Originally Posted by Siderophyre
Hmmmm. Nurse Jackie is probably one of my favourite shows - love her. But do you really think she's nice underneath?! She has fucked over everyone - her husband, her lover, her best friend. She's put her kids at risk having drugs stashed around the house, she's put patients at risk by treating them while doped up. Makes for great TV, but I don't think she's nice underneath - I think she's a cast iron bitch!
Strange about the censoring you mentioned - I probably swear worse than anyone on here and I don't think I've ever been censored...
It's odd, and I cannot find anything on the Internet about it; maybe it's a TF codename for something sinister.
But on Jackie - I still would call her nice underneath. (But maybe kind
is a better word...)
I think she is an intrinsically nice person, who just has a lot of things going on that compound her addictions and dysfunctional tendencies. She has morals - she treats patients who deserve her care with the utmost respect, and really guides them.
But yes, she does have her fair share of problems; her dysfunctions, no matter how compounded by her life, is not excusable. Also, it would not make as good a T.V show in many ways if she didn't have these problems, as you say.
I don't think she is a cast iron bitch, but she isn't as "really nice" as I first said.
Originally Posted by stromatolite
You may well be right. Remember that Sam lost quite badly to Serena in Toronto, and was thrashed by Maria in Cincinnatti, but was able to turn it around in style in her very next matches against them. And like her Cincy loss against Maria, Sam played an atrocious match against Vika in Istanbul (which is not to take anything away from Vika, who as you said was in great form, but she didn't really have to do much to beat Sam that day), so there's a lot of room for improvement. Good observation about Sam tailoring her game to her opponent. This has been one of the most impressive features of her play lately: she has gone into matches with a specific game plan, and more often than not has executed it well. I think Dave deserves a lot of credit for that, I think he does most of the research, and he has come up with some pretty bold and imaginative plans (like peppering Petra with kick serves, the area in which most "experts" were expecting Sam to get hammered).
I always thought that was the way to go with Petra - from what I saw in the match and at the AO this year, whenever Sam got a forehand, no matter how short or shanked it was, it gave Petra some trouble. The topspin might explain why she consistently struggled for timing against Sam's kick and FH.
Another ploy she did pretty well that will be good against Petra in the future is defending and to keep getting the ball back. Petra relies upon her winners and serve most of all - if you take that away from her, she can get very
streaky. But Sam also cannot fall into the trap of purely defending; her attack would be crucial to throwing Petra off at key times. (Set point in the first set at YEC comes to mind.)
Originally Posted by Siderophyre
She didn't complain about it herself, but I think Sam got fucked over in the scheduling for that Vika match. I think she needed more time to prepare - I don't mean from a fitness perspective (obviously!), but mentally. (Same with Osaka having to play 2 matches on the same day.) As you say her play was appalling against Vika. I expect much, much better in their next match.
She did get the short-end of the stick with her scheduling, that wasn't fair on Sam.
And that is an interesting argument I hadn't thought of before; I always thought Sam would be one of the best at backing up really quickly - but as her intensity and mentality still isn't as consistently
world class as Marion's (Osaka) and Victoria's (YEC) that might have gone against her.