Both D and F will complete the career GS at this FO. Neither will. F will but not D. D will but not F.
My guess? D will but not F
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
Gutsy prediction. Davenport on clay is vulnerable, but Pierce-like hard hitters style is probably what suits her best. Rallies are shorter, Pierce is no quick mover either, and Mary's serve is less effective than Davenport's. I say Lindsay in straights.
In article <2jnu2v9zig3z$.dlg@quakeid.net>, quake@abc.xyz.invalid (Quake) wrote:
Gutsy prediction. Davenport on clay is vulnerable, but Pierce-like hard> hitters style is probably what suits her best. Rallies are shorter, > Pierce> is no quick mover either, and Mary's serve is less effective than> Davenport's.> I say Lindsay in straights.
Those things are all true. On the other hand: Pierce has won the FO before; she is in the best shape she's been in since the year she did win it; even before that win Pierce had made a final and at least one semifinal; she is a *lot* more comfortable on the surface than Davenport (slides better, etc); she has the crowd.
Davenport *should* win, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
Those things are all true. On the other hand: Pierce has won the FO> before; she is in the best shape she's been in since the year she did win> it; even before that win Pierce had made a final and at least one> semifinal; she is a *lot* more comfortable on the surface than Davenport> (slides better, etc); she has the crowd.
Davenport *should* win, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
We might add Davenport is a notorious choker
Mine was a prediction, not a prophecy. I'm not sure LD will win; Pierce might upset her. It's just that Pierce is the ideal opponent for Davenport on clay, as she can't give her the tricky stuff (spins, angles, drop-shots, variety) Davenport struggles with. And at this point I kind of expect LD to step up a gear, she's had the clay practice she lacked at the beginning of the tournament.
Interestingly enough, Davenport leads 7-2 their head-to-head record, but they haven't played each other for almost *six* years.
Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote: : F will but D not. Beaten by Pierce.
Not in a million years. Davenport may suck in clay, but so does Pierce. Davenport may be a choker these days, but it's not like Pierce is a fortress of mental fortitude. She needed ELEVEN match points to win against SCHNYDER. Bottom line is that Davenport is a superior player.
Not that I think that D-port will win the title - I would love it, but anyone winning the bottom half of the draw HAS TO be better clay courter.
StephenJ <c20@setyrtfj.77com> wrote: : > Seems there's always talk of this as there's always somebody in : contention. : > : > Mustn't be that hard to achieve...
: true.... then again on the men's side it's been harder to achieve over the : past 30 years than winning 5 wimbledons.
Bah, anyone can win 5 Wimbledons - but seven, now that's something...
Not in a million years. Davenport may suck in clay, but so> does Pierce. Davenport may be a choker these days, but it's not> like Pierce is a fortress of mental fortitude. She needed ELEVEN> match points to win against SCHNYDER. Bottom line is that> Davenport is a superior player.
I'll never forget watching the Pierce v. Davenport US Open QF (1999). Pierce serving with a match point, and you could see her hand shaking as she's getting ready to toss the ball. She doesn't strike me as the toughest mental competitor out there (Henin?), but she has a distinct advantage over Davenport with her comfort level on clay, and seems to move better on the surface than LD.
In article <2jnu2v9zig3z$.dlg@quakeid.net>, quake@abc.xyz.invalid (Quake) > wrote:>
Gutsy prediction. Davenport on clay is vulnerable, but Pierce-like hard>>hitters style is probably what suits her best. Rallies are shorter, >>Pierce>>is no quick mover either, and Mary's serve is less effective than>>Davenport's.>>I say Lindsay in straights.>
Those things are all true. On the other hand: Pierce has won the FO > before; she is in the best shape she's been in since the year she did win > it; even before that win Pierce had made a final and at least one > semifinal; she is a *lot* more comfortable on the surface than Davenport > (slides better, etc); she has the crowd.>
Davenport *should* win, but it's not a foregone conclusion.>
wg
As soon as Lindsay steps on the court thinking she's favourite, she's out in another vintage 'how did I lose that one?'....
On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:25:56 +0000 (UTC), Yama <tjama@SPAMpaju.oulu.fi> wrote:
Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote:>: F will but D not. Beaten by Pierce.>
Not in a million years.
We'll see...
