pump them up and create a match, but those are the only two matches I can remember her being noticeably less supported than another top quality player who feasibly could have been expected to win.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:23 PM
Think what you want, but it doesn't make it true. I was thinking to myself earlier today, when re-watching the 2009 USO SF, why Kim does better at the USO than she does at the AO, and vice versa with Serena. Hence, I made this thread. I didn't want to make it too lengthy, so that's why I did it the way that I did.

:lol: :rolls: So let me see: you watched a match, wondering why Kim doesn't do as well at the Oz open as she does at the Open, yet you still end up putting SERENA'S name in the thread?! :spit: Ok, ok...

dsanders06
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:25 PM
okay i sometimes question if you even watch tennis

Back in 02-03 the US hard-courts were Serena's best surface as they were very very fast - very suitable for Serena's all out attack game. Her footwork and footspeed was spectacular during this point in time and she could return shots with much more interest, which is why the US courts suit Kim's and Venus's game as well.

Now her game is more conservative, she uses more topspin and point construction than she did back then when she just overwhelmed her opponents with simply brutal flat ball striking - the slower courts in Australia suit her better as they are the perfect medium fast pace which allow her to set up the point. She can also afford to have sloppier movement than usual. The surface does not neutralize her serve like a clay court would.

Yes. Serena has actually been one of the more conservative of the top players for years now - instead of just going for raw power, she typically bases her game on point construction and angles these days, which is a perfect fit for slow hardcourts - the surface speed means she can't be so utterly overpowered like she was by both Clijsters and Henin in recent years at the US Open. Plus, it's obviously not an AO-only thing - she also has done very well at Miami which has a similar surface speed, while she has a very mediocre record in recent years at the much quicker US Open Series events. Off the ground, she actually has a perfect game for clay these days (patience, working the point and using the width of the court, but, unlike Zvonareva who has a similar but inferior game, Serena's balls are heavy enough to kill off the point), but the fact her movement on the surface is arguably worse than anyone in the top 30 (I'd even say Sharapova's is beter these days) means RG is a lost cause for her.

Conversely, Venus's game hasn't evolved AT ALL since she first hit the Tour at 16 - she's still an all-or-nothing ballbasher, which means she needs as quick courts as possible in order to kill off the point and not let her shoddy technique get exposed by long rallies. Clijsters predicates her game more on counter-punching, but she is still much better on quick courts because she likes to absorb the pace of her opponent and throw it back just as fast. Also, in a similar vein to Venus, Kim's forehand in particular is very hot-and-cold these days, so slower courts mean her forehand bullets are more often retrieved and her fh is more liable to break down.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:36 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, you were the one who bought her up in the first place.

No, I didn't.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:37 PM
:lol: :rolls: So let me see: you watched a match, wondering why Kim doesn't do as well at the Oz open as she does at the Open, yet you still end up putting SERENA'S name in the thread?! :spit: Ok, ok...

you know how it is :lol: his attempts to appear neutral are funny though...they break the monotony of my studying...much like vikapower and dsanders (when he first came)

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:38 PM
:lol: :rolls: So let me see: you watched a match, wondering why Kim doesn't do as well at the Oz open as she does at the Open, yet you still end up putting SERENA'S name in the thread?! :spit: Ok, ok...

I watched a match between the BOTH of them, and wondered VICE VERSA.

dsanders06
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:38 PM
... but those are the only two matches I can remember her being noticeably less supported than another top quality player who feasibly could have been expected to win.

2005 final against Davenport, imo.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:39 PM
To this date, no. And at this point it's not really possible. Maybe they should improve Hawkeye so that it can be used to challenge footfaults as well :lol:

Anyways, also a partial answer to the original question would be that crowd support thing we discussed. The only times I can remember her being supported like an AMERICAN were during her 1999 run when she was a slamless 17 year old, and in 2008 for reasons I'm not quite certain on. Compare that to Aus where out of her 5 wins, the only matches I can certainly remember her not being equally supported or favored right off the bat were her 03 Semi versus Kim and her 2010 F versus Justine. I mean I'm sure against lesser ranked players who were never expected to take a set the crowd tried to pump them up and create a match, but those are the only two matches I can remember her being noticeably less supported than another top quality player who feasibly could have been expected to win.

