Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA - Page 10 - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com   Wagerline.com MensTennisForums.com TennisUniverse.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!
Reply

Old Jan 28th, 2013, 11:33 AM   #136
country flag Londoner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 3,672
Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute Londoner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

What is good for the WTA is to have a roster of players who are fit, focussed, dedicated, who play, and who try and maintain their dignity. I'm probably just getting older!
Londoner is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old Jan 28th, 2013, 11:39 AM   #137
country flag The Witch-king
Senior Member
 
The Witch-king's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 12,446
The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute The Witch-king has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by TZVETI83 View Post
You might not like some of the things she does on the court, some of her antics might annoy you and obviously she is a player that polarizes many but ultimately Vika Azarenka is good for the WTA. Its taken a long time for someone from the younger generation to step up and repeatedly be a threat at the slams, show some character. The girl had everyone personally attacking her and booing her yet she did not cave, she was not playing her best but she did what all the former great players have done in the past which is win trough heart and determination when their game fails them. That is a sign of a champion and sign that this girl is here to stay, like her or not the WTA finally has someone from the newer generation that is consistently good enough to pose a challenge. She is not a Wozniacki or a Ivanovic(nothing against them as I personally support Ivanovic), she will not let the pressure get to her. Finally someone who is not Serena, Justine, Venus, Kim, Maria showing some of that champion mentality that most of the younger generation lack. What worried me is that after those great players retire there will be nobody to carry the torch and its good to see someone like Azarenka, good for the sport, even if she is hated, most number ones are hated, Serena was hated, that is not a bad thing, it means most people see the champion in her, they see her as a threat. Like all great champions in the past, she plays every point like it was crucial for her to get the win and sometimes her attitude comes of as cocky and her antics rub people the wrong way but as Martina Navratilova, Hingis, Serena, Venus, Seles, and Maria will tell you, not being the crowd favorite or the most popular is not always a bad thing.
Jesus be some paragraphs
__________________
^^^^ for all my ladies
The Witch-king is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 11:42 AM   #138
country flag TZVETI83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,521
TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future TZVETI83 has a brilliant future
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cwiny Tyeka Cwer View Post
Jesus be some paragraphs
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.
TZVETI83 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 12:55 PM   #139
country flag ozza
Senior Member
 
ozza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,556
ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
It does very amusing when you are around that's for sure: it's Pattaya not Papaya. Yes, everybody who likes tennis is looking forward to these tournaments. And yes, nobody except of a the few who cheer for Azarenka found this AO amazing and better than what we see throughout the year elsewhere. I'm very realistic and tell it like it is. Slams are tournaments like any other, the only thing that sets them apart is prize money and number of points,not the quality of the play.
"Slams are tournaments like any other" is nonsense with regards to the debate on hand. How many people are watching grand slams compared to other events? The exposure is infinitely higher. When you talk about great players from the past, what is the first stat brought up - number of slams won. The top players are training to peak at grand slams.

If we believed you, that all tournaments are the same then why play the tough events anyway, I mean you may as well go and play and win 15 ITFs. I mean there all just tournaments right?

Grand Slams by definition are your biggest events, they mean more than your other events. You have more exposure, more media, more casual fans viewing than anywhere else. They are taking note of these events.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post
You'd better go as you have little to say. Just stay within the Vika circle who is trying to convince themselves that during last 2 weeks we've seen da best that tennis has to offer.
I don't know one Vika fan that thinks Vika was anywhere near her best the last 2 weeks. How you played doesn't matter at the end of the day. In 5 years is it remembered that Serena was injured on her way to quarter final defeat, all that is remembered is who won.

And this theory you somehow have that Vika's win is downgraded because her biggest challenge was Jamie Hampton. Right so Serena Williams run at 2012 Wimbledon means less because Zheng and Shvedova gave her a hard time, I mean many others would have done a better job on them surely? Maria's run at the French Open is meaningless because she struggled with Zakopalova and many others in the draw could have routined her as well I suppose?

It's not luck these players are coming through these matches and going on to win the event. Dealing with adversity is part of being a tennis player. Those who deal with it well, will be better off than those that don't.
ozza is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 01:32 PM   #140
country flag Cindy and Kate
Senior Member
 
Cindy and Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Entre humanoides de color
Posts: 4,416
Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozza View Post
"Slams are tournaments like any other" is nonsense with regards to the debate on hand. How many people are watching grand slams compared to other events? The exposure is infinitely higher. When you talk about great players from the past, what is the first stat brought up - number of slams won. The top players are training to peak at grand slams.

If we believed you, that all tournaments are the same then why play the tough events anyway, I mean you may as well go and play and win 15 ITFs. I mean there all just tournaments right?

