|
|
Post by DevilishAttitude on Jun 11, 2006 12:02:32 GMT -5
I rate it a 5-6.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 11, 2006 12:04:22 GMT -5
Justine and Rafa won. Woot.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 11, 2006 12:05:42 GMT -5
Might as well join the Rafa bandwagon.
|
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 11, 2006 12:07:25 GMT -5
WTA, as usual, 0.
Men, 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 11, 2006 12:09:20 GMT -5
Harsh! I would say it was 2 at least. |
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 11, 2006 12:11:15 GMT -5
That's my own appreciation. Plus, I only tend to remember the final.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tennislurker on Jun 11, 2006 12:34:16 GMT -5
I think morbidly reading the mental breakdowns in the roger forum, will give me more entertainment than the final.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 11, 2006 12:35:59 GMT -5
lol! Thanks for reminding me. I will do that later  |
|
|
|
Post by Maeby Fünke on Jun 11, 2006 13:00:10 GMT -5
I thought it was quite interesting. Not very exciting, but...interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maeby Fünke on Jun 11, 2006 13:00:27 GMT -5
Well, bits of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 11, 2006 13:12:31 GMT -5
I give it a 5 - It may sleep with Novotna
|
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 11, 2006 13:14:06 GMT -5
I think morbidly reading the mental breakdowns in the roger forum, will give me more entertainment than the final. They're not as whiny as usual, I guess they have finally resigned themselves to the fact that Roj wimps out against Rafa every time  I did a prima donna post search and was saddened by how gracious and non-suicidal he was |
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 11, 2006 15:31:27 GMT -5
Harsh! I would say it was 2 at least. The women's event was FAR more interesting than the men's and it's not me who thinks so. It's all of you.  There was one men's match worth watching. Nothing else was in doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on Jun 11, 2006 16:31:09 GMT -5
ATP: 2. Really bad year for the guys. No memorable matches. No breakout stars, or any surprises. Not any really high quality tennis, either. Lots of retirements. Monte Carlo and Rome were much better weeks.
WTA: 3. Just because there were quite a few tight matches. A strong winner.
Oy... the only real breakout player was Nikki. Who I hate. Worst RG ever, for me. Worst slam overall since last year's Wimbly.
|
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 11, 2006 18:46:37 GMT -5
7-8 Why 7-8, you ask?  Well, Justine won her 3rd one without losing a set, or even being forced to a tiebreak: first time a winner did that since Evert in 1974, says Bud Collins. Corporate Barbie lost from 5-1 in the 3rd. Djoko retired and whined, so I have a new player to trash. Scotsboy moped, got a new nickname from P. McEnroe. Fed made the final! Rafa ruled. Why not 9-10 then, with all those glories, you ask? Disappointing quality of final x 2. Petrova lost early; wanted her to push Justine to the limit and THEN lose. Kim's lack of fight in a Slam semi. Lose to Justine, yes, but make it interesting! Amelie's annual collapse to a teen. Venus' annual collapse to a teen. Pierre-Yve's ewwy sleeveless shirt! And I've already forgotten almost all the tennis I saw.  |
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on Jun 11, 2006 20:10:37 GMT -5
I think they said the last was Arantxa in '94. I know Steffi didn't lose one in '88. Edit: Oh, no tiebreaks. My bad. The real Russian should have given Chrissy a better match. |
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 11, 2006 20:21:16 GMT -5
I did a prima donna post search and was saddened by how gracious and non-suicidal he was lol His posts on the topic were actually quite good. |
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 11, 2006 20:22:16 GMT -5
ATP: 2. Really bad year for the guys. No memorable matches. No breakout stars, or any surprises. Not any really high quality tennis, either. Lots of retirements. Monte Carlo and Rome were much better weeks. WTA: 3. Just because there were quite a few tight matches. A strong winner. Oy... the only real breakout player was Nikki. Who I hate. Worst RG ever, for me. Worst slam overall since last year's Wimbly. Didn't Djokovic sort of break out?? |
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 11, 2006 20:33:20 GMT -5
ATP: 2. Really bad year for the guys. No memorable matches. No breakout stars, or any surprises. Not any really high quality tennis, either. Lots of retirements. Monte Carlo and Rome were much better weeks. WTA: 3. Just because there were quite a few tight matches. A strong winner. Oy... the only real breakout player was Nikki. Who I hate. Worst RG ever, for me. Worst slam overall since last year's Wimbly. Didn't Djokovic sort of break out?? A little bit. He really had only one big win, that was over Gonzalez, which is sort of second rung big. Beating Haas Been at RG is not a noteworthy feat. Of course we should also take into account that he was dominating Nadal before his injury happened. |
|
|
|
Post by :rolleyes: on Jun 11, 2006 22:46:11 GMT -5
Harsh! I would say it was 2 at least. The women's event was FAR more interesting than the men's and it's not me who thinks so. It's all of you. There was one men's match worth watching. Nothing else was in doubt. shouldn't you be the one complaining about the women's side since all you wanted was Justine to lose and it didn't happen |
|
There was one men's match worth watching. Nothing else was in doubt. 
