I sent this on Sunday, but I had some server problems, so I am not sure did anyone see it. I am not absolutely sure is anyone going to see this either, but I have to try again, because there are so strange opinions around here about the subject, and because this post has the most important points I have to say about it. Here is a post by "blanders0604" to which I replied, and my post follows.
On 2 Apr 2005 17:16:22 -0800, blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
What do Henin and Clijsters have in common? One is a creative>shotmaker who takes intiative while the other is a bumrooting leach who>hits back to the middle, retreives and waits for her shitty opponents>to blow it. Clijsters winning all these HC matches is a serious>indictment on women's tennis. This should not be happening on HC.>Even the famous forehand split of hers is a shot usually made there is>time to take the extra step and take a swing at it. Kim just blocks it>back and waits for an error. Its just awful that she can get away with>this. Its perfectly fitting that she has come up short in the slam>finals she has been in. The extra inspiration players find in slams>will usually favor the player who makes things happen, not the one who>relies on errors. I hope she keeps her losing streak intact in slam>finals.
I don't think you will listen any more than Whisper or bob, but let's try again...
Kim Clijsters is naturally offensive player, who is dominating the rallies in 99,9% of her matches. There are currently one or two players, against who she has to play more defensively, because they just have too much power, Sharapova and Davenport when she is really on.
My favourite players have always been the ones who go for their shots, and do things themselves. I have always hated the players, who just wait for the opponent to make an error. My favourite current player is Kim Clijsters. Come on people, I like her for the same reasons most of you like your favourite players! She plays offensive, exciting tennis. If you haven't seen her play like that, you just have believe it.
In 2003, I saw one match where she was really overpowered (amazingly by Dokic, who had a great day). Then I saw few matches, where the domination was about equal, mainly against theWilliams sisters. Then I saw few matches, where she just played horribly, but was in no way overpowered, mainly the slam finals.... In all the other matches she was clearly the aggressor, including against Henin in matches outside Slams, which unfortunately are not shown in US and Aus TV's.
It is true that she has been more defensive since her comeback. That's why I don't think she is quite not at her best yet. And against Sharapova it is difficult to be dominating, although she didn't play as defensively as some of you say. She just had a few amazing defensive points. Overall, I wasn't too happy with how her game looked yesterday, I expect it to be a lot more offensive against other players, and against Sharapova too. But at this point I just have to be really happy with these amazing results. I am sure her game will get more interesting again soon.
Robert B. Waltz 7 April 2005 00:58:53 [ permanent link ]
Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
It is true that she has been more defensive since her comeback. That's> why I don't think she is quite not at her best yet. And against> Sharapova it is difficult to be dominating, although she didn't play> as defensively as some of you say. She just had a few amazing> defensive points. Overall, I wasn't too happy with how her game looked> yesterday, I expect it to be a lot more offensive against other> players, and against Sharapova too. But at this point I just have to> be really happy with these amazing results. I am sure her game will> get more interesting again soon.>
Sensible comments welcome.
Allowing for your prejudices, I should think this obvious. You *don't* get to #1 without having offense as well as defence. Not even Sanchez-Vicario did that; she was a player who played great defence and could switch to offence when given a chance. That's why she made it to #1 and Clijsters never did. And Clijsters is much more of an offensive player than ASV ever was. Ten years ago, she'd have been called a very big hitter. These days, she isn't exceptional, but she does hit harder than most.
And *that* is why people go for so much against her. A speedy opponent with no offensive capability isn't that much of a threat; if you can't hit a winner, you can hit a neutral shot and try again next time. Against Clijsters, that doesn't work, because if you give her something she can attack, she will.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:58:53 -0500, "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote:
Allowing for your prejudices, I should think this obvious.>You *don't* get to #1 without having offense as well as>defence. Not even Sanchez-Vicario did that; she was a player>who played great defence and could switch to offence when>given a chance. That's why she made it to #1 and Clijsters>never did.
? Maybe you mean Martinez never did, or something? It doesn't make sense otherwise.