Grand Slams by definition are your biggest events, they mean more than your other events. You have more exposure, more media, more casual fans viewing than anywhere else. They are taking note of these events.



I don't know one Vika fan that thinks Vika was anywhere near her best the last 2 weeks. How you played doesn't matter at the end of the day. In 5 years is it remembered that Serena was injured on her way to quarter final defeat, all that is remembered is who won.

And this theory you somehow have that Vika's win is downgraded because her biggest challenge was Jamie Hampton. Right so Serena Williams run at 2012 Wimbledon means less because Zheng and Shvedova gave her a hard time, I mean many others would have done a better job on them surely? Maria's run at the French Open is meaningless because she struggled with Zakopalova and many others in the draw could have routined her as well I suppose?

It's not luck these players are coming through these matches and going on to win the event. Dealing with adversity is part of being a tennis player. Those who deal with it well, will be better off than those that don't.
Spot on !
But as you are using here reason and logic, I am afraid you are wasting your time with this one, believe me. What can you argue with someone who says such nonsense as "Slams are just like any other tournament" because he/she doesn´t like the player who won it ?
Cindy and Kate is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 01:46 PM   #141
country flag tonybotz
Senior Member
 
tonybotz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,864
tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future tonybotz has a brilliant future
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Londoner View Post
What is good for the WTA is to have a roster of players who are fit, focussed, dedicated, who play, and who try and maintain their dignity. I'm probably just getting older!
totally agree. it seems dignity and integrity are rare commodities today.
__________________
"Maaaaaanger Baaaaaabieeeeees"
tonybotz is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:00 PM   #142
marineblue
Senior Member
 
marineblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,588
marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozza View Post
"Slams are tournaments like any other" is nonsense with regards to the debate on hand. How many people are watching grand slams compared to other events? The exposure is infinitely higher. When you talk about great players from the past, what is the first stat brought up - number of slams won. The top players are training to peak at grand slams.

If we believed you, that all tournaments are the same then why play the tough events anyway, I mean you may as well go and play and win 15 ITFs. I mean there all just tournaments right?

Grand Slams by definition are your biggest events, they mean more than your other events. You have more exposure, more media, more casual fans viewing than anywhere else. They are taking note of these events.


I don't know one Vika fan that thinks Vika was anywhere near her best the last 2 weeks. How you played doesn't matter at the end of the day. In 5 years is it remembered that Serena was injured on her way to quarter final defeat, all that is remembered is who won.

And this theory you somehow have that Vika's win is downgraded because her biggest challenge was Jamie Hampton. Right so Serena Williams run at 2012 Wimbledon means less because Zheng and Shvedova gave her a hard time, I mean many others would have done a better job on them surely? Maria's run at the French Open is meaningless because she struggled with Zakopalova and many others in the draw could have routined her as well I suppose?

It's not luck these players are coming through these matches and going on to win the event. Dealing with adversity is part of being a tennis player. Those who deal with it well, will be better off than those that don't.

Slams are no different from regular WTA events, they offer you the same players as any other WTA events. Also,the quality of play also is not different as you can see elsewhere. The exposure and rewards are higher but really that is the only thing that makes them stand apart. You are saying they are tough events, having seen the last one, you really think so? Please, at international events there were more challenging encounters than what was presented at the latest AO, as sad as it is.
As far as looking at players' career all of their achievements are mentioned,not only grand slams.


Yes, the performance at slams does matter, that is what attracts people in the end of the day. If a player wins slam in a unimpressive manner it is not a good advertisement for them and for the tournament as well. Serena's path at Wimbledon included 3 top 10 players (Azarenka,Kvitova and Radwanska) on her way to the title,somehow you 'forgot' to mention that. Sharapova's FO can be compared to Vika's AO however she did not benefit from opponent's injuries in a final.

It was luck which helped Azarenka get through the AO; compare the first set when Na was OK to the rest when she got injured. Did Vika cruise in the first? Not really,has she? It's clear that Li Na's injury helped her a lot to win. But if you prefer to overook that, your choice
marineblue is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:05 PM   #143
marineblue
Senior Member
 
marineblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,588
marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNCLESILAS View Post
Spot on !
But as you are using here reason and logic, I am afraid you are wasting your time with this one, believe me. What can you argue with someone who says such nonsense as "Slams are just like any other tournament" because he/she doesn´t like the player who won it ?
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.
marineblue is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:14 PM   #144
country flag stromatolite
Senior Member
 
stromatolite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 19,987
stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute
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.
It's one thing to say that a slamless #1 is still a legitimate #1 (in general I'd agree with that), but something altogether different to say that a slam is the same as any other tournament. Frankly that's ridiculous.