Davenport may suck in clay, but so does Pierce.
Pierce has won FO.
Davenport may be a choker these days, but it's not>like Pierce is a fortress of mental fortitude. She needed ELEVEN>match points to win against SCHNYDER.
Patty was my pick for the final. Big win for Pierce.
And anyway, even if Davenport doesn't lose to Pierce, she is not going to win this tournament.
Has to be harder to win 5 Wimbledons - ie Fed is 3 matches from winning> CS, but 3 more W's is a far more gargantuan task....
If Fed does win FO to complete career GS, that will make winning 5 Ws equally as hard over past 30 years.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:LELme.737$V23.6669@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...> wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:>
In article <2jnu2v9zig3z$.dlg@quakeid.net>, quake@abc.xyz.invalid
(Quake)> > wrote:> >
Gutsy prediction. Davenport on clay is vulnerable, but Pierce-like hard> >>hitters style is probably what suits her best. Rallies are shorter,> >>Pierce> >>is no quick mover either, and Mary's serve is less effective than> >>Davenport's.> >>I say Lindsay in straights.> >
Those things are all true. On the other hand: Pierce has won the FO> > before; she is in the best shape she's been in since the year she did
it; even before that win Pierce had made a final and at least one> > semifinal; she is a *lot* more comfortable on the surface than Davenport> > (slides better, etc); she has the crowd.> >
Davenport *should* win, but it's not a foregone conclusion.> >
As soon as Lindsay steps on the court thinking she's favourite, she's> out in another vintage 'how did I lose that one?'....>
But it always seems like it's a couple matches away for someone - thus> far more achieveable than Sampras-type records....
that's simpleminded thinking. kind of like the notion that if i pick numbers 17, 21, and 33 in the daily lotto, and numbers 16, 20, and 33 come up, i was just a couple numbers from winning the jackpot....................
But it always seems like it's a couple matches away for someone - thus>>far more achieveable than Sampras-type records....>
that's simpleminded thinking. kind of like the notion that if i pick numbers> 17, 21, and 33 in the daily lotto, and numbers 16, 20, and 33 come up, i was> just a couple numbers from winning the jackpot....................>
Not really. Fed is 3 matches from achieveing CS - Nadal is his only stumbling block. Fed's odds aren't millions to 1....
that's simpleminded thinking. kind of like the notion that if i pick
numbers> > 17, 21, and 33 in the daily lotto, and numbers 16, 20, and 33 come up, i
just a couple numbers from winning the jackpot....................>
How can you equate a random occurence
not equating, just showing the similarity. the notion that any player is just a "few matches" from winning career GS means it is easier than 5 wimbledons is similarly deceptive.
using that logic, any player in a slam final starts just 18 games from winning a slam final 6-0 6-0 6-0, but i won't hold my breathe waiting for it to happen...........
Winning> a particluar slam year-after-year shows a degree of dominance- the CGS> is possible to achieve without dominating for any sustained period of> time.
If a guy becomes best at a single surface, he can win the same slam over and over and over. Winning all of them requires multidimensional skills.
Winning the same slam 5 times is like "career bumrooting". You're not doing anything special, just doing the same thing over and over and over....... which then cumulates to something special..
If a guy becomes best at a single surface, he can win the same slam over
over and over. Winning all of them requires multidimensional skills.>
Grass and HC require very similar skills, is is only clay that adds the> 'multidimensional' skills.
Yes
Winning the same slam 5 times is like "career bumrooting". You're not
doing> > anything special, just doing the same thing over and over and over.......> > which then cumulates to something special..>
Sampras 7Ws is career bumrooting?
Yes - it shows dogged perserverance, focus, and consistency more than sheer blazing-across-the-sky brilliance........
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
"Rustbelt" <yongster@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1117559763.835942.256400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> F will but D not. Beaten by Pierce.>
Not in a million years. Davenport may suck in clay, but so> does Pierce.
I'm not sure where this idea of "Pierce sucks on clay" has come from, but I've seen it expressed a few times these past few days. She's been to two French finals (perhaps on the verge of a third), having won one. She's won Tier 1 clay titles at Hilton Head & Rome. She has career wins on clay over Graf, Hingis, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Venus, Martinez, etc. Not sure how that translates to "Pierce sucks on clay".
a particluar slam year-after-year shows a degree of dominance- the CGS>>is possible to achieve without dominating for any sustained period of>>time.>
If a guy becomes best at a single surface, he can win the same slam over and> over and over. Winning all of them requires multidimensional skills.
