[Chloe le Bopper]

Ah, the Blake incident.

For what it's worth, I actually sided with Blake on that - who, as memory serves, sympathized with Hewitt and took his word.

Seeing as the man himself didn't make it an issue, I never saw any reason to make it one myself.

 

[Gonzo Hates Me!]

I think it was an issue. And I don't think Blake had a side! LOL! He was just let-down. You were either pissed at Lleyton or you weren't. And that really made me mad, but ah, I still love him.

 

[Ma. Estefania]

The only thing that bothers me in regards to David is when people actually have the poor taste to say that he's done "NOTHING since Wimbledon".

Exactly.

Although I agree he's kinda irregular as almost every player of 21 years old or less(ok, maybe put Hewitt as an exception. )

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Oooh I like your Norman avatar.

RAHR!

 

[Nan Cu]

I wonder how Graf in her heyday would fare against them at their best now?

See Wimbledon final 1999!! Serena would eat her for lunch.

I agree with TennisFool, It would be interesting to see what becomes of Russian athletes in the coming generation.

As for the the poster who said the current crop of players weren't weaned in the communist system, please. Russia was still building empire as late at 1986. Kournikova, Safin, Dementieva, Myskina et al had all discovered tennis by then.

FWIW, Lindsay Davenport is the hardest, truest hitter on the WTA. The Williams sisters beats her not with power. Capriati, Ditto. Yet, they're both dominated by one or the other.

 

[ys]

Aa for the the poster who said the current crop of players weren't weaned in the communist system, please. Russia was still building empire as late at 1986. Kournikova, Safin, Dementieva, Myskina et al had all discovered tennis by then.

Oh, com'n.. The oldest of girls - Anna was 5 years old by then..
How could it possibly matter for her?

 

[Nan Cu]

The point is that they were brought to the game via a state-run apparatus. OTOH, African-xxxans (as you like to say) aren't.

 

[ys]

The point is that they were brought to the game via a state-run apparatus.

And? By the time Anna was 10 ( and effectively, few years earlier ), the state-run system ceased to exist.. And how would it help? Comparing to Americans, who have relatively cheap equipment and public courts at their disposal, there was nothing like that at that time in Russia.

Even then.. How many world class tennis players were brought up in Soviet time? Very few.. For 30 years that Soviets tried to train tennis players, all they managed to grow was Metreveli, Kakulia, Chesnokov, Cherkasov, Medvedev, Kafelnikov in men,
Morozova, Chmyreva, Kroshina, Zvereva, Savchenko, Meskhi in women - that's the players who could be considered world-class.. That's all.. The system was very ineffective.

What they have now is that old soviet tradition of training. If coach accepts you as a trainee, you become pretty much like a soldier, you train as long as they require - 8 hours a day if needed or, you forget about everything else. You never say that you don't want to do something. Pretty much like army. Can you imagine an American kid working like that? And that makes a difference. They sacrifice a lot. Do you know, for instance, that Elena Dementieva's brother had to quit training as a potential tennis player, just because the family could not afford two of them doing that? And when they do train, they really want it and work correspondingly. How many American players 20 yo or younger are in WTA Top 100? 0. Russians? How many times Americans or even African Americans outnumber Russia in number of people playing tennis? Many, many times.. But the result is opposite to those numbers..

 

[Tennis Fool]

And? By the time Anna was 10 ( and effectively, few years earlier ), the state-run system ceased to exist.. And how would it help? Comparing to Americans, who have relatively cheap equipment and public courts at their disposal,

Have you been reading anything I've been writing regarding public courts in the US? You are very selective in what you want to hear...

 

[Tennis Fool]

What they have now is that old soviet tradition of training. If coach accepts you as a trainee, you become pretty much like a soldier, you train as long as they require - 8 hours a day if needed or, you forget about everything else. You never say that you don't want to do something. Pretty much like army.

Umm...I believe you answered your own tennis training in Russia v. the US.

Better than me or Nan Cu.

 

[Experimentee]

Experimentee, I'd hardly call that a ridiculously long post - and don't worry, at least you can console yourself with the thought that you only said one stupid thing in your reply as opposed to my many stupid things.

Serena and Venus may well be different off-court, but on court they have very similar games - big serves, crunching backhands, interminable yelling (which admittedly we have to thank Seles for, it's not their fault) and frequent sloppy errors. When they match up together it's as dull as ditchwater, especially when you know that Serena's eventually going to gain the upper hand.

Actually, it's not the controversy and recrimination on wtaworld that discourages me, rather that bizarre grey colour scheme they seem to think goes well with women's tennis. And the fact that you have to put up with more pro-Williams drivel as well. At least in their most dominating years, Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Seles etc. gave credit to their opponents whenever they had tough matches or heaven forbid lost once in a while, but then the chances are that most of the Williams sisters' opponents have no bearing on the outcome of the match at all - and that tells you all that is wrong with the women's tour today.

Read your original post that i was replying to. In it you claimed that they didnt have contrasting styles OR personalities. I was pointing out that the personality bit was wrong. Now your going back on that and saying you were only referring to their playing styles.
I could have picked apart the bits where you basically said they only win because of their power, but i wont waste my time on that. I'll just say that if power was the only thing determining success in tennis then people like Alex Stevenson, Iroda Tulyaganova and Elena Baltacha would be in the top ten.

