Zvonareva's result pretty well ensures that JHH will NOT be a Top Eight seed at Roland Garros; she needs at least one more withdrawal, and it will be two if Schnyder beats Sharapova.
If Sharapova beats Schnyder, she will be #1 after Strasbourg. Wouldn't have been so had she faced Linetskaya.
Everyone down to Sprem has now clinched a seed. Remaining seed will be either Safina or Pennetta, assuming no further withdrawals.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
Patty has no chance against Maria tomorrow. its a done deal. im surprised by Vera's sudden good play. she is very mentally weak. im stunned she made the semis. but well done!
In article <20258-42850FFC-134@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>, surfer989@webtv.net (only human) wrote:
Patty has no chance against Maria tomorrow. its a done deal. im> surprised by Vera's sudden good play. she is very mentally weak. im> stunned she made the semis. but well done!
The thousand or more ranked players who are not playing Sharapova tomorrow have no chance. Schnyder, who *is* playing her tomorrow, has some chance. That's why we play the matches.
Sharapova will *probably* win. But it's not guaranteed. Schnyder is a very good clay court player with huge talent who has been playing very well this week. if she gets on a roll, she is the kind of player who *can* trouble Sharapova on clay -- lots of spins and angles, and she's a lefty.
They have met once, on Sharapova's best surface, grass, two weeks before she began her Wimbledon run last summer, and here is the result:
2004 Birmingham SF Grass (O) M.SHARAPOVA 1-6 7-6(3) 3-6
Now, I know that Sharapova's a better player now than she was then, but clay is the surface on which her game is least effective.
On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:19:12 -0500, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
In article <20258-42850FFC-134@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>, >surfer989@webtv.net (only human) wrote:>
Patty has no chance against Maria tomorrow. its a done deal. im>> surprised by Vera's sudden good play. she is very mentally weak. im>> stunned she made the semis. but well done! >
The thousand or more ranked players who are not playing Sharapova tomorrow >have no chance. Schnyder, who *is* playing her tomorrow, has some chance. >That's why we play the matches.
On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:19:12 -0500, wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:>
In article <20258-42850FFC-134@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>, > >surfer989@webtv.net (only human) wrote:> >
Patty has no chance against Maria tomorrow. its a done deal. im> >> surprised by Vera's sudden good play. she is very mentally weak. im> >> stunned she made the semis. but well done! > >
The thousand or more ranked players who are not playing Sharapova tomorrow > >have no chance. Schnyder, who *is* playing her tomorrow, has some chance. > >That's why we play the matches.>
your being rude again
And obviously ignorant. Of course thouse thousand or so ranked players could beat Sharapova. They could steal her racquets, or burn her tennis shoes, or something like that....
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
Now, I know that Sharapova's a better player now than she was then,> but> > clay is the surface on which her game is least effective.> >
So it should be interesting.>
sounds like you´re rooting for patty, then...>
i agreed with your comments in another rankings thread (sorry, couldn't> find it) about no-one being a dominant player in 2005, but> realistically, if sharapova wins, at least she will be a #1 player with> a slam title, which is not too shabby.
If Sharapova wins, she will have titles on all surfaces (though her hardcourt titles are pretty poor), and, as you say, a Slam, plus the YEC. In present circumstances, I wouldn't be particularly bothered by her being #1. But I don't think that's the point.
The points are two:
1. Clay is Sharapova's worst surface, and Schnyder's favorite, and on this surface, Schnyder has a very good chance to win. Remember that Henin-Hardenne took Sharapova apart last week. Schnyder isn't as good as JHH, but she is very good. 2. Even if Sharapova becomes #1, which is quite possible, that will not make her a dominant player. It would make her merely the least un-dominant player. Her points total will remain low for a #1, and her divisor score even lower.
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
i dunno about 'undominant'. wearing sharapova-coloured glasses, i> would phrase it as 'the dominant player in a year where the fields have> been open and the standard of play at the top very high'. .
If I were wearing Sharapova-colored glasses, I'd probably say the same thing. But I wear mathematics-covered glasses: In an era of points inflation, she *still* has a low points total. And the fact that we currently have a #1 who doesn't have a Slam or YEC final says something about the standard of play, too....
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
The thousand or more ranked players who are not playing Sharapova tomorrow> have no chance. Schnyder, who *is* playing her tomorrow, has some chance.> That's why we play the matches.>
Sharapova will *probably* win. But it's not guaranteed. Schnyder is a very> good clay court player with huge talent who has been playing very well> this week. if she gets on a roll, she is the kind of player who *can*> trouble Sharapova on clay -- lots of spins and angles, and she's a lefty.>
schynder is a wild card. her ability to make shots is not dependent on the surface, and she also covers the court very well. it seems to me that schnyder is just not able to keep her head on straight well enough to play good tennis with the kind of consistency that would allow her to get a ranking that is commensurate with her ability. schyder can play out of this world tennis and make incredible shots, ON OCCASION. on such occasions, i would say that sharapova would have little chance of winning, especially on clay. based on playing the odds, however, i would expect sharapova to win.