Robert B. Waltz 7 April 2005 02:24:58 [ permanent link ]
In article <ofk8511kj7hfr5glesohkr8vcqv8qbr329@4ax.com>, Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:58:53 -0500, "Robert B. Waltz"> <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote:>
Allowing for your prejudices, I should think this obvious.> >You *don't* get to #1 without having offense as well as> >defence. Not even Sanchez-Vicario did that; she was a player> >who played great defence and could switch to offence when> >given a chance. That's why she made it to #1 and Clijsters> >never did.>
? > Maybe you mean Martinez never did, or something?
It's been a bad week for my brain.
The sentence should read, "That's why she [ASV] made it to #1 and COETZER never did." Coetzer was as fast and as steady as ASV but didn't have any offense at all.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message news:suf8515i9m6c0hlas0vv9rs6meci5mdsg9@4ax.com...
Kim Clijsters is naturally offensive player, who is dominating the> rallies in 99,9% of her matches. There are currently one or two> players, against who she has to play more defensively, because they> just have too much power, Sharapova and Davenport when she is really> on.>
My favourite players have always been the ones who go for their shots,> and do things themselves. I have always hated the players, who just> wait for the opponent to make an error. My favourite current player is> Kim Clijsters. Come on people, I like her for the same reasons most of> you like your favourite players! She plays offensive, exciting tennis.> If you haven't seen her play like that, you just have believe it.>
In 2003, I saw one match where she was really overpowered (amazingly> by Dokic, who had a great day). Then I saw few matches, where the> domination was about equal, mainly against theWilliams sisters. Then I> saw few matches, where she just played horribly, but was in no way> overpowered, mainly the slam finals.... In all the other matches she> was clearly the aggressor, including against Henin in matches outside> Slams, which unfortunately are not shown in US and Aus TV's.>
It is true that she has been more defensive since her comeback. That's> why I don't think she is quite not at her best yet. And against> Sharapova it is difficult to be dominating, although she didn't play> as defensively as some of you say. She just had a few amazing> defensive points. Overall, I wasn't too happy with how her game looked> yesterday, I expect it to be a lot more offensive against other> players, and against Sharapova too. But at this point I just have to> be really happy with these amazing results. I am sure her game will> get more interesting again soon.>
Sensible comments welcome.
Yeah, I'm amazed at people stating that Kim is just a counter-puncher. As I've pointed out, she's a systematic offensive baseliner, rather like Lendl and latter-day Agassi in hitting balls from corner to corner and trying to get the short ball to attack. She can defend too, mainly because of great court-coverage.
Her problems are her forehand is rather "arm-y" and can go off and she doesn't have a great deal of tactical and technical flexibility.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:17:04 +0800, "Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote:
Yeah, I'm amazed at people stating that Kim is just a counter-puncher. As>I've pointed out, she's a systematic offensive baseliner, rather like Lendl>and latter-day Agassi in hitting balls from corner to corner and trying to>get the short ball to attack. She can defend too, mainly because of great>court-coverage.>
Her problems are her forehand is rather "arm-y" and can go off and she>doesn't have a great deal of tactical and technical flexibility.
Your posts are getting better every day. Although actually it is probably not that they are getting better, but because what there is to compare gets worse all the time...
I can accept everything you say. Sure, maybe she "doesn't have a great deal of tactical and technical flexibility", but that's not really a problem, because almost everyone doesn't.
Before her injury, I thought she was hitting as hard as the Williams sisters, but had the edge in consistency. She was hitting as hard as Davenport, but had the edge in mobility. Then there was Henin, who she could either hit out of the court, or beat with consistency. Just that she couldn't do either in the slam finals, probably both because of choking, and because of Henin breaking her rhythm, as you say. And every other player she just hit out of the court.
Since then, the Russians have arrived, but she has already shown she still has no problems with Myskina and Dementieva. Kuznetsova has also slumped really badly since USO. Sharapova is tough, Kim beat her at Miami partly because of the conditions. I said many times during the weekend, but if nobody saw those messages, I'll say once again: Kim - Sharapova is my dream final, and I hope and believe they will play in many big finals in the future, in better conditions than it was in Miami.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:17:04 +0800, "Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to> reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote:>
Yeah, I'm amazed at people stating that Kim is just a counter-puncher. As>>I've pointed out, she's a systematic offensive baseliner, rather like Lendl>>and latter-day Agassi in hitting balls from corner to corner and trying to>>get the short ball to attack. She can defend too, mainly because of great>>court-coverage.>>
Her problems are her forehand is rather "arm-y" and can go off and she>>doesn't have a great deal of tactical and technical flexibility.>
Your posts are getting better every day. Although actually it is> probably not that they are getting better, but because what there is> to compare gets worse all the time...