It can, which would manifest itself in several triumphs at the big slams. A record like Agassi's smacks of opportunism - ie 1-off wins at FO/Wim, v average guys in nail-biting 5 setters - & then never again. It's a clear a good, steady player like Agassi can win all the slams if;
- they play long enough (20 yrs) - they get very ordinary players in those slam finals (100th ranked Medvedev, young Goran, journeyman Martin).
If Agassi was truly a great player he woulda backed up several times at Wim/USO/FO over 20 yrs.
Winning the same slam 5 times is like "career bumrooting". You're not doing> anything special, just doing the same thing over and over and over.......> which then cumulates to something special..
Winning Wimbledon once is phenomenal, any more has to be a pretty special talent. 7 is off the radar....
Winning the same slam 5 times is like "career bumrooting". You're not
doing> > anything special, just doing the same thing over and over and over.......> > which then cumulates to something special..>
Winning Wimbledon once is phenomenal, any more has to be a pretty> special talent. 7 is off the radar....
"special talent" is doing something spectacular. Eg, the best year Sampras ever had was winning W and USO. That's no better than Becker's best year. It's just that because of career bumrooting skills like "consistency" and "mental toughness" and "single-minded tennis devotion" Sampras was able to do that 3 times ..............
They had the talent to win more, especially McEnroe. But at a certain> point, they weren't willing to make the sacrifices to stay on top. Mac> underachieved, unfortunately. He lost his drive & desire after '84,> which is too bad.
Yes, Mac shoulda won twice as many slams as he did, given his talent...
In article <1117580926.832225.305600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, artsmark10@mail.com (Roberts) wrote:
Fed especially knows that winning slams is how to create a legacy. In> the end, it doesn't matter two fucks if you've won IW/Miami- that's why> Safin has had the better year so far, legacy wise.
Actually, no. Safin isn't going to *have* a legacy. He's going to end his career someday having won a few Slams, and people will remember him as baffling and entertaining but having squandered much of his talent.
Federer, on the other hand, if he retired tomorrow, will always have the greatness of last year.
It was, of course, Pierce for whom the term "Big Babe tennis" was> invented:
... and Davenport. They were the pioneers, circa 93-94 .....................
(snip good summary of Pierce's travails over the years).
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
What is a bumrooter but someone who does the same thing over and over and over? That's acceptable as brilliant only when we're at the highest level of attainment - like a guy who wins 3 or 4 slams every year.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
In article <1117580926.832225.305600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > artsmark10@mail.com (Roberts) wrote:>
Fed especially knows that winning slams is how to create a legacy. In>>the end, it doesn't matter two fucks if you've won IW/Miami- that's why>>Safin has had the better year so far, legacy wise.>
Actually, no. Safin isn't going to *have* a legacy. He's going to end his > career someday having won a few Slams, and people will remember him as > baffling and entertaining but having squandered much of his talent.>
Federer, on the other hand, if he retired tomorrow, will always have the > greatness of last year.>
wg
Safin will be remembered for beating Sampras at 2 slams & Fed in 1 in extremely high quality matches...
Yes, Mac shoulda won twice as many slams as he did, given his talent...>
But his 4 DC wins at a time when DC was slam-level gets him into tier I> anyway........>
Can't do that as it would open up tier 1 to about 9 guys. Doesn't make sense - everyone knows which players have the best record, & they can easily be slotted into sensible tiers....
Tier 1 : Sampras/Borg/Laver/Tilden
Tier 2 : Mac/Jimbo/Cochet/Lacoste/Perry
Tier 3 : Lots of guys including Budge/Emmerson/Agassi/Becker/Edberg/Wilander/Lendl etc
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
But his 4 DC wins at a time when DC was slam-level gets him into tier I> > anyway........
Can't do that as it would open up tier 1 to about 9 guys. Doesn't make> sense - everyone knows which players have the best record, & they can> easily be slotted into sensible tiers....
Right - which is why it does make sense. Mac's DC record is clear and obvious, nothing ambiguous about it.................