Very good points. I didn't notice the crowd supporting Justine more last year though? Was it a lot more? :confused:

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:41 PM
To this date, no. And at this point it's not really possible. Maybe they should improve Hawkeye so that it can be used to challenge footfaults as well :lol:

Anyways, also a partial answer to the original question would be that crowd support thing we discussed. The only times I can remember her being supported like an AMERICAN were during her 1999 run when she was a slamless 17 year old, and in 2008 for reasons I'm not quite certain on. Compare that to Aus where out of her 5 wins, the only matches I can certainly remember her not being equally supported or favored right off the bat were her 03 Semi versus Kim and her 2010 F versus Justine. I mean I'm sure against lesser ranked players who were never expected to take a set the crowd tried to pump them up and create a match, but those are the only two matches I can remember her being noticeably less supported than another top quality player who feasibly could have been expected to win.

Agree. The Australian crowds clearly like Serena more than the USO crowd does. It's no surprise that the event with the friendliest corwds, Miami, is arguably her most successful tournament of all.

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:42 PM
Very good points. I didn't notice the crowd supporting Justine more last year though? Was it a lot more? :confused:

I remember right after Serena challenged a call that would have given Justine the break in the first, the crowd seemed noticeably for Justine.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:47 PM
I watched a match between the BOTH of them, and wondered VICE VERSA.

Then change the thread title and make it about Kim, no? It doesn't matter either way, right?! :lol:
Get out of here, man. :lol:

Yoncé
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:49 PM
:sad: Poor baby. Margaret has 194 career titles, 24 slams and 11 AOs. Serena has 37 career titles, 13 slams and 5 AOs. Please try to deal with it.

I was merely pointing out that Margaret never had the chance to play on hard courts, because they didn't exist back then. :wavey:

I am sure that if she did, she would have excelled just as much as she did on grass and clay. There is no player that has ever excelled on grass and clay, but not on hard. There are those that have excelled on grass and hard, but not clay, and clay and hard, but not grass, but never grass and clay, but not hard.

Anyway, we'll never know, and one can only play who's in front of them, and they surfaces on which they are able to play.

Because barely anyone has any knowledge of Margaret's game and accomplishments. If anything, they've only heard her name.

No, I didn't.

OH MA GAWD, guess what...you kinda did!

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:54 PM
Then change the thread title and make it about Kim, no? It doesn't matter either way, right?! :lol:
Get out of here, man. :lol:

I would, if it means that much to you, but I do not know how.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 01:55 PM
OH MA GAWD, guess what...you kinda did!

Kindly direct yourself to posts 1 and 2.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 02:01 PM
I would, if it means that much to you, but I do not know how.

nahhhh..your oviousness has already been exposed. It's cool! :lol:

Yoncé
Jul 14th, 2011, 02:02 PM
Why are you mentioning Margaret in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with her? :confused:

'You' directed at me. Implying I bought Margaret up in the first place.

Kindly direct yourself to posts 1 and 2.

Kindly direct yourself to post 2...last time I checked I was not American nor is my screen name Moveyourfeet.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 02:15 PM
'You' directed at me. Implying I bought Margaret up in the first place.



Kindly direct yourself to post 2...last time I checked I was not American nor is my screen name Moveyourfeet.

Clearly I had no intention of discussing Margaret, and was only responding because someone else brought her up. I don't know why you discussed her, when as you said, you are no American and you are not Moveyourfeet.

rimon
Jul 14th, 2011, 02:16 PM
nahhhh..your oviousness has already been exposed. It's cool! :lol:

Cool, whatever you want to think.

Yoncé
Jul 14th, 2011, 02:26 PM
Clearly I had no intention of discussing Margaret, and was only responding because someone else brought her up. I don't know why you discussed her, when as you said, you are no American and you are not Moveyourfeet.

Perhaps if you had no intention of discussing Margaret it would have been best for you to totally ignore the first comment altogether then!

