Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
350 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Call me petty if you want but the Clijsters-Henin final was overall a dull affair. I'm sure their future meetings will have more intensity but now the fans of both Belgian players know what it feels like to have a lacklustre final. I think that some people will now realise that "uneventful" GS finals aren't restricted to the Williams sisters' matches though many who dislike Venus and Serena, for a myriad of reasons, would like people to think that it is.

The bottom line is that whether they are your favourites or not, Clijsters wasn't up to scratch today and that made for a boring final. It resembled Venus beating Serena at the 2001 US Open (or Hingis trouncing Pierce at the 1997 Australian Open) but Serena and Mary at least didn't get bagelled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
Agree with every point about the way it turned out. With the Berlin final in the back of my mind I just knew a great final would be possible too, and for many people the prospect of having someone not named Williams must have been nice.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
350 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
great smash said:
Agree with every point about the way it turned out. With the Berlin final in the back of my mind I just knew a great final would be possible to, and for many people the prospect of having someone not named Williams must have been nice.
I thoroughly comprehend that people were fed up with seeing someone other than a Williams sister win a GS title. I remember in the past that as much as I love Graf, I was a bit tired of seeing her dominate. However, it was a good revelation today for those who dislike the Williams sisters for whatever reason that even players like the highly respected Clijsters and Henin are capable of producing boring finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
As I said somewhere else, one-sided Grand Slam finals are nothing new in women's tennis no matter who's in them. I find the all-Williams finals boring because of who's in them, not because of the quality of them (which has improved considerably, the AO final this year was played in atmospheric indoor conditions which considerably heightened the drama). And since we're likely to have plenty more all-Williams finals, whereas this all-Belgian final was something of a rarity, the sheer quantity will be enough to continue to label them boring.
 

·
psychotic banana
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
Yes, the Williams are not the only one capable of producing boring tennis in finals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
1jackson2001 said:
Yes, the Williams are not the only one capable of producing boring tennis in finals.
I was fully aware (and afraid) of the fact it could turn into a dull match, but besides of course being Belgian, and happy about a certifed Belgian victory.

However it seems to me it's always nice when someone will win their first grand slam. To me that's a reason to still prefer this match over another Williams match up, even had it been between let's say Mauresmo and Dokic. Has nothing to do with the quality of the Williams matches to be, because that has indeed been improving.

Something new, isn't that wat people always want in the end?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
350 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hendouble said:
As I said somewhere else, one-sided Grand Slam finals are nothing new in women's tennis no matter who's in them. I find the all-Williams finals boring because of who's in them, not because of the quality of them (which has improved considerably, the AO final this year was played in atmospheric indoor conditions which considerably heightened the drama). And since we're likely to have plenty more all-Williams finals, whereas this all-Belgian final was something of a rarity, the sheer quantity will be enough to continue to label them boring.
What gives you the confidence to say that this all Belgian final was a rarity? The prediction, on this board at least, is that the domination has changed hands. I suppose we'll have to wait to see what happens in London for further speculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
If this had happened at a fast-court Grand Slam, I would certainly be saying that domination had changed hands, but until the Williamses, or at least one of them (most likely Venus) start getting defeated at Wimbledon and the US Open, all-Williams finals are still going to be far more prevalent than finals between other players. Clay is after all the surface where the Williamses are least effective - match Serena up against Henin result for result and you can see that the Belgian is the better player on this surface. But clay is a relatively small part of the tour, whereas American hardcourt is the major playing surface.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
350 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
great smash said:
I was fully aware (and afraid) of the fact it could turn into a dull match, but besides of course being Belgian, and happy about a certifed Belgian victory.

However it seems to me it's always nice when someone will win their first grand slam. To me that's a reason to still prefer this match over another Williams match up, even had it been between let's say Mauresmo and Dokic. Has nothing to do with the quality of the Williams matches to be, because that has indeed been improving.

Something new, isn't that wat people always want in the end?
I partially agree. It's always nice to have new GS champions (one a year is sufficient for me as a tennis fan) but at the same time I want my favourite to continue to accumulate GS titles. I realise in the past year that the GS titles would NOT be special if loads of players won them. If you think about it, if we never had a repeat winner then the Grand Slams would just seem like another Tier I tourney.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
Kiswana said:
I partially agree. It's always nice to have new GS champions (one a year is sufficient for me as a tennis fan) but at the same time I want my favourite to continue to accumulate GS titles. I realise in the past year that the GS titles would NOT be special if loads of players won them. If you think about it, if we never had a repeat winner then the Grand Slams would just seem like another Tier I tourney.
Sure, if I were a fulltime supporter of Serena or Venus, the more slams the better, just for anyone not particularly a fan of either (not meaning hating them or anything) it's a nice change, and hey, I'm also not rooting for future one-slam-wonders, like I'm afraid Verkerck might turn out to be, if he were to win tomorrow.

For now I'm glad someone else than Serena won, but if you ask me who's most likely to win Wimbledon, I think she'll most likely be called Williams. It's not like I am begging for a repeat Belgian final.

I guess a Belgian/Williams affair in the final would please me most. Let's wait and see :wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Actually, I think that having one person winning multiple Slams has the opposite effect, it devalues the impact of winning a Slam. When Serena has won four in a row, it doesn't seem as precious or as special to me watching from a fan's point of view, whereas Henin winning her first today was a very big moment since she may not necessarily win another.

It was the same with Sampras winning at Wimbledon - of course it meant a lot to him because he was going for all the time Slam-record, but the actual achievement itself of winning each one must have seemed less and less special as he kept racking them up. It certainly appeared that way to external spectators, but perhaps that was just because of his fairly dry personality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,731 Posts
I have never considered them boring, yes Wimby 2000 and RG 2002 were crap matches, but I thought the Wimby and Aus Open finals were great, full of tension. I have to say I was too tired to enjoy the US Open final, it was on so late, even 3 cokes could not keep me with it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
Its going to be boring if we have 4-5 Justine wins over Kim sure. Judging it on one - ignoring all past matches - would be like writing Seles-Graf off after 1992 Wimbledon. The point about Williams finals for many people is that the winner is always now going to be called Serena - probably with a Venus meltdown deciding the issue. Serena and one of the Belgians, or Amelie, on a good day is fine. Venus in 2001 form and someone not called Serena would be fine too. Serena and a Russian will be fine. Venus and a rejuvenated Hingis would be excellent. Indeed, in all those matches we should get a contrast of styles which will keep most people happy as long as there is a real doubt over the winner - just as we will get in future Belgian finals when both players turn up on a good day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,902 Posts
Hendouble said:
As I said somewhere else, one-sided Grand Slam finals are nothing new in women's tennis no matter who's in them. I find the all-Williams finals boring because of who's in them, not because of the quality of them (which has improved considerably, the AO final this year was played in atmospheric indoor conditions which considerably heightened the drama). And since we're likely to have plenty more all-Williams finals, whereas this all-Belgian final was something of a rarity, the sheer quantity will be enough to continue to label them boring.

ditto :worship:
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top