tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 22 Jan 2009 22:09:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Another dumb Venus loss....


I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
rally a bit & then go for the winner?

It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
about the quality of opposition.

Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
dumb... dumb'. There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.

Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. Serena is smarter than
Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. Jankovic has
by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.

Sheesh what a load of crap.






 
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:02:26
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 23, 5:27=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 3:58 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> >>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us
> >>>> who prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is
> >>>> exactly the point I'm trying to make.
>
> >>> This is pretty much my point too. I like players who take the
> >>> initiative and don't wait for the opponent to make an error.
>
> >> Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error. Her
> >> outstanding defensive scrambling is clouding your and Joe's
> >> judgement. By nature she's an attacking player. She hits winners
> >> whenever possible. She has maybe the best off-backhand in the game.
> >> All she lacks compared with other top ten players is power, not
> >> attitude.
>
> > Speaking of defensive scrambling, you and Nemanja need to work out
> > better pro-Jankovic PR spin, because right now I'm getting mixed
> > messages:
>
> > YOU: "Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error"
> > HE: "she's chosen a strategy that forces her opponents into ever-
> > riskier shots, which predictably results in mounting errors"
>
> > YOU: "All she lacks compared with other top ten players is power"
> > HE: "Jankovic certainly has the ability to hit as hard as those women"
>
> > In contrast, Sakari and I are on more or less the same page in our
> > assessment of her game, which leads me to believe we are correct. :)
>
> Well, from my angle your, Sakari's and Nemanja's disagreeing with me lead=
s me
> to believe that you are all wrong.

LOL. Here's how it breaks down:

A naive observer might note that two participants in this debate like
Jankovic a lot, while two others find her game rather unengaging,
making it a tie.

A more subtle sort would recognize that on the question whether
Jankovic plays a largely defensive game, *three* voters say yes, while
one says no. On the question whether Jankovic lacks power, three
voters say yes, while one says no.

Case closed. And I guess you are half-right. :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:32:28
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 23, 5:27 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Jan 23, 3:58 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>>>>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us
>>>>>> who prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is
>>>>>> exactly the point I'm trying to make.
>>
>>>>> This is pretty much my point too. I like players who take the
>>>>> initiative and don't wait for the opponent to make an error.
>>
>>>> Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error. Her
>>>> outstanding defensive scrambling is clouding your and Joe's
>>>> judgement. By nature she's an attacking player. She hits winners
>>>> whenever possible. She has maybe the best off-backhand in the game.
>>>> All she lacks compared with other top ten players is power, not
>>>> attitude.
>>
>>> Speaking of defensive scrambling, you and Nemanja need to work out
>>> better pro-Jankovic PR spin, because right now I'm getting mixed
>>> messages:
>>
>>> YOU: "Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error"
>>> HE: "she's chosen a strategy that forces her opponents into ever-
>>> riskier shots, which predictably results in mounting errors"
>>
>>> YOU: "All she lacks compared with other top ten players is power"
>>> HE: "Jankovic certainly has the ability to hit as hard as those
>>> women"
>>
>>> In contrast, Sakari and I are on more or less the same page in our
>>> assessment of her game, which leads me to believe we are correct. :)
>>
>> Well, from my angle your, Sakari's and Nemanja's disagreeing with me
>> leads me to believe that you are all wrong.
>
> LOL. Here's how it breaks down:
>
> A naive observer might note that two participants in this debate like
> Jankovic a lot, while two others find her game rather unengaging,
> making it a tie.
>
> A more subtle sort would recognize that on the question whether
> Jankovic plays a largely defensive game, *three* voters say yes, while
> one says no. On the question whether Jankovic lacks power, three
> voters say yes, while one says no.

Truth isn't a democracy.





 
Date: 23 Jan 2009 13:42:52
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 23, 3:58=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> > <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >> And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us who
> >> prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is exactly the
> >> point I'm trying to make.
>
> > This is pretty much my point too. I like players who take the
> > initiative and don't wait for the opponent to make an error.
>
> Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error. Her outstanding
> defensive scrambling is clouding your and Joe's judgement. By nature she'=
s an
> attacking player. She hits winners whenever possible. She has maybe the b=
est
> off-backhand in the game. All she lacks compared with other top ten playe=
rs is
> power, not attitude.

Speaking of defensive scrambling, you and Nemanja need to work out
better pro-Jankovic PR spin, because right now I'm getting mixed
messages:

YOU: "Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error"
HE: "she's chosen a strategy that forces her opponents into ever-
riskier shots, which predictably results in mounting errors"

YOU: "All she lacks compared with other top ten players is power"
HE: "Jankovic certainly has the ability to hit as hard as those women"

In contrast, Sakari and I are on more or less the same page in our
assessment of her game, which leads me to believe we are correct. :)

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 09:27:23
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 23, 3:58 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>>> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us
>>>> who prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is
>>>> exactly the point I'm trying to make.
>>
>>> This is pretty much my point too. I like players who take the
>>> initiative and don't wait for the opponent to make an error.
>>
>> Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error. Her
>> outstanding defensive scrambling is clouding your and Joe's
>> judgement. By nature she's an attacking player. She hits winners
>> whenever possible. She has maybe the best off-backhand in the game.
>> All she lacks compared with other top ten players is power, not
>> attitude.
>
> Speaking of defensive scrambling, you and Nemanja need to work out
> better pro-Jankovic PR spin, because right now I'm getting mixed
> messages:
>
> YOU: "Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error"
> HE: "she's chosen a strategy that forces her opponents into ever-
> riskier shots, which predictably results in mounting errors"
>
> YOU: "All she lacks compared with other top ten players is power"
> HE: "Jankovic certainly has the ability to hit as hard as those women"
>
> In contrast, Sakari and I are on more or less the same page in our
> assessment of her game, which leads me to believe we are correct. :)

Well, from my angle your, Sakari's and Nemanja's disagreeing with me leads me
to believe that you are all wrong.





 
Date: 23 Jan 2009 02:46:15
From: David W
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 23, 6:53=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> >> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & agai=
n,
> >> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> > A bad loss, but she did achieve one rare feat. She has now completed th=
e set at
> > the AO - at least one loss in each of the seven rounds during her caree=
r.
>
> Which means she's had a win in every round, bar the final.

Yes, but you can do that by reaching the final in your first AO,
whereas losing in every round takes at least 7 years.


  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 21:49:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
David W wrote:
> On Jan 23, 6:53 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
>>>> 'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
>>>> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>>> A bad loss, but she did achieve one rare feat. She has now completed the set at
>>> the AO - at least one loss in each of the seven rounds during her career.
>> Which means she's had a win in every round, bar the final.
>
> Yes, but you can do that by reaching the final in your first AO,
> whereas losing in every round takes at least 7 years.


Yes, but in her case she's done it in different years.



 
Date: 23 Jan 2009 18:45:20
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
Whisper wrote:
> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> 'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
> rally a bit & then go for the winner?

A bad loss, but she did achieve one rare feat. She has now completed the set at
the AO - at least one loss in each of the seven rounds during her career.





  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 18:53:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
DavidW wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
>> 'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
>> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> A bad loss, but she did achieve one rare feat. She has now completed the set at
> the AO - at least one loss in each of the seven rounds during her career.
>
>
>


Which means she's had a win in every round, bar the final.



   
Date: 23 Jan 2009 03:38:16
From: X L
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....

Our stupid commentators here in the US continue to always pick the
william sisters as the very top favorites to win a slam. especially that
bore Mary joe fernandez on espn who keeps picking the sisters to win any
tournament they enter year after year. and always gives a lame excuse
when they lose any match. just like most of our other commentators. now
espn is showing a taped Venus match while Dokic is playing live now on
Laver. they think we would rather watch a taped Venus match instead of
live action. fucking pathetic!



    
Date: 23 Jan 2009 19:48:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
X L wrote:
> Our stupid commentators here in the US continue to always pick the
> william sisters as the very top favorites to win a slam. especially that
> bore Mary joe fernandez on espn who keeps picking the sisters to win any
> tournament they enter year after year. and always gives a lame excuse
> when they lose any match. just like most of our other commentators. now
> espn is showing a taped Venus match while Dokic is playing live now on
> Laver. they think we would rather watch a taped Venus match instead of
> live action. fucking pathetic!
>



Commiserations.





     
Date: 23 Jan 2009 04:30:31
From: X L
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....

I spoke too soon. our channel only showed highlights of Venus's match.
but they keep annoyingly bouncing from Ana's and Dokic's matches. so far
Ana is getting the main coverage. no surprise



      
Date: 23 Jan 2009 20:43:31
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
X L wrote:
> I spoke too soon. our channel only showed highlights of Venus's match.
> but they keep annoyingly bouncing from Ana's and Dokic's matches. so far
> Ana is getting the main coverage. no surprise
>


Dokic up 4-1 in 2nd & lots of fist pumping from her - she's also getting
all the letcord breaks.



 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 22:41:45
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 9:57=A0am, Rose <rose.anti...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:52=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 8:40=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 6:09 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in term=
s of
> > > >> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & =
again,
> > > >> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> > > >> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says m=
ore
> > > >> about the quality of opposition.
>
> > > >> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb.=
..
> > > >> dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her appr=
oach in
> > > >> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> > > >> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smar=
ter than
> > > >> =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Ja=
nkovic has
> > > >> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so f=
ingers
> > > >> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
> > > >> Sheesh what a load of crap.
>
> > > > I told you - this is what you're wonderful Land Down Under does to
> > > > people.
>
> > > > Too hot - move it or lose it.
>
> > > Venus has played like that for 12 years.
>
> > ++ That's really true... all or nothing behind a monster serve =3D
> > Venus...
>
> well, that plus a lethal backhand, a sometimes lethal forehand, and
> incredible court-and-net coverage ability- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ She's a classic bomber... when she's off it all goes sideways... no
plan B in her game... she plays the SAME game all the time... her
balance is terrible... she's a power player who came up against
someone who could hit with her AND be consistant sending her natural
power hitting into the red zone, pressurized she tended to spray...
the UEs pile up... game over... her speed and power allows her to win
DESPITE her one dimensional tennis

P



 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 22:18:37
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 10:59=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2:02 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> He's 100% right of course. =A0I tend to be a big fan of smooth players=
who
> >> can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin
>
> > You forgot about Mandlikova. ;)
>
> Her smoothness had a 'jerky' quality to it - her stiff upright back made
> her look awkward.