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 02:47 PM
Cool, whatever you want to think.

:yeah: Because I'm sure if I open a thread asking: Why didn't Court fare all too well at Wimbledon? You wouldn't be able to give ONE iota of input. Yet here you're pondering about Serena..ain't even a fan. :lol:

DefyingGravity
Jul 14th, 2011, 03:22 PM
Drop. Margaret. Court. This has nothing to do with her at all in this thread.

bandabou
Jul 14th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Drop. Margaret. Court. This has nothing to do with her at all in this thread.

has EVERYTHING to do with the thread. You don't know, so stay out. :fiery:

DefyingGravity
Jul 14th, 2011, 05:16 PM
has EVERYTHING to do with the thread. You don't know, so stay out. :fiery:

Why does the AO suit Serena's game more than the USO?

Because that screams Margaret Court.

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 04:20 AM
Because that screams Margaret Court.

Rimon and his annoying ways. let him focus on Court's cherrypicking at the OZ open and then flaming out at Wimbledon.

kiwifan
Jul 15th, 2011, 04:34 AM
You mean other than them always cheating her in the USA? :devil:

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 05:06 AM
Because that screams Margaret Court.

They bring her up all of the time for some reason, even when the threads have nothing to do with her.

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 05:09 AM
Rimon and his annoying ways. let him focus on Court's cherrypicking at the OZ open and then flaming out at Wimbledon.

Actually, come to think of it, I remember a lot of people saying that Margaret suffered greatly from nerves at Wimbledon. A bit like Mauresmo at the French, despite her winning Rome and Berlin multiple times, she never even reached an RG SF, only got to the QF. What an opportunist though, I mean, winning 45% of RGs played (5/11) and 50% of USOs played (5/10), what a shameful record. :rolleyes:

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 05:10 AM
You mean other than them always cheating her in the USA? :devil:

:confused:

The Kaz
Jul 15th, 2011, 05:25 AM
:yeah: Because I'm sure if I open a thread asking: Why didn't Court fare all too well at Wimbledon? You wouldn't be able to give ONE iota of input. Yet here you're pondering about Serena..ain't even a fan. :lol:

She still won 3 Wimbledons :rolleyes:

And people say Rimon is a troll, you and your anti-Court diatribes are just as bad if not worse because you are just blatantly defensive :o

Get a life :wavey:

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 06:49 AM
Actually, come to think of it, I remember a lot of people saying that Margaret suffered greatly from nerves at Wimbledon. A bit like Mauresmo at the French, despite her winning Rome and Berlin multiple times, she never even reached an RG SF, only got to the QF. What an opportunist though, I mean, winning 45% of RGs played (5/11) and 50% of USOs played (5/10), what a shameful record. :rolleyes:

Well then Serena herself isn't doing that badly at the u.s. open either, no?! :shrug:

3 titles out of what, 12, appearances. Ain't too shabby.

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 06:53 AM
She still won 3 Wimbledons :rolleyes:

And people say Rimon is a troll, you and your anti-Court diatribes are just as bad if not worse because you are just blatantly defensive :o

Get a life :wavey:

Ahh, did I hurt the feelings of the Aussies?! :awww:
anti-Court? I just asked the same question that rimon continually asks about Serena. Fact is that Court ruled the OZ open, but wasn't nearly as successful at Wimbledon, no?!

But then it ain't fun, huh?! He can ask all kinds of silly questions about Serena..but we ask ONE question about Court and we need to get a life?! :lol:

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:03 AM
Well then Serena herself isn't doing that badly at the u.s. open either, no?! :shrug:

3 titles out of what, 12, appearances. Ain't too shabby.

WHERE did I ever say that she has a bad record there? Cleatl if you have won an event 3 times, you don't have a bad record there. That wasn't my point AT ALL.

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:04 AM
She still won 3 Wimbledons :rolleyes:

And people say Rimon is a troll, you and your anti-Court diatribes are just as bad if not worse because you are just blatantly defensive :o

Get a life :wavey:

THIS. Thanks :)

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:16 AM
WHERE did I ever say that she has a bad record there? Cleatl if you have won an event 3 times, you don't have a bad record there. That wasn't my point AT ALL.