Patty has no chance against Maria tomorrow. its a done deal. im>> surprised by Vera's sudden good play. she is very mentally weak. >> im>> stunned she made the semis. but well done!
^ [...]>
Sharapova will *probably* win. But it's not guaranteed. Schnyder > is a very> good clay court player with huge talent who has been playing very > well> this week. if she gets on a roll, she is the kind of player who > *can*> trouble Sharapova on clay -- lots of spins and angles, and she's a > lefty.>
[....]>
So it should be interesting.>
Agreed. I didn't get to see much tennis this week. I saw some of the Sharapova-Pierce match and the second set of Schnyder-Linetskaya and I was thinking the same thing about today's Sharapova-Schnyder encounter. It should and could be interesting. If Schnyder plays to her potential she has a reasonable chance. Once again I wasn't convinced by Sharapova on clay. But that could of course be my bias creeping through? IOW I still have to make my mind up whether I will be secretly rooting for Patty or against Sharapova, and that in turn will mainly depend on the number of times daddy Sharapov is shown. He really gives me the creeps.
paperw8 <paperw8@mindspring.com> wrote: : schynder is a wild card. her ability to make shots is not dependent on : the surface, and she also covers the court very well. it seems to me : that schnyder is just not able to keep her head on straight well enough : to play good tennis with the kind of consistency that would allow her to : get a ranking that is commensurate with her ability.
She's nuts, plain and simple. Not a 'tennis nutcase' like Safin etc., but really few cards short a deck.
In article <waltzmn-DB74DB.17271213052005@europe.isp.giganews.com>, waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) wrote:
And obviously ignorant. Of course thouse thousand or so ranked> players could beat Sharapova. They could steal her racquets,> or burn her tennis shoes, or something like that....
Rude *and* ignorant. I should hang my head in shame. Oh, wait, this is Usenet...
In article <d64hpd$c92$1@news.oulu.fi>, tjama@SPAMpaju.oulu.fi (Yama) wrote:
paperw8 <paperw8@mindspring.com> wrote:> : schynder is a wild card. her ability to make shots is not dependent > on> : the surface, and she also covers the court very well. it seems to me> : that schnyder is just not able to keep her head on straight well > enough> : to play good tennis with the kind of consistency that would allow her > to> : get a ranking that is commensurate with her ability.>
She's nuts, plain and simple. Not a 'tennis nutcase' like Safin etc., > but really few cards short a deck.
She certainly has been. She seems to be a little less so since she married her present coach. Or hired her present husband. One of those.
On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:37:16 -0400, surfer989@webtv.net (only human) wrote:
Patty has no chance against Maria tomorrow. its a done deal. im>surprised by Vera's sudden good play. she is very mentally weak. im>stunned she made the semis. but well done!
On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:37:16 -0400, surfer989@webtv.net (only human)> wrote:>
Patty has no chance against Maria tomorrow. its a done deal. im> >surprised by Vera's sudden good play. she is very mentally weak. im> >stunned she made the semis. but well done! >
You were saying.....????
Oh, don't be ignorant. The real "only human" didn't post that. After all, then he'd be the first to admit that he's wrong. (excuse me; that should be "after all then hed be the first to admit that hes wrong").
-- When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when human rights are perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one's case is subverted -- does the Lord not see it? -- Lamentations 3:34-36
"samn" <samn@techie.com> schreef in bericht news:1116091121.458818.68640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>
gp calliauw wrote:>> IOW I still have to make my mind>> up whether I will be secretly rooting for Patty or against>> Sharapova, and that in turn will mainly depend on the number of>> times daddy Sharapov is shown. He really gives me the creeps.>
Have you seen the really irritating deodorant commercial featuring> Sharapova?
In article <waltzmn-6FF2EF.13513314052005@europe.isp.giganews.com>, waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) wrote:
I really don't think she's happy unless she's bowing at> someone's feet. At least she seems to have found someone> who hasn't messed her up too much. But I pity anyone who> is married to such a wacko.
I'm not convinced she is a wacko now. She *was*...but she's older now.
"Ted of Ted's Tennis" <tedstennis@myrealbox.com> schreef in bericht news:Xns965689CBE61AEtedstennismyrealboxcom@ID-121946.user.dfncis.de...> Somebody claiming to be "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> > wrote in> news:waltzmn-8AA129.11563914052005@europe.isp.giganews.com:>
Oh, don't be ignorant. The real "only human" didn't post that.>> After all, then he'd be the first to admit that he's wrong.>> (excuse me; that should be "after all then hed be the first>> to admit that hes wrong").>
Luke wasnt talking to you, robert. and your rude. >
This is no longer funny, Ted. Please, leave Robert's rude out of it, will you?
