PDA

View Full Version : Serena should have won the first set 62, watch the match again.


"Topaz"
Nov 12th, 2002, 09:59 PM
And that would have changed the complexion of the whole match.
At 3-2, a bad call on game point (shown to be bad on replay) led to deuce and then Kim made it 33, while it should have been 4-2. Here is how it went from that point on:

33-should have been-42
43-should have been-52
53-should have been-62
54
55
56
57

... and Serena lost the set.

Of course, she lost the set for two other reasons:
1- her forehand was way off to the point of not working at all, and her backhand failed uncharacteristically more often then usual.
2- the other blonde on the court, Kim, was a superb retriever and played very well over all.

Now, blast me if you want, I can take it. Before you do, watch the match once more if you taped it.

tennischick
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:02 PM
that was the point that the poster named Luis Gonzalez was trying to make yesterday. perhaps his thread is on page 2 or 3 by now.

fhkung
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:05 PM
WHAT EVER..........................
my Kimmy won, and that's all i care

"Topaz"
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:06 PM
I didn't see it, TC. It's surely a valid point.

gentenaire
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:08 PM
But if it was 4-2, who says the rest of the match would have played out exactly as it did? Maybe at 4-2 Kim would have played like she did at 5-3 and have taken the set 6-4? Who knows? One point doesn't decide a match.

selesrules
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:12 PM
Monica lead Venus 4-1 and "should" have won the first set...

Lindsay had 7 match points against Monica and "should" have won the match...

etc.
etc.
etc.
for eternity....

Pinkie
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:12 PM
coulda.. woulda... shoulda.

in every tennis match there are a few debatable calls. The thing is, Serena served for the first set and didn't finish it. Even if she would have gotten that point at 3-2, what makes you think she would have taken the set? If this would have happened on set point, you'd have a case, but you're making way too many assumptions.

Truth is, Serena got beaten in straight sets. That one point at 2-3 should not have mattered if Serena was meant to beat Kim yesterday.

whorehand
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:14 PM
Yes, Serena SHOULD have won the first set, but she didnt.

Why are people still analysing the match? It's over. I understand it must be hard to comprehend Serena lost, but really, its time to let go.

CB
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:14 PM
Everyone gets bad calls. That's part of the game.

This thread is nonsense.

"Topaz"
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Tine
But if it was 4-2, who says the rest of the match would have played out exactly as it did? Maybe at 4-2 Kim would have played like she did at 5-3 and have taken the set 6-4? Who knows? One point doesn't decide a match. True, Tine. That's why I added the other reasons. Yet, ceteris puribus (everything else being the same), she would have won that set.

SM
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:15 PM
yeah serena shouldve won that set///but dont forget serena should have lost the first set against jelena too!

looks like jelena and serena both crumbled after that first, esp jelena :(

Dahveed
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:16 PM
Following your logic:

Serena: 6-2.

Second set: 5-0 Kim then, i dunno i havent seen the match but hmm Serena won 3 other games, so why not 6-2 3-6 (and as serena said she was tired) 0-6?

Damn maybe Kim didn't bagel Serena cos of this bad call! ;)

Seriously, a bad call is part of the game. And you can't know what would have happened anyway.

Picol
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:26 PM
I would of had breakfast.

I would of too.

I get up
Have a shower
The Drain gets clogged
No-one is home
Unblocked it myself
No Breakfast.

Now if that had not of happened.

I get up
Have a shower
No-one is home
Had a beautiful Breakfast


No matter how I look at it though, I did have to unclog the drain and I have not had breakfast yet

C'est la vie

tennischick
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by TennisPower
I didn't see it, TC. It's surely a valid point.

try this link...

Luis Gonzalez thread... (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44899)

hope this works! i've never done this before...;) ;)

"Topaz"
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:28 PM
That's exactly what I expected from many of you: fatalism, not analysis of the facts. The match and the season are over, but the facts remain wide open for analysis by those who care. If you don't care, well there is a whole legion you can join.

These tapes will be studied to death over the next two months in preparation for the next season.

magassi
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:32 PM
Actually, Serena should have never been in the final because Jennifer SHOULD HAVE beaten her after having 4-4 break point in the second set; and also leading 3-1 in the third with a break point to go up 4-1.

wongqks
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:34 PM
Tennispower you are entitle to your opinion of course, I have not seen the match so I cannot comment :)

But I am sure and hope that no matter what your opinions are, you know that Kim is the winner and deservingly and you are not bitter about it. If that is the case, I can respect why this thread is put up :)

tennischick
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:35 PM
hey Tennispower...see my post above yours and magassi for the thread in question...

whorehand
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by TennisPower
That's exactly what I expected from many of you: fatalism, not analysis of the facts. The match and the season are over, but the facts remain wide open for analysis by those who care. If you don't care, well there is a whole legion you can join.

These tapes will be studied to death over the next two months in preparation for the next season.


You can analyse all you like, but where is it going to get you? The score isnt going to be changed just because a line call COULD have changed the outcome of the match. The only relevant fact is kim won. End of story. Unfortunately, some of us have lives and we don't have time to study something as pointless as this.

sartrista7
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:43 PM
The argument doesn't hold water. How Serena and Kim both played in the points and games following that overrule would have been different without the overrule. When you are 2-4 down, your mentality, and therefore your game, is different from when it's 3-3.

"Topaz"
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by tennischick
hey Tennispower...see my post above yours and magassi for the thread in question... Thanks TC.

Hey, Magassi, I suppose Serena should have become an actress and not played at all, huh! :)

tennisIlove09
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:46 PM
Serena should have won. But she played so badly. Kim played very well.

It's all relative. Serena could have won. but she didn't. Serena SHOULD have won, but she didn't. Great effort, none the less

AgassiGirl16
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:52 PM
Kim won, that's all that matters. If Serena was playing her best, she would have won the 1st set. Kim deserved to win, and even if those line calls were different..which I don't remember that many, Kim could have still won. Alot of people get ripped off with line-calls. I just lost a match 0-6, 6-4, 2-6 ..and I got about 20 bad line calls...we don't have linesman and the girl cheated. So I should have lost the 1st set 6-3, won the 2nd 6-2, and lost the third 6-4, but that didn't happen. There is nothing you can do about it, just move on. Kim played well and deserved to win..I'm happy for her. Serena ended the year as #1, that's good enough.

Mary Kate

tennischick
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:55 PM
and James Blake should have beaten Hewitt at the USO...

and Andy Roddick should have won that infamous match against Hewitt...

maybe it's all a plot to help Kim and her boyfriend...:eek: :eek: j/k...

sure it's all speculative and in the end these calls do even out, but it's still rather annoying in the meantime...

and the truth is that Serena should have won that match inspite of that bad call. one point should not make ALL of the difference in ANY match.

then again, a close match is a close match...but was this really a close match? i don't think so. Jen-Serena, sure. but Kim--Serena? Serena was too busy self-destructing for it to be close IMO...

earthcrystal
Nov 12th, 2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by TennisPower
That's exactly what I expected from many of you: fatalism, not analysis of the facts.


What facts? Facts are absolute and irrefutable. Your "facts" are not facts at all. They are in actuality based on the supposition that the even if one point (and therefore 1 game) is changed...all else would have remained the same. This is a false assumption.

33-should have been-42 - Sound (bad call = lost game)
43-should have been-52 - Unsound. (Emotions, motivation, adrenelin levels, etc...all change due to different outcome above--points are not played the same way therefore it's a totally different game.)
53-should have been-62 - Unsound. (Ditto above)
Conclusion: Invalid

This is a flawed argument. I'm not going to go thru it again here, but would suggest that you read the thread linked above carefully.

"Topaz"
Nov 12th, 2002, 11:50 PM
Eearthcrystal,

I followed your logic pretty well. Your basic standpoint is that at any point in a series of events, the precursor has a large impact on the successor. That is called event dynamics. And that's my point as well.

Essentially, if one changes any element of a series, the rest may follow a different path. The crux of the issue is that the different path may be negative or positive. Not knowing what where it would go, many analysts invoke the princple "ceteris puribus" (everything else being the same) in such a situation. In case you didn't know, that principle is used in economic, military and financial analyses as well as project management. Without it, one can hardly proceed with any plan of action.

So, one takes the facts as they are and infers from them, not from what they could have been. Along this line, I took 3-3, 4-3, 5-3 and so on.

However, it's all academic at this point. Isn't that why we have a tennis msg board?

tennischick
Nov 13th, 2002, 12:53 AM
but it was 5-3 at one point anyway tennispower, despite the bad call...Serena actually served for the first set -- and got broken! and didn't win another game in that set...

what then...??? :confused: