-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
You don't see this in men's tennis between top players......
Almost never. I wonder of a Waltzian or Hopsian type can tell us the last time there was a double-bagel amongst top-5 male players...?
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:32:37 -0600, "StephenJ" <cjones@corpus.com> wrote:
yeah it's not a slam, but funny nonetheless.>
sheesh.
Just amazing. I thought the result was wrong at first, or even the other way around, but that's just incredible. Sharapova is trying to reach the number 1 ranking and gets double bagelled. What utter humiliation. -- Luke Croll ABDK FAQ: http://home.earthlink.net/~abdk-faq/faq.htm
Robert B. Waltz 19 March 2005 17:29:17 [ permanent link ]
"Robbie" <robvanzant@email.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
Man.... you guys are so cruel. A skinny 17 year old gal is probably> crying out there right now... and you guys are sadistically enjoying it.
She probably is. But if you don't think she's irritating, you've never watched her. And, in my case at least, what I'm REALLY gloating about is the effect on her idiot fans. *They* are what really drive me crazy about Sharapova. They're completely irrational.
-- To the wicked God says: What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips? For you have discipline, and you cast my words behind you. -- Psalm 50:16-17
"Javier Gonzalez" <jagonzal@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote in message news:d1hecf$js2$1@helcaraxe.dcc.uchile.cl...> Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>> You don't see this in men's tennis between top players......>
Yeah, what was the score at 2004 USO final? Oh wait...> (and that's a slam, not a 'means squat' tuneup)
Maria needed to lose badly like this to remind herself that she's not all the media hypes her up to be. In the long run, this will do her a world of good and make her a better player for it.
mzgurl wrote:> Maria needed to lose badly like this to remind herself that she's not> all the media hypes her up to be. In the long run, this will do her a> world of good and make her a better player for it.
Her Wimbledon win was a FLUKE. No Clijsters, Henin and Serena/Davenport played like crap.
"Javier Gonzalez" <jagonzal@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote in message > news:d1hecf$js2$1@helcaraxe.dcc.uchile.cl...>
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>>
You don't see this in men's tennis between top players......>>
Yeah, what was the score at 2004 USO final? Oh wait...>>(and that's a slam, not a 'means squat' tuneup)>
i believe hewitt won a set, no?>
bob >
Yes, on paper close to winning a set. None of us here would get a score like that v Fed - we can all lose 0-6 0-6. We can all do worse than Hewitt, but not worse than Shara....
On 19-Mar-2005, "Robbie" <robvanzant@email.com> wrote:
Maria needed to lose badly like this to remind herself that she's not> > all the media hypes her up to be. In the long run, this will do her a> > world of good and make her a better player for it.
Her Wimbledon win was a FLUKE. No Clijsters, Henin and Serena/Davenport> played like crap.
You know, if Serena played like crap, then how did she reach the final? The other 63 players on her side of the draw had to be even crappier Or do you mean she played like crap just that one final match? If so, then by the same logic perhaps Maria played on Friday like crap just that one match.
Come to think of it, they both said the same thing after their losses. Serena: "I wasn't really there". Maria: "I didn't feel like I was there today" An eerie similarity!
So Lindsay won against Maria 6:0 6:0, but she lost 6 games in a row in the same set the very next day! And lost the set where she had 4:0 lead, and the match and the tournament. And lost 0:6 in AO Final. So these things happen to everybody, to lose 6 games in a row in one set. It happened to Lindsay in two finals this year, it happened to Maria in two sets in one semifinal. Better Maria's way, she made the record books at least.
Maria proved and confirmed her class, not only by winning the wta championships, but by consistent, solid play from last October (from Seul) until now. In that period of time she was the best player, period. Better than anybody else on the wta tour. During that time, she won 5 tournaments and lost only three times, but two of the losses can be justified and ignored: 1) to Molik in Zurich when she was playing injured, she should have retired instead of aggravating her injury. 2) to Mauresmo in L.A, in a practice match which she played exactly like a practice match. 3) to Serena in Melbourne by the closest of margins in the match considered by many the best match of AO 2005 on the women's side, and Serena playing at her top form in the 2nd and 3rd sets.
It seems to me that Maria's loss to Lindsay was a fluke, I mean, that kind of loss, not her Wimbledon win.
On 19-Mar-2005, "mzgurl" <mzgurl27@optonline.net> wrote:
Maria needed to lose badly like this to remind herself that she's not> all the media hypes her up to be. In the long run, this will do her a> world of good and make her a better player for it.
It may help her, or it may hurt her confidence, especially after those match points with Serena. But perhaps it will help her, seeing how she reacts to losses and what she does about them.
But I don't think the media hypes her up, forget Wimbledon, her record for the whole period from Seul last year until now stands for itself. In that period of time, 5 tournaments won, including the Championships, and only one match really lost, the two other losses were an injury (with Molik) and a practice match (with Mauresmo). And we all know how close that lost match with Serena was. No one on the tour did better in that period of time. And look at the career wta finals won: 9 out of 10. 9 out of 9 if counting only when she was playing uninjured. Including a GS, The Championships, a tier 1, a tier 2, at the age of 17. An amazing result.
So, perhaps she was hyped up by the media initially after Wimbledon, but she managed to live up to the hype. Until now, anyway.
Sharapova's W win was no fluke. Yeah, she pulled some tight ones out to reach the final, but the way she played vs. Serena would have beaten the vast majority of W champions on that day.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, on the SCOTUS
"Mark Balls" <mark@balls.com> wrote in message news:irOdnXrZ5ec786DfRVn-pw@giganews.com...>
On 19-Mar-2005, "Robbie" <robvanzant@email.com> wrote:>
Maria needed to lose badly like this to remind herself that she's not> > > all the media hypes her up to be. In the long run, this will do her a> > > world of good and make her a better player for it.>
Her Wimbledon win was a FLUKE. No Clijsters, Henin and Serena/Davenport> > played like crap.>
You know, if Serena played like crap, then how did she reach the final?> The other 63 players on her side of the draw had to be even crappier> Or do you mean she played like crap just that one final match?> If so, then by the same logic perhaps Maria played on Friday like crap
just> that one match.>
Come to think of it, they both said the same thing after their losses.> Serena: "I wasn't really there".> Maria: "I didn't feel like I was there today"> An eerie similarity!>
So Lindsay won against Maria 6:0 6:0, but she lost 6 games in a row in the> same set the very next day!> And lost the set where she had 4:0 lead, and the match and the tournament.> And lost 0:6 in AO Final.> So these things happen to everybody, to lose 6 games in a row in one set.> It happened to Lindsay in two finals this year, it happened to Maria in
sets in one semifinal.> Better Maria's way, she made the record books at least.>
Maria proved and confirmed her class, not only by winning the wta> championships,> but by consistent, solid play from last October (from Seul) until now.> In that period of time she was the best player, period. Better than
anybody> else on the wta tour.> During that time, she won 5 tournaments and lost only three times, but
of the losses can be justified and ignored:> 1) to Molik in Zurich when she was playing injured, she should have
retired> instead of aggravating her injury.> 2) to Mauresmo in L.A, in a practice match which she played exactly like a> practice match.> 3) to Serena in Melbourne by the closest of margins in the match considered> by many the best match of AO 2005 on the women's side,> and Serena playing at her top form in the 2nd and 3rd sets.>
It seems to me that Maria's loss to Lindsay was a fluke, I mean, that kind> of loss, not her Wimbledon win.
Mark Balls wrote:> On 19-Mar-2005, "Robbie" <robvanzant@email.com> wrote:>
Her Wimbledon win was a FLUKE. No Clijsters, Henin and Serena/Davenport> > played like crap.>
You know, if Serena played like crap, then how did she reach the final?> The other 63 players on her side of the draw had to be even crappier> Or do you mean she played like crap just that one final match?>
sharapova won because she played well, serena lost because she didn't play well. serena didn't play "like crap" but she played a very tentative match, and got out played. serena didn't play very well in general last year, and still doesn't appear to be back to form this year either. some of her outbursts, such as uncharacteristically frequent incidents of racquet-smashing lately lead me to suspect that she is dealing with complications in her life that aren't really being visited upon sharapova at present.
If so, then by the same logic perhaps Maria played on Friday like crap just> that one match.>
this is actually a fairly reasonable conclusion. you can't really draw huge conclusions based on a single match.
Maria proved and confirmed her class, not only by winning the wta> championships,> but by consistent, solid play from last October (from Seul) until now.> In that period of time she was the best player, period. Better than anybody> else on the wta tour.>
...better than anyone else at that time. last year both venus and serena were struggling. venus is still pretty much out of the picture, and serena still seems a bit questionable in terms of her ability to focus on tennis. the injuries that serena has suffered in her recent matches - including her match against sharapova at the tour championship final - seem to be more like "lack of fitness" injuries. this leads me to think that serena hasn't quite gotten the memo yet that suggests that she is going to have to work harder to dominate women's tennis in the way that she has in the past.
beyond that, it is not at all clear that sharapova will be better than an in-form clijsters, or if it happens, an in-form henin-hardenne. what last year showed was that when the real top players were away, the rest of the field did not really establish a clear #1 player. at present, though, it would appear that sharapova is clearly the best of the rest, and will probably be very competitive against the "real" top players even when in-form.
During that time, she won 5 tournaments and lost only three times, but two> of the losses can be justified and ignored:> 1) to Molik in Zurich when she was playing injured, she should have retired> instead of aggravating her injury.> 2) to Mauresmo in L.A, in a practice match which she played exactly like a> practice match.
3) to Serena in Melbourne by the closest of margins in the match considered> by many the best match of AO 2005 on the women's side,> and Serena playing at her top form in the 2nd and 3rd sets.>
this is true, to the extent that it would have been a choke on serena's part to have lost the match.
Almost never. I wonder of a Waltzian or Hopsian type can tell us the last> > time there was a double-bagel amongst top-5 male players...?>
When happened that the last time (apart from Dav-Shar) amongst female> top 5 players?
As already mentioned several times, the last comparable blowout was Hingis's stomping of Seles (Miami 2000) -- but that wasn't comparable, really, because Seles shouldn't have played.
The next biggest, I would say, was Mauresmo's over Dementieva at Paris 2002.
Looking for other bagels in 2005 -- well, anyone care that Parra Santonja has been double bagelled twice this year already (by Smashnova at Canberra and Likhovtseva at the Pan Pacific)?
Spadea double bagelled Sanchez at Auckland, and Kiefer did it to Sargsian at Indian Wells.
Most noteworthy double bagels of 2004 (not a complete list, but the ones where I consider both players significant): Martinez def. Maleeva (Sydney) Molik def. Jankovic (Amelia Island)
No significant men's bagels
2003: Clijsters def. Mandula (Australian Open) Mauresmo def. Dementieva (Paris) S. Williams def. Schett (Roland Garros)
Coria def. Youzhny (Stuttgart)
2002: Capriati def. Pierce (Rome)
Canas def. Montanes (Bastad)
Before this, I don't have men's records.
2001: No really big women's double bagels
2000: Hingis def. Seles (Miami)
1999: Again, not much; best is probably Maleeva def. Panova (Portschach)
And that's where my comprehensive women's records end.
Again, this isn't even close to a comprehensive list of bagel. But they're the ones involving significant players at the time, and generally healthy ones (e.g. I omitted Venus's win over Matevzic at the Olympics last year; while Matevzic was significant before her injury, she wasn't ready to play at the Olympics).
I'm not doing any more searching; it's too much work once I get
-- To the wicked God says: What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips? For you have discipline, and you cast my words behind you. -- Psalm 50:16-17
Ursula Winkler 21 March 2005 18:42:51 [ permanent link ]
"Robert B. Waltz" wrote:
The next biggest, I would say, was Mauresmo's over Dementieva> at Paris 2002.>
Looking for other bagels in 2005 -- well, anyone care> that Parra Santonja has been double bagelled twice this year> already (by Smashnova at Canberra and Likhovtseva at the Pan> Pacific)?
Thank you. But I just meant about top-5 players (and not only the last 3 years). Are there some more comparable matches?
The next biggest, I would say, was Mauresmo's over Dementieva> > at Paris 2002.> >
Looking for other bagels in 2005 -- well, anyone care> > that Parra Santonja has been double bagelled twice this year> > already (by Smashnova at Canberra and Likhovtseva at the Pan> > Pacific)?>
Thank you. But I just meant about top-5 players (and not only the last 3> years). Are there some more comparable matches?
I know. But I could only give you what I have, which was the list I offered. And, note, that went back to 1999 on the women's side. Nothing remotely comparable except Hingis/Seles and Dementieva/Mauresmo.
-- To the wicked God says: What right have you to recite my statutes, or take my covenant on your lips? For you have discipline, and you cast my words behind you. -- Psalm 50:16-17
"Ted of Ted's Tennis" <tedstennis@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:Xns961E914718138tedstennismyrealboxcom@ID-121946.user.dfncis.de...> Somebody claiming to be "bob" <rstein6@NOSPAM.cfl.rr.com> wrote in> news:70Z_d.205819$JF2.159054@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:>
i believe hewitt won a set, no?>
Wasn't the final score 6-0 7-6 6-0?
it might'v been, i don't recal..but yes, it was a helluva beating.
Ursula Winkler 22 March 2005 11:22:53 [ permanent link ]
"Robert B. Waltz" wrote:
Thank you. But I just meant about top-5 players (and not only the last 3> > years). Are there some more comparable matches?>
I know. But I could only give you what I have, which was the> list I offered. And, note, that went back to 1999 on the> women's side. Nothing remotely comparable except> Hingis/Seles and Dementieva/Mauresmo.
This answers my question anyway. Seems, that this match is really going down into tennis history.