I'm not surprised your estimation of Lloyd goes up when I've demoted him a couple tiers. I'm stunned he thinks Sampras would win only 4 slams playing in Lendl era. Astonishing. He clearly is clueless....
I can accept everything you say. Sure, maybe she "doesn't have a great> deal of tactical and technical flexibility", but that's not really a> problem, because almost everyone doesn't.>
Before her injury, I thought she was hitting as hard as the Williams> sisters,
Nope.
but had the edge in consistency.
Yes, as she has nothing else. If she's inconsistent she has 'no' hope of winning. Henin/Serena can still win as they can turn the match on a dime & start blasting winners...
She was hitting as hard as> Davenport, but had the edge in mobility.
Yes, she's better than Davenport. But that's not saying much....
Then there was Henin, who she> could either hit out of the court, or beat with consistency. Just that> she couldn't do either in the slam finals, probably both because of> choking,
Kim did choke once v Serena at AO, but never in a slam final. She needs to play a Russian or Davenport in slam final to have a chance. That's bound to happen & that's why I said she can win up to 3 slams. And given some of the hacks that have won slams I'll be happy to see her win a couple - but please don't compare her to Henin/Serena - different class.
and because of Henin breaking her rhythm, as you say. And> every other player she just hit out of the court.>
Since then, the Russians have arrived,
I don't think anyone really 'arrives' until they win 2 slams.... as Safin says 1 can be an accident (eg Kuznetsova)....
but she has already shown she> still has no problems with Myskina and Dementieva. Kuznetsova has also> slumped really badly since USO.
'Slump'? She was nothing before the USO & is nothing after....
Sharapova is tough, Kim beat her at> Miami partly because of the conditions. I said many times during the> weekend, but if nobody saw those messages, I'll say once again: Kim -> Sharapova is my dream final, and I hope and believe they will play in> many big finals in the future, in better conditions than it was in> Miami.
Sorry, but Kim is a spoiler. The best finals would clearly involve Henin/Shara/Serena.
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:17:13 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
I'm not surprised your estimation of Lloyd goes up when I've demoted him >a couple tiers. I'm stunned he thinks Sampras would win only 4 slams >playing in Lendl era. Astonishing. He clearly is clueless....
Well, I couldn't care less about "who would win how many slams in what era" kind of arguments. But the posts I have read by him recently have been good.
The rest of your post was your usual nonsense, which I have read million times. I said "sensible posts welcome" just so that I wouldn't have to read that again.
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:17:13 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>> wrote:>
I'm not surprised your estimation of Lloyd goes up when I've demoted him >>a couple tiers. I'm stunned he thinks Sampras would win only 4 slams >>playing in Lendl era. Astonishing. He clearly is clueless....>
Well, I couldn't care less about "who would win how many slams in what> era" kind of arguments. But the posts I have read by him recently have> been good.>
The rest of your post was your usual nonsense, which I have read> million times. I said "sensible posts welcome" just so that I wouldn't> have to read that again.>
On 7 Apr 2005 08:21:17 -0700, blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
I really think the split forehand chop that she uses so frequently>should give a strong indicator of Clijsters make-up. No truly>offensive player would resort to that like she does. Maybe it is that>shot that makes me not like her. I like to see a player who can>execute a purely defensive squash-type forehand, but Clijsters goes>into this split which really does nothing to get her to the ball better>and then hits that little chop. I am not amazed by that. Tennis style>resides largely between the ears, particularly in players who have the>size and strength to be anything they want. Small players are usually>limited in their options and a more defensive posture is required to>make it in the big leagues. That's what makes HH remarkable--she's more>offensive in a small package (although she did need to pump some>serious iron to win slams by the looks of it). Clijsters is not>limited in body, only in mindset. She can work a point and move the>ball around, but she does not do so with nearly the lethal intent of a>true offensive player. She's a big, strong girl who can hit a>reasonably heavy ball, So she can put many players on their heels. I>don't see her really going for it like a Seles, Sharapova, HH,>Williamsx2. Even the Russian girls to me seem much more apt to thread>the needle, paint the lines or bang off the big winner. Clijsters>seems like a very safe player to me, and when she gets aggressive she>seems apt to gag a little. I am sure she will continue going deep, so>I will keep watching and revise my opinion if I see it differently.
Thanks for your reply. This was more sensible than your original post. I still don't agree with it, but I can understand people seeing in that way. Can I ask you how much have you seen her play? I can tell you that if I had only seen her play four matches, three slam finals against Henin, and the Miami final on Saturday, I wouldn't like her at all. But I have seen her a lot, and I know how she can play. I just hope you keep an open mind when you watch her in the future. BTW, I agree she overdoes the split. She is famous for it, and it is like she feels she has to do it all the time now.
On 7 Apr 2005 13:14:33 -0700, blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
The matches you reference are pretty much what I have seen or at least>remember.
I knew it! In that case you describe her game in those matches pretty well. But that's not the real Kim.
But look at what you said. If you only considered her>*slam* performances you wouldn't like her at all.
Her slam *final* performances. But yes, I know. It is not a sign of a great champion to choke in big finals. But I get the feeling she is mentally stronger now after the year she has had.
Yeah, I'm amazed at people stating that Kim is just a counter-puncher. As> I've pointed out, she's a systematic offensive baseliner, rather like Lendl> and latter-day Agassi in hitting balls from corner to corner and trying to> get the short ball to attack. She can defend too, mainly because of great> court-coverage.>
Her problems are her forehand is rather "arm-y" and can go off and she> doesn't have a great deal of tactical and technical flexibility.>
the above comments are very much on point. however, the problem that clijsters had was not her ability to dominate rallies in 99% of her matches, the problem was that she was predictably at the bottom of the rung among the pantheon of top players. clijsters was also the most consistent among the top players.
aside from that, clijsters is a player who does have offensive shots while at the same time being a very good defensive player, and is a very consistent player. i agree with the comments about a lack of tactical flexibility (although i'm not sure that the lack of technical flexibility comment means). in my opinion, this had a lot more to do with her tendancy to lose quite predictably to serena, venus, and henin-hardenne than these claims that clijsters mysteriously "choked" repeatedly.
Before her injury, I thought she was hitting as hard as the Williams> sisters, but had the edge in consistency.>
and clijsters used to lose to both, which undercuts any intrinsic value in reliance on consistency. look at the records, clijsters' record against serena is dreadful, 1 win in 8 matches. it isn't much better against venus, 2 wins in 8 matches. even if you throw out venus' recent win in clijsters' first tournament since returning, and throw out clijsters' victory at the championships tournament when venus withdrew after losing the first 5 games in the match, it is still not a record that you can point to and conclude that clijsters had any kind of "edge".
She was hitting as hard as> Davenport, but had the edge in mobility. Then there was Henin, who she> could either hit out of the court, or beat with consistency.>
the problem is that clijsters has been losing to henin-hardenne on a fairly consistent basis. it has nothing to do with grand slam finals, the fact is that clijsters generally loses, grand slam or no. yes, the career record looks even, but that was because in the early part of their careers clijsters won routinely.
Just that> she couldn't do either in the slam finals, probably both because of> choking, and because of Henin breaking her rhythm, as you say. And> every other player she just hit out of the court.>
this goes a long way in explaining why clijsters hasn't won any grand slam titles - because the players that she can't "hit out of the court" are the ones most likely to have won grand slam titles.
Since then, the Russians have arrived, but she has already shown she> still has no problems with Myskina and Dementieva. Kuznetsova has also> slumped really badly since USO. Sharapova is tough, Kim beat her at> Miami partly because of the conditions. I said many times during the> weekend, but if nobody saw those messages, I'll say once again: Kim -> Sharapova is my dream final, and I hope and believe they will play in> many big finals in the future, in better conditions than it was in> Miami.>
as far as the "dream final", well that's your opinion. however, in my opinion, clijsters' success after a long layoff reflects the fact that the women's game has gone down in terms of level of play, at least at the top.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:YE85e.440$%16.4256@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
I'm not surprised your estimation of Lloyd goes up when I've demoted him> a couple tiers. I'm stunned he thinks Sampras would win only 4 slams> playing in Lendl era.
