[marineblue]

Laurie, try this:
http://tennisnotebook.blogspot.com/2...a-barthel.html

or google : 'tennis notebook barthel' and the post should come up

[Mightymirza]

Good read.. I like Mona but comparing her serve to Pete's is bit

[pov]

Thanks. One thing that I don't see mentioned much about Barthel is that she has a well-rounded athleticism.

My rewording:

your father, formerly a very good shot putter, is responsible for your strength training. How good are you in the shot put?

Barthel (laughs): I actually tried it once and didn't do it properly. Otherwise, however, I did many things, from table tennis to hockey through to athletics - but no more shot put!

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by Mightymirza

I like Mona but comparing her serve to Pete's is bit

No one is comparing or equating the two players. It's just a case of stating the obvious that some players may remind one of others... which could even be because there is a deliberate connexion (the younger generation player may have very likely incorporated elements from the elder player - that's how tennis evolves: current players build on the foundation laid by past legends).

[Moo_21]

Nice interview

I think Barthel has all the ingredients to be a great player and she seems to have a really nice personality too. Definitely one of my favourite players right now!

[laurie]

Originally Posted by marineblue

Laurie, try this:
http://tennisnotebook.blogspot.com/2...a-barthel.html

or google : 'tennis notebook barthel' and the post should come up

I have read it now thanks.

Very good spot by the way, you mentioned in August 2011 that Mona Barthel may well be a player who develops later in her career. If I think back to players like Patrick Rafter, Amelie Mauresmo among others, players who want to play an attacking game have developed and matured later than assured baseliners (Boris Becker being an exception). It usually takes longer to perfect this type of game and get really confident. The best is probably yet to come.

[laurie]

Originally Posted by Raiden

No one is comparing or equating the two players. It's just a case of stating the obvious that some players may remind one of others... which could even be because there is a deliberate connexion (the younger generation player may have very likely incorporated elements from the elder player - that's how tennis evolves: current players build on the foundation laid by past legends).

I don't know if you saw the match against Kerber this evening? Barthel was serving for the match and found herself love 40 down after Angelique got hold of a couple of 2nd serves. Then Barthel still serves out the match winning 6 points in a row with strong serves and winners down the line, finishing the match with a slice serve ace down the T on matchpoint.

Who does that sort of play remind me of? Pete Sampras. Like you said, doesn't mean they play exactly like them but some players remind you of others.

[Raiden]

^ true

And yes I did see the match.

[BillFromRichmond]

This is a big match win for her. A thoroughly dominating performance.

[Vespertine69]

Nice interview and article, Laurie, thank you for sharing it. She comes across as a lovely, down to earth girl. I agree with the potential of Barthel, but obviously there is a long way to go for any emerging player if they are to reach their potential.

Not sure if it helps (if it seems unhelpful or you do not care then just ignore me and my interfering!) but I think you would benefit from tightening the writing up just a little. By this I mean avoiding some of the more complex sentences and making your words just a tiny bit more concise. It never hurts to write a great thing and then go back over it and try to rephrase yourself in fewer words. I think this is especially important with sports writing in terms of connecting with the audience and making for compelling reading. Also, you have a few instances (paragraph 8 I think) of having used "been" instead of "being".

Again, please ignore me if it's not helpful! I really enjoyed the article and I only say the above because I mentally edit anything I read, and figured it might be helpful to think about. Your passion, interest and knowledge certainly do come through, and really that is a lot more important than anything I've said about style/wording/etc. For instance, I read pretty much anything by Matt Cronin because he has interesting views and good access to players and what's going on... but his writing is not so great from a technical perspective and often full of typos. And he's a successful journalist, so I've probably just invalidated my entire point But I did enjoy your article, bottom line!

[BillFromRichmond]

Originally Posted by Vespertine69

Nice interview and article, Laurie, thank you for sharing it. She comes across as a lovely, down to earth girl. I agree with the potential of Barthel, but obviously there is a long way to go for any emerging player if they are to reach their potential.