:lol: Of course that wasn't your point at all, huh?! :lol: What was your point, then? This better be good! :lol:

dsanders06
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:18 AM
Well then Serena herself isn't doing that badly at the u.s. open either, no?! :shrug:

:help: When did s/he say it was a bad record?!

In the 'second phase' of her career (since her eight-month layoff in 2003/04), Serena has won the Australian Open four times and the US Open "only" once. Self-evidently, the AO suits her a lot better, and so therefore, it's a legitimate (and imo interesting) discussion to have.

Stop thinking everything is a conspiracy against Serena Williams.

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:29 AM
:help: When did s/he say it was a bad record?!

In the 'second phase' of her career (since her eight-month layoff in 2003/04), Serena has won the Australian Open four times and the US Open "only" once. Self-evidently, the AO suits her a lot better, and so therefore, it's a legitimate (and imo interesting) discussion to have.

Stop thinking everything is a conspiracy against Serena Williams.

There wasn't any time-table set in his question. He didn't say: why has Serena been more successful at the Oz open than at the U.S. open since her comeback? The question as stated implies the whole career..nice try at being smart, but :lol:

dsanders06
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:36 AM
There wasn't any time-table set in his question. He didn't say: why has Serena been more successful at the Oz open than at the U.S. open since her comeback? The question as stated implies the whole career..nice try at being smart, but :lol:

The thread title is "why does the AO suit Serena..." - i.e. present tense, i.e. meaning now/in recent years. :wavey:

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:47 AM
The thread title is "why does the AO suit Serena..." - i.e. present tense, i.e. meaning now/in recent years. :wavey:

:rolls: :haha: nice try AGAIN! Serena IS an active player, so of course the tense should be in the present tense. OMG! Where did you guys go to school? :facepalm:

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 07:51 AM
:lol: Of course that wasn't your point at all, huh?! :lol: What was your point, then? This better be good! :lol:

I have already stated it plenty of times, it was asking why Serena is better at the AO than USO? I hope that that is good enough for you. :rolleyes:

I've answered you, now could you please answer me? When did I say that it was a bad record?

dsanders, you are 100% right. Thank you.

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 08:09 AM
I have already stated it plenty of times, it was asking why Serena is better at the AO than USO? I hope that that is good enough for you. :rolleyes:

I've answered you, now could you please answer me? When did I say that it was a bad record?

dsanders, you are 100% right. Thank you.

And why would you wonder about this? Serena has 5 Oz opens, 3 u.S. opens...is that really really that much of difference? :shrug: If Serena had like 10 oz opens, but only 3 u.s. opens, then I could understand the wondering.

But that's just me. :lol:

Maybe she just gets nervous at the U.S. open too..just like somebody else gets 'nervous' at Wimbledon. Who knows? :shrug:

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 09:20 AM
And why would you wonder about this? Serena has 5 Oz opens, 3 u.S. opens...is that really really that much of difference? :shrug: If Serena had like 10 oz opens, but only 3 u.s. opens, then I could understand the wondering.

But that's just me. :lol:

Maybe she just gets nervous at the U.S. open too..just like somebody else gets 'nervous' at Wimbledon. Who knows? :shrug:

Okay, fair point, but I still make a valid point.

You still haven't answered me. When did I ever say that she had a poor record at the USO?

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 09:41 AM
Okay, fair point, but I still make a valid point.

You still haven't answered me. When did I ever say that she had a poor record at the USO?

By saying: a surface doesn't suit a player's game..it implies that she's a bad record on it, no?!

rimon
Jul 15th, 2011, 09:44 AM
By saying: a surface doesn't suit a player's game..it implies that she's a bad record on it, no?!

Not necessarily, but I didn't say that anyway. It is a COMPARISON, whereby the AO surface suits her BETTER THAN the USO?

bandabou
Jul 15th, 2011, 09:55 AM
Not necessarily, but I didn't say that anyway. It is a COMPARISON, whereby the AO surface suits her BETTER THAN the USO?

