PDA

View Full Version : Giving pretty people the benefit of the doubt


HellanSpicen
Mar 21st, 2003, 04:42 PM
Anna made the semifinals when she was 16 now she is 21. I know some people peak earlier then others. She made it to a couple of finals
and loss. People are always giving her the benefit of the doubt. If she wasn't cute and had the same results. We all would be say she was just a fluke. She only made to to the finals a couple of times. People are still holding onto a great Anna surprise. She couldn't beat the top players then and she can't beat then now. I heard someone say the she has the great body of a atlethe. What you guys are really so is the perfect specimen of what people who hope or envision to be a star sports figure. Just like Capriati if you really have the talent, it will come thorough. Anna didn't look like a gram slam champion before and she sure isn't one now. Her best possible career result would be like a Chanda Rubin. A great player to win some tournments and can produce great tennis in spurts. I'll give Chanda the benefit of the doubt a say it's not totally out of the possiblity of her snaking through and winning a title. Her mental frame is way better then Anna's. Anna in her prime couldn't beat Venus and Serena. She would break down mentally.
Anna past or present only willl have a career of player like Megann Shaghnessy or any other player constantly making it thourgh the round of 16 or the quaterfinals. This was her resluts before the injurys and after(at her best). Get real people Grand Slam champs should have never been utter by her name.

She's the better prototype of what sponsors and WTA would love to have if she was a great champion. All those crowds who come and cheer her are cheering for personality and beauty.

Keith
Mar 21st, 2003, 05:17 PM
Good looking people have a distinct advantage in life. This is a fact.

irma
Mar 21st, 2003, 05:19 PM
:sad:

venusfan
Mar 21st, 2003, 05:22 PM
Anna will recover to win the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open...

Leena
Mar 21st, 2003, 05:26 PM
We all know attractive people have a distinct advantage in life. I know first hand, because I've lived it... being previously overweight... and people treat me much different today simply because I'm "pretty". That explains why I have such little respect for people... but I digrees.

I disagree about Anna. I wouldn't say Anna was a fluke. She didn't lose to ANYONE ranked below in the late 90's, and racked up quite a few Top 10 wins. She was consistent every tournament... so you could hardly say she was a fluke.

selesrules
Mar 21st, 2003, 05:37 PM
Stop hating on Anna. :mad: You people make me sick. :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: Everywhere I turn, people are putting down Anna, it's pathetic. :mad:

Crazy Canuck
Mar 21st, 2003, 05:41 PM
I don't think that Anna's career will end up being as good as Chanda Rubins.

Gandalf
Mar 21st, 2003, 05:50 PM
It would have been a fluke if she had only made a GS semifinal and nothing more, but she had a lot of good wins in '97 through '00. Does people still have faith in her because she's pretty? Surely they do, but if you saw her playing back then you would know that she had a very pretty game, with a lot of variety, and that's why some of her fans are still waiting for her form to come back.

It's unfair that people turn up more for pretty players, but surely beauty is not responsible for it all. If that was the case, Barabanchikova and Dementieva would have half the fans Anna has.

▀coene
Mar 21st, 2003, 06:48 PM
I disagree about Anna. I wouldn't say Anna was a fluke. She didn't lose to ANYONE ranked below in the late 90's, and racked up quite a few Top 10 wins. She was consistent every tournament... so you could hardly say she was a fluke.

I agree with this.

I don't expect Anna to win Grand Slams suddenly but it's not creazy to hope she gets her old form.

YES she gets more attention but that doesn't take away she had good years in the beginning of her career.

▀coene
Mar 21st, 2003, 06:51 PM
Being pretty also has disadvantages, not that I can speak of it.

Dava
Mar 21st, 2003, 06:56 PM
Look yes Anna is not doing so well, but the advantages are minimal compared to Mirjana Lucic. She is ranked outside the top 200 yet she still makes the draw for tier 1 and 2 events.

Don't get me wrong about Jana, I liker her, I think she will be coming nearer the top soon.

But lets face it would Maria Sharapova or Olga Barabanshikova get all this excitment around them if they were nothing like Anna.

Don;t get me wrong about Anna, as a fan of her I would personally like her to enter a lot more tier 3 and 4's as I think she needs to work her ranking up from that perspective. But she is not the only one who benefits from her commitment ranking, or her good lucks.

▀coene
Mar 21st, 2003, 06:56 PM
Maybe some people would have been able to fight back after injuries but you can't disagree that she was in the top 10 in 2000 and that she has dropped in the rankings afterwards because of a foot injury. She almost dropped out the top-100. She has been able to climb back in the ranking (no top 20) but she hasn't found her best game on a consistent base. She also had several injuries after 2000, it doesn't make it easier.

HellanSpicen
Mar 21st, 2003, 09:38 PM
My point is that Anna pre-injury or post injury in terms of Grand Slams and big Tier 1 events only has the game to advance only so far. Like i said before Anna at her best can only get to the round of 16 or the quaterfinal. I know some people come back from injurys better then others, but Chanda has had too knee surgery. Chanda is also a player who wins in spurts. Her talent usually gets her very far when she plays,Chanda came back from injury and won eastbourne her first tournment.. Chanda is better mentally then Anna is, of course. Anna was a player who would get to the semifinals then go out the first round the next tournments. When Anna was at the eight ranking. She still would have these type of results. A quarterfinal here then a first round loss. She's a good player,but many of your guys are overstating her talents. Lisa Raymond has won a couple of tournments, hell even i think she is less talented then Anna. Anna star shined so bright that it blinded everyone
iinto believe she's better then she actually is. She's a beautiful player/person who tennis skills is more on the level of a consistent quarterfinalist then a grand slam star. She's not a player to put it all together for a full tournment win in a competitive high profile event.

GrahamD
Mar 21st, 2003, 09:55 PM
.....and don't forget Daniela, the most stunningly beautiful woman to have ever walked this planet AND who has won a Tier 1 event.

Not quite sure what has gone wrong since, if indeed it has gone wrong, but she has time on her side to keep on improving and the talent to do so.

spencercarlos
Mar 21st, 2003, 10:13 PM
She couldn't beat the top players then and she can't beat then now.


I┤m sorry to disagree you in 97-98 period she beat

Amanda Coetzer
Arantxa Sanchez
Anke Huber
Iva Majoli
Monica Seles
Conchita Martinez
Lindsay Davenport
Martina Hingis
Amelie Mauresmo*
Steffi Graf

They were top players for my concern, i dunno yours :o
Mauresmo not top ten player but still a good win.

Jennifer's wife
Mar 21st, 2003, 10:14 PM
i think that being pretty for Anna has been a disadvantage. i think the other career options and media attention due to her marketable, commodified image has not helped her tennis. there are plenty of dissadvantages to being good looking: girls hate u for no reason, men sleaze over u all the time and people are so ready to critisize if u put on a little weight or get a zit or whatever. at least plain looking people retain their annonimity

▀coene
Mar 21st, 2003, 10:15 PM
Maybe some people are overstating her talent, I don't think I do. Number 8 is her best ranking. I think she belong in the top 15. I don't think she should be winning Grand Slams.

So I agree with some things you say. I don't agree that she had inconsistent results before 2001.

In 1998 she lost three times in the first match of a tournemant. (Dominique Van Roost, Monica Seles, Silvia Farina)
In 1999 she lost three times in the first match of a tournemant. (Silvia Farina, Mary Joe Fernandez, Justine Henin)
In 2000 she lost two times in the first match of a tournemant. (Gala Leon Garcia, Kim Clijsters)
She didn't loose that often in the first match and certainly not against nobodies.

Also it's impossible to get to number 8 without winning a tournemant and with inconsistent results.
Anna Pistolesi won 4 tournemants last year and didn't reach so high.