Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Can Venus repeat? Her agility, powerful serve, and skill at the net all play in her favor. No one in the draw attacks as well as Venus, no one has her wingspan or her quickness at the net. Perhaps most important, few can play defense as well as she did last year, when she ran Sharapova off Centre Court in the semifinals and saved a match point against Davenport.

A title defense would place Williams in select company. Ten women have won four or more Wimbledon titles, and only three have done so in the Open Era. If Williams captures her fourth, she would move past Chris Evert and find herself within striking distance of three legends of Open Era Wimbledon: Martina Navratilova (nine titles), Steffi Graf (seven), and Billie Jean King (six).

As he celebrated his daughter's title last year with a cigarette, Richard Williams remarked on what his daughter, now 26, must do to earn a place among the game's greats.

"I think she'll need at least two more [majors]," he said. "And I think she can for one reason, and that's speed. The only thing she needs to do is get her technique together."

http://www.nysun.com/article/34890?page_no=1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,873 Posts
Thanks for this article Vronsky. Richard knows Venus and her game very well. He is saying the right things to Venus, maybe that's why she trusts him so. Vee's technique is off and if she can get just a few things right, she should dominate easily. Her second serve is a liability right now and we all know that her forehand can quickly disappear at times.

I can't believe anyone sees Molik as a wildcard considering the way she has played this year. But, oh well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,559 Posts
i think its a good article...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Paneru said:
Former pro Mary Carillo, now a television announcer, said the decision made no sense. "Anyone who has won Wimbledon three times and is the defending champion, you give her the no. 1 seed."
:haha: Yes, they should not worry about recent performances and just seed Venus at number 1 due to past history.

They've already moved her up, which isn't something the seeding committees do very often on the women's side and I don't think they should make any significant changes unless they've devised a formula for everyone like for the men's side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,873 Posts
krystlel said:
:haha: Yes, they should not worry about recent performances and just seed Venus at number 1 due to past history.

They've already moved her up, which isn't something the seeding committees do very often on the women's side and I don't think they should make any significant changes unless they've devised a formula for everyone like for the men's side.
I don't think it's really funny enough for you to be rolling on the floor. The seedings are mostly based on what players are likely to perform the best on the surface. It's no stretch to believe that the defending champion and holder of three titles will do well. :scratch: :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Andrew.. said:
Article loses its credibility with the title.
The title has squat to do
with the facts Richard has stated.

The rest is simply opinion and principal
that their is no reason for seedings to be
determined differently between them.

Yet, ultimately with a player like
Venus based on her past history,
she doesn't need any help from
them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Would it have changed anything if she were seeded 5 or 6 instead of 7 (or 8)?

Do the seeds 7 and 8 have to play the seeds 1 and 2 in the quarters and seeds 5/6 play seeds 3/4 (if they all come through the draw, of course)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,687 Posts
Only one sentence of this article was about Richard wanting Venus to win two more majors.

It was mainly about stupid people who aren't even appreciative that she got bumped up at all. 7 was realistic. Being ranked 12th, and seeded #1 at a Grand Slam? Get real, people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,687 Posts
bailey said:
Would it have changed anything if she were seeded 5 or 6 instead of 7 (or 8)?

Do the seeds 7 and 8 have to play the seeds 1 and 2 in the quarters and seeds 5/6 play seeds 3/4 (if they all come through the draw, of course)?
No.

That's why it's so amazing that people are whining about her getting the #7 seed. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,098 Posts
Thats "ATLEAST" 2 more majors...but I think that Venus wants more than 2...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
~PPP~ said:
Only one sentence of this article was about Richard wanting Venus to win two more majors.

It was mainly about stupid people who aren't even appreciative that she got bumped up at all. 7 was realistic. Being ranked 12th, and seeded #1 at a Grand Slam? Get real, people.
Prime example as to why I
labeled the thread as I did!

People always get bent & stupid
over the littlest of things.

All that matters in this article
is Richard's comments.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
52,603 Posts
as a Venus fan I would of still been happy if she was seeded based on her ranking.
As I am confident in her at Wimbledon no matter what she is seeded
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Marcus1979 said:
as a Venus fan I would of still been happy if she was seeded based on her ranking.
As I am confident in her at Wimbledon no matter what she is seeded
As any Venus fan should. :cool:

Though I do understand the
premise and principal of the rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,859 Posts
I was surprised and delighted that they bumped her to #7 seed. I think it is fair. The other top players are relieved, the business community is pleased, and tennis fans should be pleased as it means that it is more likely than the top players will be around in the second week.

Regarding Mary Carillo, it's the most positive thing I've heard her say about either Williams sister. As wouldn't you know, I don't agree. I think Venus should ahve been in the top 8, but I don't think it is fair to the rest of the players to make her the #1 seed. Who needs it anyway?

As to Richard's comments, glad to know that he is ambitious for her and I hope that we see two more majors in the next year. I'll take them at any slam, but it would be great for Venus to defend at Wimbledon and then finally win at Australian Open next year. I remember an article where she said she'd like to get to double digits, so I think she remains hungry, too. And you can't help but be in impressed that she's hung in there, taken her loses, and tried to rebuild her game while losing to players she once dismissed consistently.

Still, Venus is already among the greatest the game has seen. But if she wins Wimbledon, a case can be made that she has been the most dominating figure at grand slams this millennium with 6 GS titles and 12 GS final appearances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,687 Posts
Paneru said:
Prime example as to why I
labeled the thread as I did!

People always get bent & stupid
over the littlest of things.

All that matters in this article
is Richard's comments.
You should just delete the rest of the article and leave Richard's comment in there. :lol:

It was a funny read, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
~PPP~ said:
You should just delete the rest of the article and leave Richard's comment in there. :lol:

It was a funny read, though.
I think I will! :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
40,059 Posts
krystlel said:
:haha: Yes, they should not worry about recent performances and just seed Venus at number 1 due to past history.

They've already moved her up, which isn't something the seeding committees do very often on the women's side and I don't think they should make any significant changes unless they've devised a formula for everyone like for the men's side.
Igornance really isn't becoming on you....if you look up the definition of a 'seed', they are given based on a player's likelyhood to win a particular tournament. Tournaments, for the most part, go with world rankings, just because they don't wanna ruffle feathers, but I don't see anyone MORE likely to win it this year than 3 time champ and 2 time finalist, and defending champion....and it's not like Steffi's playing, this is all recent. Come on Finals or better in 5 of the last 6 years....that deserves some SERIOUS praise.

That being said, as we've seen in Australia last year, at Wimbledon 2 years ago, and at Wimbledon last year, when you have the game to win, and you believe in yourself, seeding is nothing but a number. It was nice that they gave her some recognition for all that she's done, but she is the lowest seeded and ranked defending champ that I can think of this millenium:

2000: Lindsay (ranked and seeded #2)
2001: Venus (ranked and seeded #2)
2002: Venus (ranked and seeded #1)
2003: Serena (ranked and seeded #1)
2004: Serena (special ranked and seeded #1)
2005: Sharapova (ranked and seeded #2)
2006: Venus (seeded #7 and ranked #12)

They did the best they could....well kinda, but who cares...she'll win
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top