You've said that in the past, and although "smooth" is a matter of
opinion, I doubt if many would agree about this. Mandlikova kept her
back straight, yes, but not stiff. This was no doubt an element of the
impeccable form she was taught. She bent her knees rather than her
back, turned her shoulders fully for each stroke, and followed through
fluidly.

To me, a "stiff" player is someone like Medvedev or Anders Jarryd.
Their entire bodies had no flexibility.


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 22:18:09
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 23, 12:06=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> > On 23 Jan., 08:08, cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 22, 2:02 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> He's 100% right of course. =A0I tend to be a big fan of smooth player=
s who
> >>> can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin
> >> You forgot about Mandlikova. ;)
>
> > Some of Whimpy's examples are ill-chosen. Henin wasn't smooth per se.
> > She was very intense. She had to be; she was too small and had to
> > exert a lot to make those booming shots.
>
> She had a smooth explosiveness. =A0

Bullshit, she wasn't smooth at all. She put a lot of effort in her
backhand and forehand. Smooth is something like Mac or Ramesh
Krishnan. They merely caressed the ball and it would still be
effective. They were effortless.

You just like Henin's tiny boobs and her flat ass, admit it!



 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 20:27:20
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On 23 Jan., 08:08, cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2:02=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > He's 100% right of course. =A0I tend to be a big fan of smooth players =
who
> > can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin
>
> You forgot about Mandlikova. ;)

Some of Whimpy's examples are ill-chosen. Henin wasn't smooth per se.
She was very intense. She had to be; she was too small and had to
exert a lot to make those booming shots. Mac was smooth to an extent,
yes, but kinda jerky/awkward with his ground strokes.

Smooth is how Stich used to do it, or how Federer or even how Xavier
Malisse does it. The movement and the launching into the shot look
effortless and matter-of-factly.


  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 17:06:30
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On 23 Jan., 08:08, cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2:02 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> He's 100% right of course. I tend to be a big fan of smooth players who
>>> can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin
>> You forgot about Mandlikova. ;)
>
> Some of Whimpy's examples are ill-chosen. Henin wasn't smooth per se.
> She was very intense. She had to be; she was too small and had to
> exert a lot to make those booming shots.


She had a smooth explosiveness. Maybe 'smooth' is not the best
description as that implies kinda slow, but however you describe it it
is unique in the women's game. Actually thinking about it some more she
was similar to Sampras' fluidity, exploding into a shot - think Sampras
at 1990 USO. Federer has a touch of that, but he has less power as he
is more gangly in his shot making. He imparts more spin which doesn't
require the same level of precise timing & is more forgiving/easier to
execute as the spin keeps the ball in easier.


> Mac was smooth to an extent,
> yes, but kinda jerky/awkward with his ground strokes.
>
> Smooth is how Stich used to do it, or how Federer or even how Xavier
> Malisse does it.


All gangly in execution & not the ideal smooth candidates.


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 18:08:37
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 2:02=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:


> He's 100% right of course. =A0I tend to be a big fan of smooth players wh=
o
> can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin

You forgot about Mandlikova. ;)



  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 14:59:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
cernunnos1@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2:02 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> He's 100% right of course. I tend to be a big fan of smooth players who
>> can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin
>
> You forgot about Mandlikova. ;)
>



Her smoothness had a 'jerky' quality to it - her stiff upright back made
her look awkward.



 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 6:04=A0pm, nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 1:28=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 1:04=A0pm, nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 22, 10:43=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > > Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot select=
ion
> > > > effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
> > > > puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
> > > > another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching h=
er
> > > > as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her.
>
> > > I'm not sure where you get this impression from. Jankovic can
> > > certainly belt winners with the best of them,
>
> > With the best of them? As well as Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Ivanovic,
> > Safina, Davenport, Henin, et al.? No way. Her game is quite soft
> > compared to those of the players I listed, and others with comparable
> > power if lesser results.
>
> I think you misunderstood me - Jankovic certainly has the ability to
> hit as hard as those women, but that isn't how she plays. She forgoes
> the risky hard shots in favour of safer, better placed ones. You are
> not distinguishing between what she has chosen as strategy with what
> she is capable of.

Her capabilities are irrelevant if they are not regularly displayed on
the court. Federer once played straight serve-and-volley tennis at
Wimbledon. But no one watching a typical Federer match today can claim
to be delighted by an onslaught of net-rushing simply because Federer
may still be capable of it. I'm commenting on the matches Jankovic
actually plays, not the ones she's holding in reserve somewhere.

> But you're gonna have a tough time convincing me
> that Jankovic can't crack her backhand as hard as any of those women
> when she has to.

Jankovic is often overpowered by other top players, and as Sakari has
noted, sometimes even by lesser ones (although they lack the other
tennis skills necessary to beat her). Maybe she should start cracking
those backhands more often. If you're not going to unleash them at the
U.S. Open final, then when?

> > The top champions generally win points, and more importantly matches
> > and tournaments, by physically dominating their opponents with
> > superior power and speed (of both shot and foot). Jankovic has
> > footspeed but lacks champion-level power. It's hard to win a slam, let
> > alone many slams, through positional and defensive play. The women's
> > game has changed a lot since Hingis was more or less able to
> > accomplish that for a short term (and only for a short term).
>
> I'm not even sure which canard to address first in this paragraph, so
> perhaps it's just easier to ignore all of them. I'll just say that
> nobody hits every shot as hard as they can

Yes; who has argued to the contrary?