Ok.no problemos. It all depends on what time-frame you look at. Prior to '03, Serena did historically better at the U.S. open then the other majors ( 3 finals in 5 years, 2 titles)..then she got injured and basically came back as COMPLETELY different player..and then the Oz open and even Wimbledon became her best majors.

So basically the answer is easy: she got injured and her new game changed.

rimon
Sep 13th, 2011, 12:45 AM
See? Serena is so much more beatable at the USO than AO. :wavey:

rimon
Sep 13th, 2011, 12:53 AM
Ok.no problemos. It all depends on what time-frame you look at. Prior to '03, Serena did historically better at the U.S. open then the other majors ( 3 finals in 5 years, 2 titles)..then she got injured and basically came back as COMPLETELY different player..and then the Oz open and even Wimbledon became her best majors.

So basically the answer is easy: she got injured and her new game changed.

I just don't see, however, why the AO and W suit her better than RG and the USO. It would make sense if it were the AO and RG, or W and the USO, because of quickness of surface.

tennisfan5
Sep 13th, 2011, 02:05 AM
It's her least "controversial" major? She stays away from scuffles down under. Although Wimbledon hasn't been too controversial either

rimon
Sep 13th, 2011, 03:54 AM
It's her least "controversial" major? She stays away from scuffles down under. Although Wimbledon hasn't been too controversial either

So you don't think that it has anything to do with her game?

Dani12
Sep 13th, 2011, 04:34 AM
It's simple.

Serena is more relaxed at AO.

Less pressure.

Less Tension.

Win.

rimon
Sep 13th, 2011, 05:47 AM
It's simple.

Serena is more relaxed at AO.

Less pressure.

Less Tension.

Win.

So absolutely nothing to do with gamestyle?

Dani12
Sep 13th, 2011, 05:59 AM
So absolutely nothing to do with gamestyle?

No sir.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Sep 13th, 2011, 06:26 AM
See? Serena is so much more beatable at the USO than AO. :wavey:

So you don't think that it has anything to do with her game?

RE: The first post, Serena was way off her game and would have lost that final to an inspired Stosur on Clay, Grass, Plexicushion, Decoturf, you name it.

BUT! The slower HC at the AO means the rallies get slowed down a bit, allowing her to get back into a match, she's a great mover capable of switching from defense to offense seemingly at will. This didn't happen at the USO because she was moving poorly and her serve was non-existant, but generally at the AO if she's faced with an inspired opponent she has time to think, defend and then attack when she gets her opening.

She's got by far the best record at AO compared to the other three slams (I think she's like, 42-2 starting from R1 in 2003) but it's not like she won those matches by steamrolling her opposition. She's come against inspired opponents and came back from the brink there nearly every year - 03 Loit, 03 Clijsters, 05 Sharapova, 07 Petrova, 07 Peer :help:, 09 Azarenka though that match was never finished, 09 Kuznetsova, 2010 Azarenka. You can't say the same at the faster courts of the US Open, where an on-fire opponent like 07 Henin, 09 Kim, 2011 Sam is harder to stay with if your OWN game isn't clicking.

Also the aforementioned "less pressure/more support" at AO.

rimon
Sep 13th, 2011, 11:51 AM
RE: The first post, Serena was way off her game and would have lost that final to an inspired Stosur on Clay, Grass, Plexicushion, Decoturf, you name it.

BUT! The slower HC at the AO means the rallies get slowed down a bit, allowing her to get back into a match, she's a great mover capable of switching from defense to offense seemingly at will. This didn't happen at the USO because she was moving poorly and her serve was non-existant, but generally at the AO if she's faced with an inspired opponent she has time to think, defend and then attack when she gets her opening.

She's got by far the best record at AO compared to the other three slams (I think she's like, 42-2 starting from R1 in 2003) but it's not like she won those matches by steamrolling her opposition. She's come against inspired opponents and came back from the brink there nearly every year - 03 Loit, 03 Clijsters, 05 Sharapova, 07 Petrova, 07 Peer :help:, 09 Azarenka though that match was never finished, 09 Kuznetsova, 2010 Azarenka. You can't say the same at the faster courts of the US Open, where an on-fire opponent like 07 Henin, 09 Kim, 2011 Sam is harder to stay with if your OWN game isn't clicking.