Actually I never said this at all. The hypothesis was Pete playing against Lendl, Edberg, Becker and Mac at their peaks and I think I'm being generous in giving him four.
Yeah, I'm amazed at people stating that Kim is just a counter-puncher. As>>I've pointed out, she's a systematic offensive baseliner, rather like Lendl>>and latter-day Agassi in hitting balls from corner to corner and trying to>>get the short ball to attack. She can defend too, mainly because of great>>court-coverage.>>
Her problems are her forehand is rather "arm-y" and can go off and she>>doesn't have a great deal of tactical and technical flexibility.>>
the above comments are very much on point. however, the problem that> clijsters had was not her ability to dominate rallies in 99% of her> matches, the problem was that she was predictably at the bottom of> the rung among the pantheon of top players. clijsters was also the> most consistent among the top players.>
aside from that, clijsters is a player who does have offensive shots> while at the same time being a very good defensive player, and is a very> consistent player. i agree with the comments about a lack of tactical> flexibility (although i'm not sure that the lack of technical> flexibility comment means). in my opinion, this had a lot more to do> with her tendancy to lose quite predictably to serena, venus, and> henin-hardenne than these claims that clijsters mysteriously "choked"> repeatedly.
Kim rarely chokes (never in a slam final anyway)- she is one tough mental cookie who gets the most out of her limited game....
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:YE85e.440$%16.4256@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
I'm not surprised your estimation of Lloyd goes up when I've demoted him>>a couple tiers. I'm stunned he thinks Sampras would win only 4 slams>>playing in Lendl era.>
Actually I never said this at all. The hypothesis was Pete playing against> Lendl, Edberg, Becker and Mac at their peaks and I think I'm being generous> in giving him four.>
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 03:56:07 GMT, paperw8 <paperw8@mindspring.com> wrote:
the problem is that clijsters has been losing to henin-hardenne on a>fairly consistent basis. it has nothing to do with grand slam finals,>the fact is that clijsters generally loses, grand slam or no.
Starting from 2002 WTA Championships, a few months before Henin started winning slams, slam finals excluded. Judge for yourself.
2002 W.T.A. Tour Championships QF Hard (I) K.CLIJSTERS 6-2 6-1 2003 Sydney SF Hard (O) K.CLIJSTERS 6-2 6-3 2003 Antwerp SF Carpet (I) K.CLIJSTERS 6-2 7-6(3) 2003 Berlin FR Clay (O) J.HENIN-HARDENNE 4-6 6-4 5-7 2003 's-Hertogenbosch FR Grass (O) K.CLIJSTERS 6-7(4) 3-0 RET 2003 San Diego FR Hard (O) J.HENIN-HARDENNE 6-3 2-6 3-6 2003 Filderstadt FR Hard (I) K.CLIJSTERS 5-7 6-4 6-2
Sakari Lund wrote:>> On 7 Apr 2005 08:21:17 -0700, blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:>>
I really think the split forehand chop that she uses so frequently>> >should give a strong indicator of Clijsters make-up. No truly>> >offensive player would resort to that like she does. Maybe it is>that>> >shot that makes me not like her. I like to see a player who can>> >execute a purely defensive squash-type forehand, but Clijsters goes>> >into this split which really does nothing to get her to the ball>better>> >and then hits that little chop. I am not amazed by that. Tennis>style>> >resides largely between the ears, particularly in players who have>the>> >size and strength to be anything they want. Small players are>usually>> >limited in their options and a more defensive posture is required to>> >make it in the big leagues. That's what makes HH remarkable--she's>more>> >offensive in a small package (although she did need to pump some>> >serious iron to win slams by the looks of it). Clijsters is not>> >limited in body, only in mindset. She can work a point and move the>> >ball around, but she does not do so with nearly the lethal intent of>a>> >true offensive player. She's a big, strong girl who can hit a>> >reasonably heavy ball, So she can put many players on their heels. I>> >don't see her really going for it like a Seles, Sharapova, HH,>> >Williamsx2. Even the Russian girls to me seem much more apt to>thread>> >the needle, paint the lines or bang off the big winner. Clijsters>> >seems like a very safe player to me, and when she gets aggressive>she>> >seems apt to gag a little. I am sure she will continue going deep,>so>> >I will keep watching and revise my opinion if I see it differently.>>
Thanks for your reply. This was more sensible than your original>post.