> and some of the players
> who practiced this type of tennis were also-rans and not no.1s.

The fact that excellent power is not *sufficient* for winning slam
titles does not mean that excellent power is not *necessary* for
winning slam titles -- at least in the contemporary women's game.

> Hitting hard is important, but obviously not as important as hitting
> the ball *into* the court.
>
>
>
> > > If you think puny opponents push her around, you need to figure out
> > > how it is that Jankovic is no.1, and they are not, how it is that she
> > > always beats them, rather than the other way around.
>
> > She beats them because her groundstrokes are steady and her defense is
> > very strong. She bends but doesn't break. Eventually, they miss or get
> > out of position. It's not hard to "figure out."
>
> This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, that you are
> consistently missing. Perhaps I am not articulating it well. You say
> "she gets pushed around". I say, she's chosen a strategy that forces
> her opponents into ever-riskier shots, which predictably results in
> mounting errors and eventual defeat.

And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us who
prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is exactly the
point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter to the viewer whether a
player adopts a defensive posture out of choice or biological
necessity.

> If however, her opponents play it
> safe, she punishes them by hitting winners of her own. A couple of
> years ago, when Jankovic was pounding the ball indiscriminately, she
> was languishing in the nether reaches of the top 30. Now she is no.1.
>
> > I said: she "moves well."
>
> > I said: "Jankovic has good strokes."
>
> > I said: she "mixes up her shot selection effectively."
>
> If the best you can come up with are these backhanded compliments,

They are not backhanded compliments at all. A backhanded compliment
would be something along the lines of, "He has a fairly decent volley
for a habitual baseliner." You simply object to the absence of
unqualified praise for Jankovic, which is not my problem.

> then I guess we can just agree to disagree. Doesn't it make you
> wonder, though, how someone of whose tennis-playing ability you have
> such a low opinion got to be the no.1 player in the world?

Why should I believe my opinion of a player's style would have an
impact on her results? But the reason Jankovic reached no. 1 is
reasonably clear: all the very best women of 2008 were, for a variety
of reasons (nagging injuries, premature retirement, career
distractions, etc.), essentially part-time players. That created an
opening at the top for a full-time player with consistently good
results.
>
> > All in all, I think that's plenty of credit for a player who has yet
> > to establish herself as a champion at the highest level of the sport.
>
> I don't understand how the no.1 player in the world hasn't established
> herself as a champion, but I'll grant that your criteria might be
> different from mine.

Please list the slam titles Jankovic has won. That's the "highest
level of the sport."

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 16:34:49
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:

>And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us who
>prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is exactly the
>point I'm trying to make.

This is pretty much my point too. I like players who take the
initiative and don't wait for the opponent to make an error.

I can't understand for example how Whisper used to say Kim was a
defensive player, but Jankovic is a player who goes for winners. My
opinion is that they are/were both excellent defensive players when
needed, but Kim was far better offensively, and had much more
offensive-minded attitude.

Ok, had to say it... :-)


   
Date: 24 Jan 2009 22:35:15
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us who
>> prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is exactly the
>> point I'm trying to make.
>
> This is pretty much my point too. I like players who take the
> initiative and don't wait for the opponent to make an error.
>
> I can't understand for example how Whisper used to say Kim was a
> defensive player, but Jankovic is a player who goes for winners. My
> opinion is that they are/were both excellent defensive players when
> needed, but Kim was far better offensively, and had much more
> offensive-minded attitude.
>
> Ok, had to say it... :-)


Kim was a very defensive player - eg she could never beat sistas at
Wimbledon for eg because she didn't have that ability to create great
angles & blast winners by threading the needle up the line etc


   
Date: 24 Jan 2009 07:58:23
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:50:48 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> And also results in mounting tedium and/or annoyance for those us who
>> prefer our champions *to take the initiative* -- that is exactly the
>> point I'm trying to make.
>
> This is pretty much my point too. I like players who take the
> initiative and don't wait for the opponent to make an error.

Jankovic doesn't wait for the opponent to make an error. Her outstanding
defensive scrambling is clouding your and Joe's judgement. By nature she's an
attacking player. She hits winners whenever possible. She has maybe the best
off-backhand in the game. All she lacks compared with other top ten players is
power, not attitude.





 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 15:04:00
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 1:28=A0pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 1:04=A0pm, nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 10:43=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot selectio=
n
> > > effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
> > > puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
> > > another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching her
> > > as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her.
>
> > I'm not sure where you get this impression from. Jankovic can
> > certainly belt winners with the best of them,
>
> With the best of them? As well as Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Ivanovic,
> Safina, Davenport, Henin, et al.? No way. Her game is quite soft
> compared to those of the players I listed, and others with comparable
> power if lesser results.

I think you misunderstood me - Jankovic certainly has the ability to
hit as hard as those women, but that isn't how she plays. She forgoes
the risky hard shots in favour of safer, better placed ones. You are
not distinguishing between what she has chosen as strategy with what
she is capable of. But you're gonna have a tough time convincing me
that Jankovic can't crack her backhand as hard as any of those women
when she has to.