Also the aforementioned "less pressure/more support" at AO.


True, but why is she better at Wimbledon than the US Open, when it is faster? Also, why did you semi-cross out Loit and Peer? :lol:

18majors
Sep 13th, 2011, 02:09 PM
Less pressure.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Sep 14th, 2011, 06:17 AM
True, but why is she better at Wimbledon than the US Open, when it is faster? Also, why did you semi-cross out Loit and Peer? :lol:

As I'm sure you know there are a couple of factors that affect your potency on a given surface; Movement, what the surface does to YOUR ball, what the surface does to the ball coming at you and how well you can handle it, etc. Wimbledon's grass courts may be faster which makes it a little bit harder for her(everyone really) to rally, but it also adds potency to her own ball, most notably the serve. The US Open's courts were`faster, but they don't add that much effectiveness to her own game in return, like grass does. Also why, for example, Clay is her worst surface, because despite the slow hypothetically being beneficial to her ability to outlast/outrally an on fire aggressor, it also neutralizes her trump card, the serve, and alot of her groundstrokes.

On grass, it's because of the serve that she can usually avoid(sometimes narrowly) being in those losing situations in the first place. The only "back from the brink" type match I can recall her playing at Wimbledon... ever, was the great 09 Semi against Dementieva. If that match occurred at say, the US Open's hard courts, the result MAY have been different. Same for some of her really close Wimbledon wins, like edging Sharapova-Na-Kvitova out, in large part due to her ever-reliable monster serve. The reverse could possibly be said for the 09 Us Open Semi - not the aforementioned matches against Henin or Stosur, where the rest of her game just wouldn't have been good enough at the moment to get the win, even with the benefit of a grass court. This is all what-if anyway, the result of both sides may well have been the same, but there's no crime in wondering.

Shahar and Emilie were crossed out because those matches are better left forgotten :tape:

bandabou
Sep 15th, 2011, 05:59 PM
Well....Roger Federer is in the same boat..won U.S. open 5 times, 6 finals in a row..points for almost 8 finals in a row, but is thoroughly beatable at the Oz open, no?! :shrug:

Shinjiro
Sep 15th, 2011, 06:10 PM
Ha, I hadn't thought about that. A couple match points away from tying Lendl's record. That would have been very nice to achieve.

rimon
Sep 17th, 2011, 10:29 AM
Well....Roger Federer is in the same boat..won U.S. open 5 times, 6 finals in a row..points for almost 8 finals in a row, but is thoroughly beatable at the Oz open, no?! :shrug:

Ummm, no. He is beatable at both. He has been beaten the last three years at the USO. Serena is near unbeatable at the AO, but is quite beatable at the USO.

Apoleb
Sep 17th, 2011, 10:36 AM
I think Serena's game works better on the slow hard courts, but this time I don't think it had anything to do with it.

I blame her loss on her seeding and maybe that rain break. We've seen it before that Serena plays like shit for a week and a half and brings it in the semis and final. This time she peaked earlier, and she tried to be more professional than the usual and destroy her opponents in every round, but she ended up regressing and getting away from her peak play by the end. Maybe I'm looking too much into this, but Azarenka f*cked her up (:worship:), because she knows she cannot bullshit her way in this match. I'm also suspicious that breaks in the schedule mess up her preparation and her movement.

In this final, she didn't have a first serve and sine she's mediocre from the ground, her wig got snatched. (on top of facing a bad matchup... Serena' strokes are exactly in Sam's strike zone).

dsanders06
Sep 17th, 2011, 04:55 PM
I just don't see, however, why the AO and W suit her better than RG and the USO. It would make sense if it were the AO and RG, or W and the USO, because of quickness of surface.