I just like to go off to amuse myself sometimes and I always seek to>incorporate the word 'bumrooter' in any post I can. I really like that>term for some reason. It was Whisper I believe who coined the most>enduring and oft-used expression in rst. How about that? Anyone know>when it was first used?
I still don't agree with it, but I can understand people seeing in>> that way. Can I ask you how much have you seen her play? I can tell>> you that if I had only seen her play four matches, three slam finals>> against Henin, and the Miami final on Saturday, I wouldn't like her>at>> all. But I have seen her a lot, and I know how she can play. I just>> hope you keep an open mind when you watch her in the future. BTW, I>> agree she overdoes the split. She is famous for it, and it is like>she>> feels she has to do it all the time now.
The matches you reference are pretty much what I have seen or at least>remember. But look at what you said. If you only considered her>*slam* performances you wouldn't like her at all. That's pretty>damning I think even if you have seen her play great offensive matches>elsewhere. The split is a bad habit and in my opinion makes for>uninspired tennis. I'll give her another chance though.
But as regards "the split", let's discuss the (emerging) phenomenon of professional players having signature shots Sometimes the shots are not quite unique --probably never are, in fact, but it could be that they are the one one on th tour, who gets into the round of 16, when people start watching. BUt I've noticed:
"Bucharest Backfire" - Nastase "Bellview Backfire" - Connors between the legs, runing back - the first time I'd seen it was by a guy from Paraguay, whose name escapes me at the moment. It has degenerated into a real wuss move, likely favored by bumrooter sympathizer (or those with bumrooterish tendencies). Now *everyone* feels that they have to do it. "Skyhook Smash" - Sampras' jump overhead split - Kleisters
Any others?
I'd also like to observe that it greatly imporves a player's tennis "image", and hence their marketability, if they have such a shot--statistically effective, or otherwise.
-- --Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wha's yo name, fool?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Javier Gonzalez 8 April 2005 23:03:00 [ permanent link ]
Sawfish <mtn@q7.com> wrote:> "Bucharest Backfire" - Nastase> "Bellview Backfire" - Connors> between the legs, runing back - the first time I'd seen it was by a guy > from Paraguay, whose name escapes me at the moment. It has degenerated > into a real wuss move, likely favored by bumrooter sympathizer (or those > with bumrooterish tendencies). Now *everyone* feels that they have to do > it.> "Skyhook Smash" - Sampras' jump overhead> split - Kleisters>
Any others?>
I'd also like to observe that it greatly imporves a player's tennis > "image", and hence their marketability, if they have such a > shot--statistically effective, or otherwise.
I remember Rios' signature moves being the "wicked-sick angled forehand", an almost-running forehand that ended with an exaggerated follow up (the racket finished behind Rios' head) and landed in ridiculous angles/close to the net...
And the 'jumping horsekick backhand', often to kill a rally, when there was a high ball ripe for killing on his backhand side, he'd jump with his left leg, and then do a flat, high-speed two-hand backhand while kicking back with his right leg... generated better body movement...
Of course, being a Rios fan might have something to do with remembering such shots
-- Javier Gonzalez Nicolini Ingeniero Civil en Computacion - Universidad de Chile
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d352fs$3af$2@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:YE85e.440$%16.4256@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
I'm not surprised your estimation of Lloyd goes up when I've demoted him>> a couple tiers. I'm stunned he thinks Sampras would win only 4 slams>> playing in Lendl era.>
Actually I never said this at all. The hypothesis was Pete playing against> Lendl, Edberg, Becker and Mac at their peaks and I think I'm being > generous> in giving him four.
if sampras gets 4, then becker/edberg/lendl get 1-2 ea.
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:Xys5e.263$R57.3618@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
So conceivably he would win 0 slams...?>>
Please say yes....>
Let's see Pete against 1984 Mac at W and the USO: you be the judge.> Pete against 1986 Becker at W......> Pete against 1985-6 Lendl at the USO..........>
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:7aQ5e.466$R57.12685@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
You're killing me.