Not sure if it helps (if it seems unhelpful or you do not care then just ignore me and my interfering!) but I think you would benefit from tightening the writing up just a little. By this I mean avoiding some of the more complex sentences and making your words just a tiny bit more concise. It never hurts to write a great thing and then go back over it and try to rephrase yourself in fewer words. I think this is especially important with sports writing in terms of connecting with the audience and making for compelling reading. Also, you have a few instances (paragraph 8 I think) of having used "been" instead of "being".

Again, please ignore me if it's not helpful! I really enjoyed the article and I only say the above because I mentally edit anything I read, and figured it might be helpful to think about. Your passion, interest and knowledge certainly do come through, and really that is a lot more important than anything I've said about style/wording/etc. For instance, I read pretty much anything by Matt Cronin because he has interesting views and good access to players and what's going on... but his writing is not so great from a technical perspective and often full of typos. And he's a successful journalist, so I've probably just invalidated my entire point But I did enjoy your article, bottom line!

I would argue that these suggestions are not necessarily a good thing. Writing and journalism has been dumbed down substantially in the last 20 years, which in the US I thinks speaks to the dumbing down of our entire society and education system. We're all in a race to the bottom and personally I think it sucks.

[laurie]

Vespertine69

I have published just over 30 articles in a 18 months myself and to be honest I am quite satisfied with what I’ve done so far. Self editing is a rigorous process, no one will write something up and publish without checking. You will read books with typos or errors, you will see errors in magazines, newspapers, internet; that’s after the editing process and its quite normal. It is sometimes tricky for me when to write “being” or “been” which I will double check later - but in the context of everything I have written I am happy with my self editing process.

Of course when I submit an article to an editor to be published in a publication, they are free to change it and edit as they see fit, which is why they get paid the bigger bucks.

But more importantly, the intention of this blog is to approach tennis from a slightly different angle; I am interested in technical stuff, tactics and the direction the game is going. I try to get the balance between explaining technical or tactical stuff but in a manner people comprehend so it doesn’t become a ramble (it is quite easy to descend into ramble). A lot of mainstream journalists go into clichés and look at a player from a populist perspective, which is something I don’t like and I hope my blog reflects that, I want to look at a players’ game in more detail and not just superficially, there is enough of that going on already.

[rnwerner]

Gamewise she is the probably one of the best players under 24.

She plays effortless, sensational attacking tennis.

But she shows us several problems as well:
Defense, mentality, training situation.

All in all, she will have huge success but bitter losses from time to time.

Gamewise she can beat anybody (except Serena).

[Vespertine69]

Just to clarify as I feel a touch misinterpreted above: I wasn't suggesting lowering the intellectual complexity of the article, or reducing its observational and technical scope, and definitely not "dumbing" it down in any way. Like I said, it was just supposed to be helpful advice - if none is wanted then feel free to ignore. I'm not just posting because I randomly have a view and want to inflict it on people; I posted because I have done quite a lot of editing and proofing, alongside some publishing of my own work, and I genuinely felt I could offer a helpful set of eyes. I liked the article and could see the amount of work that has gone in to it. I know when I write something and put my time and dedication in, I definitely miss things, and I am very happy to hear from anyone who spots a mistake or potential improvement. Everything that an editor DOESN'T have to fix for you will make your work more desirable and valued in the future because they are very busy and they miss things too!

[laurie]

I think we are starting to get carried away a bit here. When I said submitting an article to an editor and he sees fit to edit how he wants, clearly I meant the content not spelling mistakes or grammatical errors; no one will send an article to an editor full of mistakes....

For instance, last year Eurosport published one of my articles, I wrote it in a certain way, and the editor moved my text around for impact, statements I made in certain parts of the article, he moved closer to the top, that's the editor's prerogative. And that is what I was referring to.

But I think it is time to drop this now and just focus on the message of my article, which is a positive one I feel.