Winning a slam is much tougher than winning any other tournament because everybody wants to win a slam. The best players make a point of peaking at slams, whereas they are often less than fully motivated at other big tournaments (if they play at all). And successfully defending your title at a slam is a huge achievement, no matter who you beat on the way to the title.
stromatolite is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:25 PM   #145
marineblue
Senior Member
 
marineblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,588
marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by stromatolite View Post
It's one thing to say that a slamless #1 is still a legitimate #1 (in general I'd agree with that), but something altogether different to say that a slam is the same as any other tournament. Frankly that's ridiculous.

Winning a slam is much tougher than winning any other tournament because everybody wants to win a slam. The best players make a point of peaking at slams, whereas they are often less than fully motivated at other big tournaments (if they play at all). And successfully defending your title at a slam is a huge achievement, no matter who you beat on the way to the title.
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.
marineblue is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:33 PM   #146
country flag ozza
Senior Member
 
ozza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,556
ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Victoria Azarenka is good for the WTA

Quote:
Originally Posted by marineblue View Post

Slams are no different from regular WTA events, they offer you the same players as any other WTA events. Also,the quality of play also is not different as you can see elsewhere. The exposure and rewards are higher but really that is the only thing that makes them stand apart. You are saying they are tough events, having seen the last one, you really think so? Please, at international events there were more challenging encounters than what was presented at the latest AO, as sad as it is.
As far as looking at players' career all of their achievements are mentioned,not only grand slams.


Yes, the performance at slams does matter, that is what attracts people in the end of the day. If a player wins slam in a unimpressive manner it is not a good advertisement for them and for the tournament as well. Serena's path at Wimbledon 3 top 10 players (Azarenka,Kvitova and Radwanska) on her way to the title,somehow you 'forgot' to mention that. Sharapova's FO can be compared to Vika's AO however she did not benefit from opponent's injuries in a final.

It was luck which helped Azarenka get through the AO; compare the first set when Na was OK to the rest when she got injured. Did Vika cruise in the first? Not really,has she? It's clear that Li Na's injury helped her a lot to win. But if you prefer to overook that, your choice
Nonsense - slams are different from WTA events in how they are judged. The problem with your thinking is hardly anyone (outside of die hard fans) remembers events of high quality outside of majors. When you hear of the best matches of all time - how many non-grand slam matches are mentioned? And with good reason, grand slams are when the pressure is at it's highest, and the prize at its utmost. Was this Australian Open a classic - no, I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement with that. But all this somehow making Azarenka an unworthy champion is nonsense. Azarenka was better than the opponents she faced on the day, even if the stars did align for her, others did have the opportunity to step up and bring this higher level of tennis you mention, but they didn't.

Let's take another viewpoint. I imagine most people would be in agreement Serena played a higher level of tennis in winning Brisbane than Azarenka did in winning the Australian Open. Do you think Serena is satisfied with her Australian swing? Serena come to Australia to win the Australian Open, she won't have achieved her goals. Nearly unanimously Serena's Australian swing will be viewed as a disappointment, Azarenka's swing will be viewed as an overwhelming success.

I am not sure who you faced on your way to the title is remembered at all by the large majority of fans (especially casual fans). Is Sharapova's career grand slam looked down upon in public circles because of the level of opponents she faced on her way - no. The same is true of Federer's run to his French Open title. And these are very recent examples. Who you faced to win simply is not remembered years down the line, all is remember that you won.

"As far as looking at players' career all of their achievements are mentioned,not only grand slams." I would heavily dispute this in the eyes of the general public. How often do you hear total number of titles mentioned, rarely. It's only used if they are making a point to compare to a current players total number of titles. Players of the past are remembered for there number of grand slams first and foremost. When you hear a legend mentioned, her number of grand slams titles is not far behind. The other stats are more of an added on bonus.
ozza is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:39 PM   #147
country flag Cindy and Kate
Senior Member
 
Cindy and Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Entre humanoides de color
Posts: 4,416
Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute Cindy and Kate has a reputation beyond repute
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 don´t like Vika, that´s 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.

Last edited by Cindy and Kate : Jan 28th, 2013 at 02:52 PM.
Cindy and Kate is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:46 PM   #148
country flag ozza
Senior Member
 
ozza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,556
ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute ozza has a reputation beyond repute
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.
ozza is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 02:47 PM   #149
country flag stromatolite
Senior Member
 
stromatolite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 19,987
stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute stromatolite has a reputation beyond repute
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.

Last edited by stromatolite : Jan 28th, 2013 at 03:04 PM.
stromatolite is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28th, 2013, 03:01 PM   #150
marineblue
Senior Member
 
marineblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,588
marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute marineblue has a reputation beyond repute
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.
marineblue is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios