|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:13:49 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 1, 2007 21:13:49 GMT -5
Peer-Radwanska. That's the anti-Sharapova-Vaidisova, which is heavenly, isn't it?
This whole bottom half...save Azarenka, it's JUST FUCKING AWESOME! Kuz wins her next match and at least we'll have one amazing finalist sacrificed to one of the man-eaters.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:15:28 GMT -5
Post by Edna Krabappel on Sept 1, 2007 21:15:28 GMT -5
OMG, Azarenka doesn't scream, she barks. They just replayed the last 3 games of her match and that was just a ridiculously good performance. Honestly there's not much Hingis can do when she plays a basher who's so much on fire like Azza was. Yeah, 1 & 0 is way too harsh, but still, losses to this kind of players will always happen to her.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:16:26 GMT -5
Post by corswandt on Sept 1, 2007 21:16:26 GMT -5
Well Vika just won like the 3848th game in a row, but don't lose hope, Corswandt did say she's prone to blowing big leads and this has to be the biggest match of her career so far Beating up on Hingis no longer qualifies as a "big match" for anyone.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:20:39 GMT -5
Post by corswandt on Sept 1, 2007 21:20:39 GMT -5
Who hates Paszek? Batty showing tits Paszek what's what.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:31:03 GMT -5
Post by corswandt on Sept 1, 2007 21:31:03 GMT -5
wtf Vaidisova. She should, for all intents and purposes, be a top 5 player already. She does everything as well as the elite players and should've won at least one of those big matches where she had huge leads and lost. If her mind wouldn't go walkabout at odd times, she'd easily be ranked in the top 10 despite playing so little. It's confounding. Vaidisova does a passable impersonation of a top player on occasion, but she's nothing of the sort. Her BH sux, and her footwork is that of a junior, a problem made even worse by her early takeback and wide swings (how many BHs does she send into the doubles alley or to the bottom of the net because she didn't move her feet fast enough to properly set up the shot?). This means that I) she can't play controlled aggression/a lower risk game II) she's useless whenever she's not dictating And I) and II) mean that III) her options are limited to pure first strike tennis, and she's likely to bury herself in errors on an off day IV) her return game is very poor The consequence of IV) that her matches are often tight, since she holds serve with ease most of the time but doesn't break as often as one would expect from a player with such a big game. And when the match becomes tight, she chokes. How many errors can Hurley find in all these sentences? I'm afraid Peer might have worn herself out too much - she would have won this much more easily had she went a bit more for her shots at times. But if she recovers fully, she'll butcher Radwanska, who has absolutely nothing to hurt her with.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:31:15 GMT -5
Post by sasha on Sept 1, 2007 21:31:15 GMT -5
I was referring to Mirza.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:32:15 GMT -5
Post by corswandt on Sept 1, 2007 21:32:15 GMT -5
I was referring to Mirza. Edited accordingly.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:39:39 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 1, 2007 21:39:39 GMT -5
How many errors can Hurley find in all these sentences? Um, I don't find errors in sentences without them.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:43:26 GMT -5
Post by Wagasi on Sept 1, 2007 21:43:26 GMT -5
Batty showing tits Paszek what's what. I don't hate her, I was describing the situation at 6-4 4-1 from the scoreboard. I've resolved to at least watch someone for a couple of games before turning on the hate ;D And thanks for clearing up my delusions about Vaidisova's game, her lack of success doesn't seem so inexplicable anymore
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:44:41 GMT -5
Post by Edna Krabappel on Sept 1, 2007 21:44:41 GMT -5
Who hates Paszek? Batty showing tits Paszek what's what. He just likes Patty. And Tits has become a regular nickname for Paszek on this board so I don't think he was hating on her. Shahar will still not do anything big unless she becomes more aggressive and does something with that serve. She reminds me of Jankovic in that aspect that they both sometimes seem so determined to grind the point out that they miss the obvious chances to finish the rally quickly. The point when Vaidisova was serving to stay in the match the first time (I think) and Peer had the whole court open and had already wrong-footed Vaidisova, but decided to wrong-foot her again (and made an UE herself) instead of going for an easy winner was just too stupid.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:46:34 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 1, 2007 21:46:34 GMT -5
Oh, Murray lost? God, today was great!
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:54:40 GMT -5
Post by sasha on Sept 1, 2007 21:54:40 GMT -5
Nicole's footwork isn't that poor. She's made huge improvements there in the past 2 years.
I think the main problem is her big strokes. Fine against the lower ranked scrubs, but will lead to errors when slugging with the big hitting top players. Explains why she's a QF queen.
As far as getting into the top 5... well, if Ivanovic is there, and probably reaching #2 in the next 9 months, why can't Nicole be the same? They're basically similar... power players, Ana with the monster FH, Nicole with the best serve in the game (outside of Brenda, who doesn't count), both can't play a lick of defense.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:54:41 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 1, 2007 21:54:41 GMT -5
And...man, pisses me off when Al Trautwing says "Agnieszikayaya Radwwwwwwanska? Yeah, we never heard of her either."
Sorry? Then WHY are you on my TV commentating on tennis? I mean...out of these 8 "wacky" fourth rounders, one won this thing three years ago, another has two titles in the US in the last 5 weeks, and the other six...I think only Radwanska and Vakulenko could be considered real surprises, and Radwanska wouldn't have been had she fallen in almost any other sixteenth.
Seriously? If you can't do the research, go back to MSG Network. Yankees are playing. Agnieszka isn't that hard to say. Sound it the fuck out.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:56:12 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 1, 2007 21:56:12 GMT -5
well, if Ivanovic is there, and probably reaching #2 in the next 9 months, why can't Nicole be the same? Agreed. And yeesh. Nicole is just fine. Corswandt is just being a pessimist and trying not to get his hopes up, but Nicole has too big of a game to not excel.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 21:57:53 GMT -5
Post by sasha on Sept 1, 2007 21:57:53 GMT -5
Trautwig's been doing that forever. I can't remember exactly who it was, but he butchered some top player's name for many years, and everyone bitched about it.
Besides, poor Al has to dig a lot for jobs... US Open, Tour de France, random international shit... the stuff that no US announcers want to do.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 22:01:20 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 1, 2007 22:01:20 GMT -5
Damn, Koubek really made a mess of that, didn't he? His bellybutton ring must have gotten itchy at 3-1 40-0.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 1, 2007 22:33:14 GMT -5
Post by DBBN on Sept 1, 2007 22:33:14 GMT -5
Did they let a seven-year-old in?
Q. What was the furthest you ever got in a Grand Slam tournament? DONALD YOUNG: First round. This is the furthest I've ever got. So third round here is by far the furthest I've ever gotten.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 2, 2007 3:13:23 GMT -5
Post by The Chloe on Sept 2, 2007 3:13:23 GMT -5
Isner is nothing but a serving machine. Just because he's slightly less inept than Dr. Ivo doesn't mean he can play tennis. BH is club player level, volleys a laugh riot. I think people are willing to cut Isner some slack because they find him cute. This is almost certainly why he doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 2, 2007 6:57:34 GMT -5
Post by janie on Sept 2, 2007 6:57:34 GMT -5
Plus he hasn't been around long enough to annoy anybody. It's always fun when a new player shoots out from REALLY out of nowhere, as opposed to Radwanska's faux-nowhere. Isner is the anti-Donald Young -- they both seem like nice guys, but we've heard about DY for way too long and we have to work hard to not feel irritated by him for that reason alone. And yet he's the one with the interesting game.
I agree, Hurley, the losses yesterday were too fantastic to believe! I can't wait to watch the bottom-half matches now. Who will rule the school?? And Peer-Vaidisova was danged entertaining. They both must have visited with the usual Florida sports psychologist; it was fun watching them each implementing the usual steps that have become overly familiar:
After point ends, turn your back to the opponent. Walk around. Compose face in a neutral expression. Return to service line.
I look forward to seeing the non-US-related (by academy or by famous US coach) players play, to check out what they do between points.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 2, 2007 7:25:44 GMT -5
Post by lexpretend on Sept 2, 2007 7:25:44 GMT -5
Haha when Sharapova did that, Radwanska would walk virtually to the net, then turn and walk back to the baseline just as Sharapova herself turned round It's my fault for going to primarily US sources for tennis news and commentary (not that I have a choice given that there is next to NONE in this country - as I said, this is something of a mythical tournament over here) but the sheer amount of attention showered on Young and Isner annoys me, because neither has really done anything that many, many other obscure guys haven't done this year. If going on a run at a Mickey Mouse tournament and fluking a set off Fed is such an achievement, where are the columns dedicated to Almagro? As for DY - well done, you won a total of two matches, maybe you aren't going to be a total failure after all. (Though really, they don't annoy me so much as a paragraph-long rant would imply! And Isner is cute.) Vaidisova has done amazingly well this year, considering how ravaged it's been by injury/illness. She basically missed the entire clay and hard court seasons apart from the Slams, but hasn't really had any bad losses. That's impressive. I still hope she never wins a game again though
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 2, 2007 8:35:35 GMT -5
Post by corswandt on Sept 2, 2007 8:35:35 GMT -5
Nicole's footwork isn't that poor. She's made huge improvements there in the past 2 years. I think the main problem is her big strokes. Fine against the lower ranked scrubs, but will lead to errors when slugging with the big hitting top players. Explains why she's a QF queen. I don't think she can play any other way. On the Kuznetsova match at IW, she would sometimes hit normal rally shots instead of going for broke as usual, and the result was that Kuznetsova quickly took over the points and won them. As far as getting into the top 5... well, if Ivanovic is there, and probably reaching #2 in the next 9 months, why can't Nicole be the same? They're basically similar... power players, Ana with the monster FH, Nicole with the best serve in the game (outside of Brenda, who doesn't count), both can't play a lick of defense. Ivanovic wins all her tight matches, Nicole loses almost all of them. This is what's making the difference right now. There are some other minor differences - Ivanovic has a bigger game actually. She doesn't need to hit her FH so close to the lines to win a point, and her 1st serve, if less reliable, nearly always wins the point outright (ace/unreturnable), because it's usually hit in the 180-185 km/h range, which Nicole's serve rarely reaches.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 2, 2007 9:45:18 GMT -5
Post by sasha on Sept 2, 2007 9:45:18 GMT -5
Did they let a seven-year-old in? Q. What was the furthest you ever got in a Grand Slam tournament?DONALD YOUNG: First round. This is the furthest I've ever got. So third round here is by far the furthest I've ever gotten. So, that's who Goldenlox really is.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 2, 2007 9:53:21 GMT -5
Post by sasha on Sept 2, 2007 9:53:21 GMT -5
It's just US tennis coverage. They're ignorant about everything non-US, and always will be.
Isner and Young are great. Meanwhile, the TV coverage had absolutely no idea who Steve Darcis was, even after he won the first set against Haas. Darcis actually won a title! Although, if Isner played Werschauer instead of Roddick in a final... but, whatever.
|
|
|
Day 6.
Sept 2, 2007 15:42:37 GMT -5
Post by corswandt on Sept 2, 2007 15:42:37 GMT -5
Did they let a seven-year-old in? Q. What was the furthest you ever got in a Grand Slam tournament?DONALD YOUNG: First round. This is the furthest I've ever got. So third round here is by far the furthest I've ever gotten. So, that's who Goldenlox really is.
|
|