[lefty24]

Guys you can't hate on his hair. It's his "power"

[JadeFox]

Originally Posted by gc-spurs

Dw, we still gonna be hating all over his hair.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Monheaux

I still think he's a rubbish BB bench warmer, with at best mediocre looks.
h:

Denial is such a sad thing to see.

[kimgurl]

Originally Posted by JadeFox

Denial is such a sad thing to see.

[Marilyn Monheaux]

Originally Posted by JadeFox

Denial is such a sad thing to see.

[MM_1257]

http://gregcouch.com/2011/06/30/wimb...top/#more-1374

[MM_1257]

http://www.tennischannel.com/news/Ne...px?newsid=9373

[pokey camp]

Originally Posted by Maja12

http://www.tennischannel.com/news/Ne...px?newsid=9373

How can it be a streak when she's only played a younger player in a GS final once? A one match streak? Okay...

[franny]

Originally Posted by pokey camp

How can it be a streak when she's only played a younger player in a GS final once? A one match streak? Okay...

Wow that was a very sloppy article by Matt Cronin. In addition to that ridiculous "streak could be over comment" (what streak?), he had the following gems:

"Ana Ivanovic played a fair match against Sharapova in her first major final at the 2008 Australian Open, but played a far better contest in her second appearance five months later when she won her sole major at Roland Garros." I'm pretty sure Ana's first final appearance was in Roland Garros 2007.

"Sometimes, experience matters, other times, players are blessed with the ignorance of inexperience. Kvitova’s hoping for the former rather than the latter." Really? I'm pretty sure you mean she's hopping for the latter rather than the former.

[pokey camp]

^^Wow. I started skimming after the first paragraph. Looks like I made the right decision.

A fairly annoying (even if somewhat true) take on the importance of Maria’s return to the big stage and what it means to the American "casual fan":

She waited through shoulder surgery in the summer of 2008. Through the ensuing layoff that lasted until spring of 2009. And through 1,001 grunts, screams and cries of "Come on!" It's taken her awhile, but Maria Sharapova has finally battled her way back to Grand Slam relevancy.

And thank goodness.

Not just for her. For us, too.

Without Sharapova, the casual tennis fan in this country wouldn't have a clue about the women's finalists at Wimbledon this year. Heck, we barely know who the best men's players are these days, outside of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. The women's side? I challenge you, Mr. or Ms. Casual Fan, to come up with the names, much less the bios, of the three Wimbledon semifinalists not named Sharapova.
That's not a knock on the talent level of the players. It's just an observation about who is moving the needle right now.

A quick scan of BusinessWeek's 100 most powerful athletes of 2011 shows there are no tennis players of any gender in the Top 10. Nadal had one of the most successful seasons in history and he actually fell in the rankings, from 11th to 16th. Meanwhile, the most powerful American tennis player hasn't played much tennis in a year and turns 30 in a few months, which is pretty old for this sport. I love Serena Williams -- and her sister -- but tennis won't be able to depend on them very much longer because, well, they won't be around very much longer.

If you thought America's interest in tennis waned when Andre Agassi retired, wait until those two go.

The Williams sisters' popularity boosts the prime-time broadcasts of the U.S. Open women's final when one (or both) of them are playing, according to Nielsen. It snagged a 7.2 rating in 2002 when Serena beat Venus in straight sets. But those kinds of numbers are as good as over now, unless a new, marketable face can come in and take their place. Last year's final between Kim Clijsters and Vera Zvonareva drew a 1.9, and that was an upgrade from 1.1 in 2009 for Clijsters' match against the current No. 1 player in the world, Caroline Wozniacki.

Speaking of Wozniacki, BusinessWeek listed her as one of the top five athletes to watch this year. She's obviously talented -- and attractive -- but she still hasn't won a major title. America likes to root for the underdog; but when you're the No. 1 player in the world and you can't win the big one, you aren't an underdog.

You're a loser.

And America hates those.

Which is why women's tennis needs Sharapova to play well at Wimbledon and then keep on playing well, especially in the Slams. The more she shines in the biggest moments, the more we'll tune in to see her. She was born in Russia, yes, and -- when she plays in it -- she competes for Russia in the Federation Cup; but her game, her brand, her story is all America. Sharapova and her father arrived in Florida when she was 7; they didn't speak English and had $700 to their name. That she's become an international superstar after that start is the kind of narrative we love, which might help explain the 3.2 rating she drew when she beat Justine Henin to win the U.S. Open in 2006. That's the highest-rated women's final (not featuring Serena) at the Open since 2002.

That number isn't great, but it might be something to build on.

Because she's only 24, there's time to build a sport around her. And considering that Nike reportedly just signed her to a $70 million deal, I'm obviously not the only one who thinks so.

But she's got to win so her popularity isn't just based on camera commercials, short skirts and long blonde hair. Those things aren't going to help tennis. They'll help her bank account -- Anna Kournikova, anyone? -- but not the sport. And it's tennis' popularity in America that really needs a bailout.

More at the source.

[Maria Croft]

America likes to root for the underdog; but when you're the No. 1 player in the world and you can't win the big one, you aren't an underdog.

You're a loser.

Oh dear, that was mean.

Funny how they talk about how important it is for tennis for Maria to play well and win, but don't even mention once how important it would be for herself. In the end, that's all she cares about. What winning would mean to herself.

[Mr.Sharapova]

^ Well said about Wozniacki .

[perseus2006]

No, it wasn't well said about Woz.

It was mean hearted, ignorant and cruel. Perhaps the author needs a little education on how the Ranking system works and what it means. Perhaps he needs to learn how to market Women's Tennis. Perhaps he needs to learn how to do research for his articles. It's clear he needs to learn how to be respectful.

I totally disagree with the author's pontification on things he knows nothing about.

[Mr.Sharapova]

^ A 1# player on WTA needs to be the favorite in every slam she enters right, or one of the three main contenders? When was Caroline considered as the favorite to win a slam since she's been 1# ?

[Break My Rapture]

Wow. I can't believe a grown up thinks it's justifyable to talk like that. I admit I dislike Woz but that was flat-out arrogant.

[JadeFox]

The Fail is strong in that article.

As a Wozniacki fan I'll admit to bias but I think the harshness is less about her Grand Slam results and more about being butthurt about her success coming at the expense of Americans. Whens she became number one she was replacing Serena. And don't forget she was the one who popped the Oudin Beleive bubble at the 2009 US Open.

And I don't give a fuck what this guy thinks of Maria's resurgance being good for women's tennis. I still remember how almost two years ago when Maria lost to Melanie, to the American press she became just another Russian. And now I'm hearing Ted Robinson and company trying to make the age old "She's not really Russian!" argument again during her semifinal. What a bunch of phonies.