> The top champions generally win points, and more importantly matches
> and tournaments, by physically dominating their opponents with
> superior power and speed (of both shot and foot). Jankovic has
> footspeed but lacks champion-level power. It's hard to win a slam, let
> alone many slams, through positional and defensive play. The women's
> game has changed a lot since Hingis was more or less able to
> accomplish that for a short term (and only for a short term).

I'm not even sure which canard to address first in this paragraph, so
perhaps it's just easier to ignore all of them. I'll just say that
nobody hits every shot as hard as they can, and some of the players
who practiced this type of tennis were also-rans and not no.1s.
Hitting hard is important, but obviously not as important as hitting
the ball *into* the court.

>
> > If you think puny opponents push her around, you need to figure out
> > how it is that Jankovic is no.1, and they are not, how it is that she
> > always beats them, rather than the other way around.
>
> She beats them because her groundstrokes are steady and her defense is
> very strong. She bends but doesn't break. Eventually, they miss or get
> out of position. It's not hard to "figure out."

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, that you are
consistently missing. Perhaps I am not articulating it well. You say
"she gets pushed around". I say, she's chosen a strategy that forces
her opponents into ever-riskier shots, which predictably results in
mounting errors and eventual defeat. If however, her opponents play it
safe, she punishes them by hitting winners of her own. A couple of
years ago, when Jankovic was pounding the ball indiscriminately, she
was languishing in the nether reaches of the top 30. Now she is no.1.

> I said: she "moves well."
>
> I said: "Jankovic has good strokes."
>
> I said: she "mixes up her shot selection effectively."

If the best you can come up with are these backhanded compliments,
then I guess we can just agree to disagree. Doesn't it make you
wonder, though, how someone of whose tennis-playing ability you have
such a low opinion got to be the no.1 player in the world?

> All in all, I think that's plenty of credit for a player who has yet
> to establish herself as a champion at the highest level of the sport.

I don't understand how the no.1 player in the world hasn't established
herself as a champion, but I'll grant that your criteria might be
different from mine.

Nemanja


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 14:46:11
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 3:07=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:45:04 -0800 (PST),
>
> nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com wrote:

> >Because she is on the receiving end of a lot of garbage,
>
> 0,001% of what both Federer and Nadal get here. They both deserve the
> garbage even less than Jankovic. Would be nice if you were concerned
> about that too and not only Jankovic.

There's no shortage of people arguing either side of the Federer/Nadal
battles. You're crazy if you expect me to wade into that swamp.
Besides what is there to say that hasn't already been said.

It's no secret that Jankovic is a favourite of mine, and that I find
the continual short shrift she receives from media and (some) fans
unfair. So when I have the time and the inclination to post on rst, it
happens to be more about her than about other players.

Nemanja


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 10:43=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
>
> Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot selection
> effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
> puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
> another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching her
> as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her.

I'm not sure where you get this impression from. Jankovic can
certainly belt winners with the best of them, but her rise to no.1
happened precisely after she figured out how to balance the risky
shots with safe ones, and go for winners when she has to, rather than
on every shot. The point of tennis, after all, is not to hit winners,
but rather to win points.

If you think puny opponents push her around, you need to figure out
how it is that Jankovic is no.1, and they are not, how it is that she
always beats them, rather than the other way around.

Even as far as "aesthetically pleasing" goes, many would agree that
Jankovic is the best and smoothest mover on the tour, and her strokes
are flowing and compact, and free of the type of jerky and awkward
motions that characterize many of the other top women. She may not be
Mecir, but she's not Pam Shriver either.

I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
at least to give credit where it is due.

Nemanja


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 17:53:45
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21 -0800 (PST), nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com
wrote:

>I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
>on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
>leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
>at least to give credit where it is due.

Ah, this paragraph by itself should constitute the RST FAQ, and be posted at
least monthly.

Thanks, Nemanja; I believe I'll start doing that. 8;)

Or maybe someone with a lot of time on his hands could send it in response to
each non-compliant post.

Click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click
-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click

-- Larry


   
Date: 23 Jan 2009 16:16:54
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:53:45 -0500, pltrgyst
<pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org > wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21 -0800 (PST), nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com
>wrote:
>
>>I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
>>on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
>>leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
>>at least to give credit where it is due.
>
>Ah, this paragraph by itself should constitute the RST FAQ, and be posted at
>least monthly.

Yes, I liked that paragraph as well. I just didn't like the idea that
it should be applied only to Jankovic.


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 20:25:29
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21 -0800 (PST),
nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com wrote:

>I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
>on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
>leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
>at least to give credit where it is due.

Interesting that you are always concerned about this only when it is
about Jankovic :-)


   
Date: 23 Jan 2009 06:02:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21 -0800 (PST),
> nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com wrote:
>
>> I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
>> on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
>> leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
>> at least to give credit where it is due.
>
> Interesting that you are always concerned about this only when it is
> about Jankovic :-)


He's 100% right of course. I tend to be a big fan of smooth players who
can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin - so obviously Jankovic must have
some of those elements. Puzzles me you & others see her as a bumrooter
incapable of power/winners...?

Very odd.