 

[Sjengster]

Well actually, when I referred to the idea of rivalries I talked about them having different styles and personalities in the sense of being different on court, not in their private lives; e.g. Sampras-Agassi the classic match-up of serve-volleyer vs. aggressive baseliner, the calmness of Sampras vs the intensity of Agassi.

I don't care if they're chalk and cheese off-court, but when they're playing in matches the difference in personality between Serena and Venus is negligible. And although I have actually stated repeatedly that there are other factors besides power that help them dominate everyone else, such as their movement and athleticism, it's ultimately this power aspect of their game that is most noticeable to anyone who watches them play.

No one sees a Williams on court and thinks "Ah, there is a master tactician at work"; they are awed by their strength, speed and ferocity, but they do not admire them for their repertoire of shots and their skillful construction of rallies, no matter how much these factors may be used under the surface. Apart from anything else, all the subtleties in their game get swamped by their aggressive and intimidating aura on court.

I don't deny that the Williams sisters use clever tactics, although in Venus' case this is debatable, but they are not immediately evident to the spectator - and crucially, to ordinary tennis watchers they are not the reason why the Williamses dominate the WTA Tour.

 

[Ma. Estefania]

No one sees a Williams on court and thinks "Ah, there is a master tactician at work"; they are awed by their strength, speed and ferocity, but they do not admire them for their repertoire of shots and their skillful construction of rallies, no matter how much these factors may be used under the surface.
And crucially, to ordinary tennis watchers they are not the reason why the Williamses dominate the WTA Tour.

TRUE.

 

[Ma. Estefania]

Oooh I like your Norman avatar.

RAHR!

Thanks. I like it too.

 

[Nan Cu]

...they are awed by their strength, speed and ferocity, but they do not admire them for their repertoire of shots and their skillful construction of rallies, no matter how much these factors may be used under the surface.

Under the surface? ROTFLOL!!!!

They must be Superwomen. To win a point by merely thinking about it, and not physically constructing it where it's obvious to viewers must be some talent. So that's the secret to Williams success. LOL!!

 

[Sjengster]

Metaphorically Nan Cu, metaphorically... you know what I mean. Anyone can see players hitting shots in succession to win a rally, but strategically working out opponent's weaknesses, varying strokes and seeing evidence of mental calculation is not something that springs to mind when most people see the Williams sisters play.

Occasionally you get those surprising moments when Serena sneaks in a good drop shot or pulls her opponent out of court with an amazingly sharp angle, but they're few and far between.

 

[AdriRob]

question everybody....ejjhheemm
wasn't it boring when there was just one or two players always winning everything???
example: Pete and Andre...
example number two, which is a shame by the way: the williams sisters.

 

[Nan Cu]

Metaphorically Nan Cu, metaphorically... you know what I mean. Anyone can see players hitting shots in succession to win a rally, but strategically working out opponent's weaknesses, varying strokes and seeing evidence of mental calculation is not something that springs to mind when most people see the Williams sisters play.

If you opponent's weakness is vulnerability to power, why play to their strength?

Many people don't see how Hingis was beating bigger opponents, when all she did was get the ball back in play. Of course, she did more than that. I'm assuming you know that. Now, you're unable to see pass the Williams power, just like those who couldn't see pass Hingis's pusher-play.

Occasionally you get those surprising moments when Serena sneaks in a good drop shot or pulls her opponent out of court with an amazingly sharp angle, but they're few and far between.

If you remember Serena's first grand slam victory, you will see her using PLENTY strategy against Hingis after "Plan A" broke down.

 

[Lee]

question everybody....ejjhheemm
wasn't it boring when there was just one or two players always winning everything???
example: Pete and Andre...
example number two, which is a shame by the way: the williams sisters.

I agree that 4 successive GS final between 2 players and you know who will come out winning, that is really boring.

When ppl start talking about Pete and Andre winning everything, I really can't agree. So, I dig up all Slams results from 1987-2002 where both Pete and/or Andre are active players:

AO FO Wimbly USO
1987 Edberg Lendl Cash Lendl
1988 Wilander Wilander Edberg Wilander
1989 Lendl Chang Becker Becker
1990 Lendl Gomez Edberg Sampras
1991 Becker Courier Stich Edberg
1992 Courier Courier Agassi Edberg
1993 Courier Bruguera Sampras Sampras
1994 Sampras Bruguera Sampras Agassi
1995 Agassi Muster Sampras Sampras
1996 Becker Kafelnikov Krajicek Sampras
1997 Sampras Kuerten Sampras Rafter
1998 Korda Moya Sampras Rafter
1999 Kafelnikov Agassi Sampras Agassi
2000 Agassi Kuerten Sampras Safin
2001 Agassi Kuerten Ivanisevic Hewitt
2002 Johansson Costa Hewitt Sampras

So, of the 64 Slam titles, Pete and Andre combine for a total of 21 and not a single year that Peta and Andre win all the Slams. Even you take away 1987-1989 where none of them winning Slams, their combine winning percentage is still under 50%, around 40%.

As you can see, there are other players able to win a Slam.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

*gives thread a kick in the ass*