[Tennis Fool]

Is that all your could come up with?

Yep.

 

[Chrisie]

Gee, enough!!! Is there a boxing match here?

I want to make my point. It is really really disappointing that few of these "New Balls" have won GS. But it's all about the expectation and frustration.

It's just pointless to compare Sampras and Agassi with Safin and Hewitt, or with Roddick and ... They are individual cases in a totally different context. I think James Blake makes it right that it's almost impossible for anyone to achieve the result of Sampras or any of the 'Great players'. Look at the competition and participation today, I don't really mind if there's no dominate
players, but we all want our favourite to win.

Please give them time and leave them space to keep developing their games, all of them. Maybe they'll win something when they are 26? 27? or even 30? As far as I still like them, it doesn't bother me much.

 

[Sjengster]

Yes, this thread has inevitably degenerated into a slanging match, although when you see some of the bizarre semantic arguments that people get bogged down in you realise why...

As regards this whole "journeyman" issue, I don't care whether it is a commonly used term in tennis and not just your own description Tennis Fool, it's still a stupid label to apply to people who are regular Top 30 players who compete at the highest level and are able to challenge for the Grand Slams. It's nearly always used as a derogatory term, and of course one of the most famous examples was when Agassi referred to Vince Spadea at the 99 Aus Open as "the ultimate journeyman", to which Spadea responded by beating him in their fourth-round match for only the third time in seven AO campaigns.

And as for the Williams sisters... I really get sick of this argument about them taking tennis to a whole new level when I have to sit through countless early-round matches where they both, and Venus in particular, get away with playing like the No. 40 player in the world simply because their opponent isn't as good an athlete as them. God forbid this should ever happen to the men's tour. Venus' 4th round against Nicole Pratt this year was a classic example - in the first few games she goes for ridiculously ambitious shots, makes fundamental errors and plays sloppy tennis but still ends up winning.

And does anyone else think it's a good thing to have the game controlled by a World No. 1 and 2 who are more interested in off-court interests than in their love of the sport? Serena jokingly calls tennis "the main obstacle to my acting career", Venus plans to open an interior design business, and both of them treat the process of playing Grand Slams as a mechanical exercise to get to the finals - there's no joy in their play whatsoever.

And don't give me that rubbish about Serena's incredible comeback against Clijsters in the semis - anyone who serves two consecutive double faults when they're serving for a match the second time is obviously choking, not getting out-played by an injured opponent. The bottom line is, rivalries work when the two players have contrasting styles and personalities, not when they're two shrieking, gangly-limbed clones of one another whose so-called "rivalry" consists of long five-match winning streaks against each other that become inevitable to predict. Does anyone think Venus is going to buck the trend in the near future, instead of repeatedly losing Slam finals to her sister? I think not.

 

[Experimentee]

The bottom line is, rivalries work when the two players have contrasting styles and personalities, not when they're two shrieking, gangly-limbed clones of one another whose so-called "rivalry" consists of long five-match winning streaks against each other that become inevitable to predict.

Theres a lot of stupid things you said in that ridiculously long post but this takes the cake. Venus and Serena dont have contrasting styles and personalities? And they are clones of each other? I can tell you dont watch them much! They look nothing alike, unless you count both being black as a similarity. Serena is more outgoing and expressive and Venus is calm and averts publicity. You can like them or not, its your choice, but dont resort to lies and exaggeration to put them down. Otherwise get over to wtaworld.

 

[Layla]

Theres a lot of stupid things you said in that ridiculously long post but this takes the cake. Venus and Serena dont have contrasting styles and personalities? And they are clones of each other? I can tell you dont watch them much! They look nothing alike, unless you count both being black as a similarity. Serena is more outgoing and expressive and Venus is calm and averts publicity. You can like them or not, its your choice, but dont resort to lies and exaggeration to put them down. Otherwise get over to wtaworld.

LMAO @ calling one of the most intelligent posters on this board stupid. And the mud fest just doesn't stop...

Serena and Venus may have very different personalities off-court, but on-court they are very, very similar. I suspect Sjengster doesn't care about their off-court personas anyway. And I agree, the rivalry is non-existent. It took them several slam finals to become even remotely comfortable with playing against each other, and that's just not exiting to me. At the moment, there's not even a question as to who will win their matches, and you can't really call that rivalry.

 

[Sjengster]

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.

 

[ys]

Gee, enough!!! Is there a boxing match here?

Becca is such a fighter. Sometimes it seems to me that even when someone agrees with her, she would change the sides to continue fighting..

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.

That doesn't matter for us , though. Watching AO final I realised that the two were playing on the level ( in terms of speed and power ) unthinkable for any other player. For as long as they want it - they will be winning everything they play - we'll have to live with that..

 

[Sjengster]

Fair enough, and I can see the reasons why they're obviously dominating the major tournaments and the Grand Slam finals - as someone told me once, "It's not their fault that they're so much better than everybody else, it's just a pity it doesn't lead to great competition."