It's quite logical actually. Serena's game these days is quite "schizophrenic", in the sense that her serve is best suited to the quickest surfaces, while her ground game is best suited to medium-paced/slower surfaces. At Wimbledon, her serve can win her so many cheap points that she can coast through just on that even if her ground game is off (which was pretty much the story of Wimbledon 2010 for her) ... while, in Australia, because the slow courts give her more time to get her footwork right and set up points (she actually is one of the best point-constructers at the top of the game atm), she's capable of scraping through with a B-game even if she's not firing on all cylinders. Whereas the US Open is caught in the middle - it's not quite quick enough for her serve to do all the work for her, but it's also not quite slow enough for her ground game to be its most effective and for her to adjust her feet - so when she has an off-day, she finds it much harder to adjust and find a way to win than she does at Australia and Wimbledon. She has to be at the absolute top of her game to win the US Open.

Serena_Williams_
Sep 17th, 2011, 05:28 PM
It's quite logical actually. Serena's game these days is quite "schizophrenic", in the sense that her serve is best suited to the quickest surfaces, while her ground game is best suited to medium-paced/slower surfaces. At Wimbledon, her serve can win her so many cheap points that she can coast through just on that even if her ground game is off (which was pretty much the story of Wimbledon 2010 for her) ... while, in Australia, because the slow courts give her more time to get her footwork right and set up points (she actually is one of the best point-constructers at the top of the game atm), she's capable of scraping through with a B-game even if she's not firing on all cylinders. Whereas the US Open is caught in the middle - it's not quite quick enough for her serve to do all the work for her, but it's also not quite slow enough for her ground game to be its most effective and for her to adjust her feet - so when she has an off-day, she finds it much harder to adjust and find a way to win than she does at Australia and Wimbledon. She has to be at the absolute top of her game to win the US Open.

This.

bandabou
Sep 17th, 2011, 05:36 PM
Ummm, no. He is beatable at both. He has been beaten the last three years at the USO. Serena is near unbeatable at the AO, but is quite beatable at the USO.

I think dsanders has summed it up brilliantly. Not sure what more you wanna hear?

Stamp Paid
Sep 17th, 2011, 07:19 PM
I think Serena's game works better on the slow hard courts, but this time I don't think it had anything to do with it.

I blame her loss on her seeding and maybe that rain break. We've seen it before that Serena plays like shit for a week and a half and brings it in the semis and final. This time she peaked earlier, and she tried to be more professional than the usual and destroy her opponents in every round, but she ended up regressing and getting away from her peak play by the end. Maybe I'm looking too much into this, but Azarenka f*cked her up (:worship:), because she knows she cannot bullshit her way in this match. I'm also suspicious that breaks in the schedule mess up her preparation and her movement.

In this final, she didn't have a first serve and sine she's mediocre from the ground, her wig got snatched. (on top of facing a bad matchup... Serena' strokes are exactly in Sam's strike zone).:lol::lol:

I really hope I dont become as bitter as you when my fave retires :lol:

dybbuk
Sep 17th, 2011, 07:21 PM
Oh, remember the thread about Serena dominates Australia because she's black and can handle the sun better? :lol:

JCTennisFan
Sep 17th, 2011, 07:46 PM
I dont know that there is really anything different with the surface now. AO used to use rebound ace, which was a slightly slower, higher bouncing surface. But they no longer use it, so Im not so sure that the surfaces are all that much different now. I think it has more to do with the mental aspect than anything. She is good at getting out to a lead early in the season, while everyone else seems to take a bit longer to get properly going.

Hingis also did very good at the AO and she was also a fast starter to the season/mentally strong. Thats my guess for the difference. Towards US open time Serena is less energetic usually than at the start of the season.

rimon
Sep 18th, 2011, 02:46 AM
I think dsanders has summed it up brilliantly. Not sure what more you wanna hear?

True. What a brilliant post.

rjd1111
Sep 18th, 2011, 03:33 AM
Why does the AO suit Serena's game more than the USO?



The Officials are fair.

rimon
Sep 18th, 2011, 04:33 AM
Why does the AO suit Serena's game more than the USO?



The Officials are fair.

How have they been unfair at the USO apart from 2004?