    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 22:24:02
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:02:27 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21 -0800 (PST),
>> nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com wrote:
>>
>>> I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
>>> on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
>>> leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
>>> at least to give credit where it is due.
>>
>> Interesting that you are always concerned about this only when it is
>> about Jankovic :-)
>
>
>He's 100% right of course. I tend to be a big fan of smooth players who
>can hit winners, eg Mac, Mecir & Henin - so obviously Jankovic must have
>some of those elements. Puzzles me you & others see her as a bumrooter
>incapable of power/winners...?
>
>Very odd.

It puzzles me if you see her as anything like Mac, Mecir and Henin.

Jankovic is a great defensive player. She also has some power, good
consistency, and ability to hit some clever shots. But all the other
top players have advantage in power. Also many lower ranked players,
but they lose in consistency and other departments. But if any of the
top players has a good day, it is difficult for Jankovic to beat them.
Latest addition to that group is Zvonareva, who I think will beat
Jankovic here, and go to the final.

I don't want to sound too negative. Jankovic is a very good player. I
quite like her, even though she is not one of my favourites. But my
view is different than Nemanja's. I think what little talk there is
about women's tennis here, Jankovic gets usually too much positive
attention compared to others. She seems to be most people's favourite.
I try to balance it a little.




 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:45:04
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 1:25=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21 -0800 (PST),
>
> nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com wrote:
> >I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
> >on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
> >leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
> >at least to give credit where it is due.
>
> Interesting that you are always concerned about this only when it is
> about Jankovic =A0:-)

Because she is on the receiving end of a lot of garbage, and no one
else seems interested in defending her. You should sympathise,
Clijsters went through more or less the same thing here. Nowhere else
of course - outside of rst, I never met a single tennis fan who
didn't like her or thought she sucked. Just like with Jankovic. But
then...these are hardly real tennis fans here (with some notable
exceptions).

Nemanja


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 22:07:15
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:45:04 -0800 (PST),
nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com wrote:

>On Jan 22, 1:25 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:04:21 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com wrote:
>> >I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
>> >on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
>> >leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
>> >at least to give credit where it is due.
>>
>> Interesting that you are always concerned about this only when it is
>> about Jankovic  :-)
>
>Because she is on the receiving end of a lot of garbage,

0,001% of what both Federer and Nadal get here. They both deserve the
garbage even less than Jankovic. Would be nice if you were concerned
about that too and not only Jankovic.




 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:28:19
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 1:04=A0pm, nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:43=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot selection
> > effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
> > puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
> > another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching her
> > as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her.
>
> I'm not sure where you get this impression from. Jankovic can
> certainly belt winners with the best of them,

With the best of them? As well as Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Ivanovic,
Safina, Davenport, Henin, et al.? No way. Her game is quite soft
compared to those of the players I listed, and others with comparable
power if lesser results.

> but her rise to no.1
> happened precisely after she figured out how to balance the risky
> shots with safe ones, and go for winners when she has to, rather than
> on every shot. The point of tennis, after all, is not to hit winners,
> but rather to win points.

The top champions generally win points, and more importantly matches
and tournaments, by physically dominating their opponents with
superior power and speed (of both shot and foot). Jankovic has
footspeed but lacks champion-level power. It's hard to win a slam, let
alone many slams, through positional and defensive play. The women's
game has changed a lot since Hingis was more or less able to
accomplish that for a short term (and only for a short term).

> If you think puny opponents push her around, you need to figure out
> how it is that Jankovic is no.1, and they are not, how it is that she
> always beats them, rather than the other way around.

She beats them because her groundstrokes are steady and her defense is
very strong. She bends but doesn't break. Eventually, they miss or get
out of position. It's not hard to "figure out."

> Even as far as "aesthetically pleasing" goes, many would agree that
> Jankovic is the best and smoothest mover on the tour,

I said: she "moves well."

> and her strokes
> are flowing and compact, and free of the type of jerky and awkward
> motions that characterize many of the other top women.

I said: "Jankovic has good strokes."

> She may not be
> Mecir, but she's not Pam Shriver either.
>
> I do wish some of the more reasonable denizens on here would at least
> on occasion try to be a little more positive about the game and its
> leading players. It's not that you have to like every top player, but
> at least to give credit where it is due.

I said: she "mixes up her shot selection effectively."

All in all, I think that's plenty of credit for a player who has yet
to establish herself as a champion at the highest level of the sport.

Joe Ramirez




 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:57:40
From: Rose
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 10:52=A0am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:40=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> > > On Jan 22, 6:09 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > >> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms =
of
> > >> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & ag=
ain,
> > >> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> > >> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says mor=
e
> > >> about the quality of opposition.
>
> > >> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> > >> dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her approa=
ch in
> > >> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> > >> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smarte=
r than
> > >> =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Jank=
ovic has
> > >> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fin=
gers
> > >> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
> > >> Sheesh what a load of crap.
>
> > > I told you - this is what you're wonderful Land Down Under does to
> > > people.
>
> > > Too hot - move it or lose it.
>
> > Venus has played like that for 12 years.
>
> ++ That's really true... all or nothing behind a monster serve =3D
> Venus...

well, that plus a lethal backhand, a sometimes lethal forehand, and
incredible court-and-net coverage ability


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:55:53
From: Rose
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
> Whisper wrote:
>
>
> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> 'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
> about the quality of opposition.

since she beat some of the very best ever, it obviously says more
about her amazing natural tennis ability, particularly on the surfaces
that reward raw tennis skills over smarts (e.g., graf said that clay
was the "thinking player's surface").

a man could get away with the same dumbness, if he had the male
equivalent of venu's incredible physical gifts, but no such man has
ever emerged.