Yep I think this............
128 W Jimy SZYMANSKI (VEN) 6-2 6-2 6-1 64 W Jiri NOVAK (CZE) 6-3 1-6 6-3 4-6 6-4 32 W Alexander VOLKOV (RUS) 6-3 6-4 6-2 16 W Mark PHILIPPOUSSIS (AUS) 6-3 6-3 6-4 QF W Alex CORRETJA (ESP) 7-6 5-7 5-7 6-4 7-6 SF W Goran IVANISEVIC (CRO) 6-3 6-4 6-7 6-3 FR W Michael CHANG (USA) 6-1 6-4 7-6
is a mile better than this......
128 W Jay LAPIDUS (USA) 6-2 6-1 6-3 64 W Bill SCANLON (USA) 6-2 6-0 6-3 32 W Horacio DE LA PENA (ARG) 6-1 6-1 6-3 16 W Jaime YZAGA (PER) 4-6 6-3 6-4 6-0 QF W Yannick NOAH (FRA) 6-2 6-2 6-4 SF W Jimmy CONNORS (USA) 6-2 6-3 7-5 FR W John MCENROE (USA) 7-6 6-3 6-4
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message> news:7aQ5e.466$R57.12685@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>
You're killing me.>
Yep I think this............>
128 W Jimy SZYMANSKI (VEN) 6-2 6-2 6-1> 64 W Jiri NOVAK (CZE) 6-3 1-6 6-3 4-6 6-4> 32 W Alexander VOLKOV (RUS) 6-3 6-4 6-2> 16 W Mark PHILIPPOUSSIS (AUS) 6-3 6-3 6-4> QF W Alex CORRETJA (ESP) 7-6 5-7 5-7 6-4 7-6> SF W Goran IVANISEVIC (CRO) 6-3 6-4 6-7 6-3> FR W Michael CHANG (USA) 6-1 6-4 7-6>
is a mile better than this......>
128 W Jay LAPIDUS (USA) 6-2 6-1 6-3> 64 W Bill SCANLON (USA) 6-2 6-0 6-3> 32 W Horacio DE LA PENA (ARG) 6-1 6-1 6-3> 16 W Jaime YZAGA (PER) 4-6 6-3 6-4 6-0> QF W Yannick NOAH (FRA) 6-2 6-2 6-4> SF W Jimmy CONNORS (USA) 6-2 6-3 7-5> FR W John MCENROE (USA) 7-6 6-3 6-4>
Cherry picking - Mac/Jimbo were done winning slams so level of competition was low.
How come you didn't pick the USO Sampras faced Agassi/Safin/Rafter/Hewitt (all 4 USO champs themselves) back to back as evidence of weak competition....?
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:10:50 +0300, Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 03:56:07 GMT, paperw8 <paperw8@mindspring.com>>wrote:>
the problem is that clijsters has been losing to henin-hardenne on a>>fairly consistent basis. it has nothing to do with grand slam finals,>>the fact is that clijsters generally loses, grand slam or no. >
Starting from 2002 WTA Championships, a few months before Henin>started winning slams, slam finals excluded. Judge for yourself.>
2002 W.T.A. Tour Championships QF Hard (I) K.CLIJSTERS 6-2 6-1 >2003 Sydney SF Hard (O) K.CLIJSTERS 6-2 6-3 >2003 Antwerp SF Carpet (I) K.CLIJSTERS 6-2 7-6(3) >2003 Berlin FR Clay (O) J.HENIN-HARDENNE 4-6 6-4 5-7 >2003 's-Hertogenbosch FR Grass (O) K.CLIJSTERS 6-7(4) 3-0 RET >2003 San Diego FR Hard (O) J.HENIN-HARDENNE 6-3 2-6 3-6 >2003 Filderstadt FR Hard (I) K.CLIJSTERS 5-7 6-4 6-2
It seems everyone has conveniently ignored this post, so let me continue. So Kim beat Justine three times few months before FO 2003 by scores 6-2,6-1, 6-2,6-3 and 6-2 7-6. Then just before FO they played a close three-set match, where IIRC Kim had match points. Then af FO Justine beats Kim 6-0,6-4. So is it like Whisper says "no choking, just shows a true difference between then?"
