TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Jan 29th, 2013 05:14 AM
Patoranking
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by TZVETI83 View Post
Your criticizing me and can't even write, this is a blog not english literature. Call me when you can read, speak and write in 6 other languages.
Girl, what's the point of being able to write all those languages if reading what you write is a fucking chore
Jan 28th, 2013 03:44 PM
ozza
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
You are the one who is coming up with bullshit here. Slam victories are great but not more important than other titles. Heck,even after winning a Hopman Cup AMG said she was as happy as if she won a slam,so it clearly meant a lot to her.
But I see that you will always go with your theory,well, your choice. Not everyone has to agree and no matter how much you are trying to patronise me I won't change my opinion.
Again you are just trying to cloud the argument. Of course Medina Garrigues is going to say that. She will know in her heart of hearts she has next to no chance of ever winning a grand slam. It's easy to say a throwaway statement like that if you have no chance of winning grand slams.

And you were right - people are entitled to their opinions. But "Slam victories are great but not more important than other titles." isn't an opinion. It's factually incorrect.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:39 PM
ozza
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
I don't care if you agree with me or not. I am entitled to my opinion,so your 'explanations' are what I don't agree with. As far as what everyone is waiting for, you don't know that. I don't just follow slams so I am waiting for any event where I see players I like to watch. Greatness is not defined by slams only,but by the entire career of a player. Some players who won slams therefore haven't received as much respect because people just see the entire picture.
At any tournament luck is also playing a role. So yes, it's possible to get lucky and go all the way at a slam just as it is elsewhere. When in a final a player is getting beaten and then their opponent gets injured and it affects their play it is simply luck. Be real.
What about getting to the final? Was that all luck as well?

Also it's worth noting because it seems to be a forgotten point by some. Li was 1-3 in the 2nd set at the point she went over on her ankle. People act like Li was for sure going to win the match. The reality - she was the outsider to win the match at this point with bookmakers.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:27 PM
stegall
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
You are the one who is coming up with bullshit here. Slam victories are great but not more important than other titles. Heck,even after winning a Hopman Cup AMG said she was as happy as if she won a slam,so it clearly meant a lot to her.
But I see that you will always go with your theory,well, your choice. Not everyone has to agree and no matter how much you are trying to patronise me I won't change my opinion.
If slams are no more important than other titles then why do we have slams at all? They are called Grand Slams precisely because they are more prestigious than other titles. That's like saying a regular season NFL win is equivalent to winning the superbowl. Regular tournaments are still very important but the ultimate goal is the slams.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:24 PM
stromatolite
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNCLESILAS View Post
Had this feeling all along we were wasting our time.
I concur. Marineblue, believe whatever you want to believe, it's all fine by me
Jan 28th, 2013 03:22 PM
Cindy and Kate
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Had this feeling all along we were wasting our time (while being sooo embarrasing to watch) But thatīs OK, no harm done.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:21 PM
marineblue
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by stromatolite View Post
Really? ....... Really????? I guess you don't read too many interviews.