--
.. unless her great neighbors are prosperous
and orderly, Poland is an economic impossibility
with no industry but Jew-baiting.

- JM Keynes


  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 07:56:28
From: Steve Jaros
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 23, 6:05=A0am, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <27f9ca31-2ffd-4e4f-a57c-914b601fa...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> rose.anti...@gmail.com (Rose) wrote:
> > > Whisper wrote:
>
> > > I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in
> > > terms of
> > > 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now &
> > > again,
> > > rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> > > It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says
> > > more
> > > about the quality of opposition.
>
> > since she beat some of the very best ever, it obviously says more
> > about her amazing natural tennis ability, particularly on the
> > surfaces
> > that reward raw tennis skills over smarts (e.g., graf said that clay
> > was the "thinking player's surface").
>
> None of that explains why she's had so little success in Australia. It's
> weird that almost all her career success lies in the months from Wimbledo=
n
> to the US Open. I know she won the YECs last year, but it was the first
> time. You'd have thought now that Rebound Ace has been replaced with the
> more US Open-like Plexicushion she'd have done better.
>
>
>
> > a man could get away with the same dumbness, if he had the male
> > equivalent of venu's incredible physical gifts, but no such man has
> > ever emerged.
>
> Did *no one* see CSN's play? Those angled backhands were incredible stuff=
.

yes, but ... given the difference in pedigree, it makes sense to
conclude that venus lost the match more than CSN won it.



  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 06:05:52
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
In article
<27f9ca31-2ffd-4e4f-a57c-914b601faa31@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
rose.antique@gmail.com (Rose) wrote:

> > Whisper wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in
> > terms of
> > 'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now &
> > again,
> > rally a bit & then go for the winner?
> >
> > It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says
> > more
> > about the quality of opposition.
>
> since she beat some of the very best ever, it obviously says more
> about her amazing natural tennis ability, particularly on the
> surfaces
> that reward raw tennis skills over smarts (e.g., graf said that clay
> was the "thinking player's surface").

None of that explains why she's had so little success in Australia. It's
weird that almost all her career success lies in the months from Wimbledon
to the US Open. I know she won the YECs last year, but it was the first
time. You'd have thought now that Rebound Ace has been replaced with the
more US Open-like Plexicushion she'd have done better.

>
> a man could get away with the same dumbness, if he had the male
> equivalent of venu's incredible physical gifts, but no such man has
> ever emerged.

Did *no one* see CSN's play? Those angled backhands were incredible stuff.

wg


   
Date: 24 Jan 2009 13:36:03
From: jingus
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <27f9ca31-2ffd-4e4f-a57c-914b601faa31@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> rose.antique@gmail.com (Rose) wrote:
>
>>a man could get away with the same dumbness, if he had the male
>>equivalent of venu's incredible physical gifts, but no such man has
>>ever emerged.
>
> Did *no one* see CSN's play? Those angled backhands were incredible stuff.
>

that was my take on the match. i didn't think that venus played badly
but csn was hitting some incredible angles.

even still, though, venus should have won the match. she was serving
for the match and played a terrible service game. after that, she
seemed to lose motivation. i think one of the side-effects of venus'
relatively infrequent playing schedule is that she doesn't regularly
face the kind of competitive match situations that can occur in a highly
competitive match. when she was on a hot streak in the 2000-2002 time
frame, she used to win these kinds of matches. in this match, however,
she seemed to get discouraged by csn's tough play.

but, in general, it seems that venus has staked out wimbledon as being
the "important" tournament, so it is less likely that you will see
highly motivated efforts from her at any other tournament.

but at the same time, there is some currency in complaints that venus
played a less well thought-out gameplan than did csn. for example,
venus tended to be very predictable: she almost always went cross-court
with her backhands. so csn could effectively "cheat" and expect a
cross-court shot. there was a stretch of play in the second set in
which venus picked up her play and went up a break. during that stretch
i noticed that she was having success when she hit backhands down the
line (which reaffirmed my suspicion that csn was playing venus to hit
cross-court).


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:52:18
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 8:40=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 6:09 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> >> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & agai=
n,
> >> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> >> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
> >> about the quality of opposition.
>
> >> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> >> dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her approach=
in
> >> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> >> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smarter =
than
> >> =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Jankov=
ic has
> >> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so finge=
rs
> >> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
> >> Sheesh what a load of crap.
>
> > I told you - this is what you're wonderful Land Down Under does to
> > people.
>
> > Too hot - move it or lose it.
>
> Venus has played like that for 12 years.

++ That's really true... all or nothing behind a monster serve =3D
Venus... when a woman can get in 58 or 60% first serves upwards of
120-125mph and have a hot hand on the forehand she's going to crush
many and certainly win some slams...

P


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:43:11
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 6:09=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
> about the quality of opposition.
>
> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smarter tha=
n
> =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Jankovic =
has
> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.

Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot selection
effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching her
as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her. As the
avowed enemy of "bumrooting" in all its forms, surely you can find a
better favorite than her.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 21:09:22
From: Davide Tosi
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:43:11 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:


>Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot selection
>effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
>puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
>another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching her
>as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her.

This description fits perfectly Amanda Coetzer or - talking about
nowadays players - Sara Errani, who I foresee having a career very
similar to Coetzer's in the future. These are great smooth endurance
athletes who just happen to play tennis, but are really unable to hit
winners and keep on moonballing from every corner of the backcourt.
Jankovic is not like that, she's a good strategic mix of defense and
attack, a very well balanced player who has the right mindset that
power-monsters like the Williams2 completely lack of.
As of now the only thing that JJ still needs to add to her mix is the
ability to become a clutch player when it matters, in the last few
rounds of grand slams.


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 17:50:58
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:43:11 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:

>On Jan 22, 6:09 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
>> 'tennis smarts'.  What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
>> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>>
>> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
>> about the quality of opposition.
>>
>> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
>> dumb... dumb'.  There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
>> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>>
>> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left.  Serena is smarter than
>>   Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too.  Jankovic has
>> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
>> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
>Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot selection
>effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
>puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
>another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching her
>as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her. As the
>avowed enemy of "bumrooting" in all its forms, surely you can find a
>better favorite than her.

Exactly. Jankovic is a good fighter, but her game is "far from the
most aesthetically pleasing". She is OK, but too defensive for my
taste, so it is surprising that Whisper likes her so much.



   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 15:53:43
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:43:11 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 6:09 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
>>> 'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
>>> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>>>
>>> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
>>> about the quality of opposition.
>>>
>>> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
>>> dumb... dumb'. There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
>>> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>>>
>>> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. Serena is smarter than
>>> Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. Jankovic has
>>> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
>>> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>> Jankovic has good strokes, moves well, and mixes up her shot selection
>> effectively, but she can barely hit a winner to save her life. Even
>> puny opponents push her around, forcing her into tedious "toss up
>> another lob to get back in the point" mode. I often find watching her
>> as frustrating as it must be for her opponents to play her. As the
>> avowed enemy of "bumrooting" in all its forms, surely you can find a
>> better favorite than her.
>
> Exactly. Jankovic is a good fighter, but her game is "far from the
> most aesthetically pleasing". She is OK, but too defensive for my
> taste, so it is surprising that Whisper likes her so much.
>

He loves Nadal and Jankovic and hates Federer and Sampras. Go figure!

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:32:28
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 5:09=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
> about the quality of opposition.
>
> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smarter tha=
n
> =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Jankovic =
has
> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
> Sheesh what a load of crap.

Venus wins because on some level it's a difference in "weight class"
between her and other woman players. She doesn't have to be more
skilled or smart when she's a heavyweight playing middleweights.

-D


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:43:21
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 6:09=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
> about the quality of opposition.
>
> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smarter tha=
n
> =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Jankovic =
has
> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
> Sheesh what a load of crap.

Yeah. Vamos Jankovic.


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:37:13
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 10:34=A0am, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 6:09=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> > 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again=
,
> > rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> > It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
> > about the quality of opposition.
>
> > Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> > dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her approach =
in
> > the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> > Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smarter t=
han
> > =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Jankovi=
c has
> > by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so finger=
s
> > crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
> > Sheesh what a load of crap.
>
> I told you - this is what you're wonderful Land Down Under does to
> people.
>
> Too hot - move it or lose it.

<<what you're wonderful >>

MENSA alert!




 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:34:45
From:
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
On Jan 22, 6:09=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
> 'tennis smarts'. =A0What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>
> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
> about the quality of opposition.
>
> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> dumb... dumb'. =A0There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>
> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. =A0Serena is smarter tha=
n
> =A0 Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. =A0Jankovic =
has
> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>
> Sheesh what a load of crap.

I told you - this is what you're wonderful Land Down Under does to
people.

Too hot - move it or lose it.


  
Date: 23 Jan 2009 03:40:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
blueskates1111@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 6:09 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> I've never seen a dumber tennis player than Venus Williams in terms of
>> 'tennis smarts'. What's wrong with slicing the ball back now & again,
>> rally a bit & then go for the winner?
>>
>> It's really astonishing she's won 7 slams but that probably says more
>> about the quality of opposition.
>>
>> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
>> dumb... dumb'. There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
>> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
>>
>> Women's tennis is in a bad way since Henin left. Serena is smarter than
>> Venus, but her tennis is pretty ugly & error-ridden too. Jankovic has
>> by far the most aesthetically pleasing game in women's tennis so fingers
>> crossed she can continue to rank No.1 & start winning some slams.
>>
>> Sheesh what a load of crap.
>
> I told you - this is what you're wonderful Land Down Under does to
> people.
>
> Too hot - move it or lose it.


Venus has played like that for 12 years.


 
Date: 22 Jan 2009 11:24:40
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: Another dumb Venus loss....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4978540d$0$9484$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>

>
> Watching her matches I just find myself constantly thinking 'Dumb...
> dumb... dumb'. There's no way a male can get away with her approach in
> the men's game - it would be like Andrew Illie winning 7 slams.
> Sheesh what a load of crap.


Evgeny Korolev = Male Venus Williams(at the moment) however he's only 20 and
has time to develop a tennis brain