My point is, however, do we really want to see men's tennis go down the same route and have a couple of dominating players who can comfortably ease through to Grand Slam finals time and time again? The whole reason for the Williams sisters' success is that, as African-Americans who have been taught the game in an extremely unorthodox but effective style (heck, Richard Williams has said in interviews that his main motive in creating tennis daughters was to use them as a cash cow, not because he had any love for the game), they have achieved a level of athleticism and power that is clearly not going to be equalled by other women on the tour for the foreseeable future, and certainly not by Caucasian players.

This couldn't happen on the men's side because the standard of athleticism and ability is roughly the same throughout the Top 100, which is why we get so many intensely competitive match-ups. Obviously there are qualities that mark some players out from others in terms of talent and mental strength, but the fact that these oft-mentioned New Balls were heralded as potential Slam winners in their younger days does not mean they should be expected to start asserting their authority regularly in the Grand Slams. As someone by the name of Pat Rafter once noted, everyone has a 1 in 128 chance at the start of a Slam, and it's how you perform on the day, not the form book, that earns you the win.

 

[Tennis Fool]

LMAO @ calling one of the most intelligent posters on this board stupid.

LMAO @ you actually believing this

 

[Tennis Fool]

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.

You don't even realize you put yourself down

 

[Sjengster]

Well, I do actually realise that I was putting myself down, but then the whole tone of my post was somewhat ironic in response to Experimentee's insightful and well-judged comments (see, there it is again, notice?)

So, you mean you DON'T think I'm one of the most intelligent posters on here?

Don't worry, don't worry, I see and understand that we simply have differing opinions, so let's just agree to disagree. Peace out.

Whenever I get too involved in one of these arguments, I just remind myself that this is a message board populated by what I call "Internet people", and there's a limit to how seriously you can take people, myself included, who use emoticons with smily faces and rolling eyes to communicate their ideas.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Tennis Fool]

The whole reason for the Williams sisters' success is that, as African-Americans who have been taught the game in an extremely unorthodox but effective style (heck, Richard Williams has said in interviews that his main motive in creating tennis daughters was to use them as a cash cow, not because he had any love for the game), they have achieved a level of athleticism and power that is clearly not going to be equalled by other women on the tour for the foreseeable future, and certainly not by Caucasian players.

Tsk. Tsk. So the Racist Monster rears its Ugly Head.

So sad. Yet, you voice what a lot of Williams haters are too cowardly to express

 

[Tennis Fool]

Whenever I get too involved in one of these arguments, I just remind myself that this is a message board populated by what I call "Internet people", and there's a limit to how seriously you can take people, myself included, who use emoticons with smily faces and rolling eyes to communicate their ideas.

Wouldn't you agree?

Well, I was about to call a truce with you until I saw you go from Jeckyll to Racist Monster.

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEE

 

[ys]

And what exactly is racist in what Sjengster said?

 

[Sjengster]

Racist Monster? How so, Tennis Fool?

I was just saying that being black is obviously an extra athletic advantage to the Williams sisters in particular, but of course that's only part of the reason why they dominate - if ethnicity was used solely as a basis for achievement, Chanda Rubin would be no. 3 in the world while James Blake would have a 4-0 record against Hewitt rather than the other way round.

And as for Richard Williams - well, the colour of his skin has absolutely nothing to do with his shameless opportunism in wanting his daughters to earn money for the family, or his arrogance in suggesting that the WTA be renamed "Williams Take All". I can assure you that my dislike for Williams/Williams has no racial motive whatsoever behind it.

 

[Tennis Fool]

being black is obviously an extra athletic advantage to the Williams sisters in particular, but of course that's only part of the reason why they dominate

You know, I'll let others pick this apart. I don't have the time nor the inclination.

 

[walee]

This doesn't concern me. But Sjengster, I wish you and everyone else can start ignoring certain individual poster who obviously comes here to pick a mud fight. It's not worth your time to entertain him.

As for the Williams sister, some ppl think if you didn't praise them in your sentences, you must be a racist. This kind of ignorant, you and I can't help correct.

 

[Sjengster]

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something blindingly obvious here, but it's been known for decades that black people are naturally better athletes than white people. It's a scientific fact, not a racist statement. And again, let me say I'm not suggesting that that's the only reason why the Williams sisters dominate - it's a combination of that plus the remarkable way they were taught by their father, and the natural talents they were born with. But I don't believe that two white sisters could have achieved the same level of athleticism and power as the Williamses have.

I really don't see what's racist about this - surely racism is defined as assuming another race is inferior to yours? (And just because I suggest that black people are naturally better athletes, doesn't mean I suggest that they're a superior or inferior race.)

 

[Sjengster]

Point taken, Walee - I just thought I'd try and put the case for the defence.

 

[Layla]

LMAO @ you actually believing this

Ooops, I applogize for my gross misjudgment. What I meant to say was, the most intelligent poster on this board is you.