And stop already with this bullshit about players dismissing their regular tour victories. Nobody said anything of the kind, this is just you making a straw man to kick down. The point is not that other titles are not important, simply that slam victories are much more important. Ozza made the point perfectly when he said that, even though Serena was undoubtedly pleased with her Brisbane title, all in all she will be much less satisfied with her Aussie season than Vika is.
You are the one who is coming up with bullshit here. Slam victories are great but not more important than other titles. Heck,even after winning a Hopman Cup AMG said she was as happy as if she won a slam,so it clearly meant a lot to her.
But I see that you will always go with your theory,well, your choice. Not everyone has to agree and no matter how much you are trying to patronise me I won't change my opinion.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:16 PM
marineblue
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNCLESILAS View Post
I see you are not winning many adepts. Both the last posters, Ozza and Stromatolite, explain it perfectly. Ok, so you have your faves and donīt like Vika, thatīs all right; but never let your personal tastes make you biased in your opinions and lose your objectivity. Slams are the events that everybody is waiting for: players, press, sponsors.. When you say someone is one of the greatest ever, it is usually backed with the number of Slam titles won by that particular player. Another matter altogether, is that a Slam final may turn out to be of more or less quality. This is so obvious that is almost embarrasing to explain it. And another thing: one is never, never lucky when winning a GS, regardless of how much you like or dislike the player who wins it. As a tennis fan, you should know all this.
I don't care if you agree with me or not. I am entitled to my opinion,so your 'explanations' are what I don't agree with. As far as what everyone is waiting for, you don't know that. I don't just follow slams so I am waiting for any event where I see players I like to watch. Greatness is not defined by slams only,but by the entire career of a player. Some players who won slams therefore haven't received as much respect because people just see the entire picture.
At any tournament luck is also playing a role. So yes, it's possible to get lucky and go all the way at a slam just as it is elsewhere. When in a final a player is getting beaten and then their opponent gets injured and it affects their play it is simply luck. Be real.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:15 PM
ozza
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
Now you are just making things up. I never read an interview with a player where they'd say anything of this kind. The only player I can think of who kind of had such attitude was Serena and even she did win numerous PM5 and premier events. As for Caro, she'd sell her soul for her BF, I guess, but not for a slam. There's hardly a player who would dismiss tour events and their victories because it was at non-slam stages. For instance, when Heather Watson won the smallest type of event of the tour, the international tournament, she made national news in UK. It's only in TFs imagination that such victory would not matter much or that Watson would not give it her best shot to win.
Now your just trying to cover up with nonsense. Of course the UK press will go mad over Heather Watson winning a WTA event. No Brit had won a WTA event in 24 years. We have no slam contenders right now. Watson is at the beginning of her career building her experience on the tour. Is one of her realistic goals in 2013 to win a grand slam - of course not. This is just clouding the subject. The top players goals are a lot different to the players coming through.

And you are missing the point. It's not a matter of top players not caring about non-slam events. It's a matter of aiming to peak for certain events. No player plays at 100% of their level all year every year, it's not possible. Just like olympians aim to peak at the olympics. Using your logic, Usain Bolt not winning the Jamaican National Championships was as important as him winning at the Olympics.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:15 PM
StoneRose
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by stromatolite View Post
Really? ....... Really????? I guess you don't read too many interviews.

And stop already with this bullshit about players dismissing their regular tour victories. Nobody said anything of the kind, this is just you making a straw man to kick down. The point is not that other titles are not important, simply that slam victories are much more important. Ozza made the point perfectly when he said that, even though Serena was undoubtedly pleased with her Brisbane title, all in all she will be much less satisfied with her Aussie season than Vika is.
This. Also ozza and UNCLESILAS posts.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:13 PM
stromatolite
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
Now you are just making things up. I never read an interview with a player where they'd say anything of this kind. The only player I can think of who kind of had such attitude was Serena and even she did win numerous PM5 and premier events. As for Caro, she'd sell her soul for her BF, I guess, but not for a slam. There's hardly a player who would dismiss tour events and their victories because it was at non-slam stages. For instance, when Heather Watson won the smallest type of event of the tour, the international tournament, she made national news in UK. It's only in TFs imagination that such victory would not matter much or that Watson would not give it her best shot to win.
Really? ....... Really????? I guess you don't read too many interviews.

And stop already with this bullshit about players dismissing their regular tour victories. Nobody said anything of the kind, this is just you making a straw man to kick down. The point is not that other titles are not important, simply that slam victories are much more important. Ozza made the point perfectly when he said that, even though Serena was undoubtedly pleased with her Brisbane title, all in all she will be much less satisfied with her Aussie season than Vika is.
Jan 28th, 2013 03:01 PM
marineblue
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by stromatolite View Post
Um, let's see, maybe it's from the fact that it's what all the players say. Well, maybe Caro is a bit coy about saying that, given her sensitivity about being a slamless #1, but deep in her heart even she'd sell her soul for a slam title just like all the others.
Now you are just making things up. I never read an interview with a player where they'd say anything of this kind. The only player I can think of who kind of had such attitude was Serena and even she did win numerous PM5 and premier events. As for Caro, she'd sell her soul for her BF, I guess, but not for a slam. There's hardly a player who would dismiss tour events and their victories because it was at non-slam stages. For instance, when Heather Watson won the smallest type of event of the tour, the international tournament, she made national news in UK. It's only in TFs imagination that such victory would not matter much or that Watson would not give it her best shot to win.
Jan 28th, 2013 02:47 PM
stromatolite
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
Again, slams are the same as any other events and the only thing that sets them apart are the rewards and the size of promotion. Apart from that you can see good and bad matches there as well as anywhere else.
At other events players had much tougher runs than we sometimes see at slams. And don't tell me players try to win only at slams and don't do their best elsewhere. I don't know where you get it from that everyone tries to peak at there and neglect everything else. Players themselves say how important is to be consistent so that does hardly suggest they'd not be motivated to do well at other events as well as they are at slams. Successfully defending a slam facing no big challenges doesn't stand out I'm afraid. The size of the tournament just does not make up for uninteresting matches.
Um, let's see, maybe it's from the fact that it's what all the players say. Well, maybe Caro is a bit coy about saying that, given her sensitivity about being a slamless #1, but deep in her heart even she'd sell her soul for a slam title just like all the others.

Btw, I never said that players always neglect to play well at other tournaments, just that, if they only have enough fuel in the tank for one really good tournament in a given period, they'll always save their fuel for the slam.
Jan 28th, 2013 02:46 PM
ozza
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
Again, slams are the same as any other events and the only thing that sets them apart are the rewards and the size of promotion. Apart from that you can see good and bad matches there as well as anywhere else.
At other events players had much tougher runs than we sometimes see at slams. And don't tell me players try to win only at slams and don't do their best elsewhere. I don't know where you get it from that everyone tries to peak at there and neglect everything else. Players themselves say how important is to be consistent so that does hardly suggest they'd not be motivated to do well at other events as well as they are at slams. Successfully defending a slam facing no big challenges doesn't stand out I'm afraid. The size of the tournament just does not make up for uninteresting matches.
Aiming to peak at grand slams does not mean neglecting everything else though. You won't peak at a grand slam if you go in with 5 round 1 losses in a row. It is important to be consistent for many reasons. For a few - winning breeds habit, if you're not winning on the tour - you will likely not be full of confidence. Confidence is very important in tennis. Second you build up your mental edge (aura) by being consistent. If you capitulated in the 3rd set a couple of times, other players on tour will take note of this. There are many examples on tour of players with huge mental holds over another.

To say that successfully defending a slam doesn't stand out. Who were these big challenges Vika missed out on? Didn't they all lose to players she beat? She held up her end of the bargain, it's not her fault her biggest rivals were nowhere to be seen. Azarenka was the one who took advantage of the situation that was presented. It's not by chance this happened - why else have 10 of the last 11 big events been taken by 3 players? Because they cash in on the opportunites presented.
Jan 28th, 2013 02:39 PM
Cindy and Kate
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
I always had this opinion and it has nothing to do with Azarenka. I also cheer for Ana Ivanovic who has won French Open and I loved the Belgians.
I see you are not winning many adepts. Both the last posters, Ozza and Stromatolite, explain it perfectly. Ok, so you have your faves and donīt like Vika, thatīs all right; but never let your personal tastes make you biased in your opinions and lose your objectivity. Slams are the events that everybody is waiting for: players, press, sponsors.. When you say someone is one of the greatest ever, it is usually backed with the number of Slam titles won by that particular player. Another matter altogether, is that a Slam final may turn out to be of more or less quality. This is so obvious that is almost embarrasing to explain it. And another thing: one is never, never lucky when winning a GS, regardless of how much you like or dislike the player who wins it. As a tennis fan, you should know all this.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome