Distant Sun
Mar 25, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
And count me as prefering the one-handed backhand, as well. Doesn't Mauresmo also have one? Fed's is probably the most technically sound, even if he can't hit a high one to save his life and Henin's is a little to "whippy" for my taste, like she started out with two-hands and is still clinging to the last vestiges of it and holding on to the racquet a moment too long
Word to JHH's backhand. Definitely not my favorite. Federer's is very good (obviously), but I think Gaudio and Henman might hit it the best. At any rate, I love it when they compare two players' strokes side by side—especially two one-handed backhands.
jimena
Mar 26, 2006 @ 10:36 am
And count me as prefering the one-handed backhand, as well. Doesn't Mauresmo also have one? Fed's is probably the most technically sound, even if he can't hit a high one to save his life and Henin's is a little to "whippy" for my taste, like she started out with two-hands and is still clinging to the last vestiges of it and holding on to the racquet a moment too long
Actually, JHH picked up a racket when she was 4 or 5 and immediately played with a one handed backhand. Everybody wanted her to change to a two handed BH, but she wouldn't.
So what does everyone think of the shot spot thing? I'm with Roger and Marat. I don't think I like it.
alexias
Mar 26, 2006 @ 11:04 am
I love it! And it has proven it's need I think in this limited use already. All the commentators are saying how it shows the linesmen get it right most of the time but 16 of 56 have been overturned already. That means they have been wrong almost 30% of the time. Shit, if I were proven wrong at my job almost 30% of the time I wouldn't have a job to go to!
They need to make sure it doesn't go down at points during the match though and they need to find a better means of communicating that info to the players. Roger seemed annoyed that the chair umpire was breaking the flow of play to talk to them.
vallegirl
Mar 26, 2006 @ 11:36 am
Actually, JHH picked up a racket when she was 4 or 5 and immediately played with a one handed backhand. Everybody wanted her to change to a two handed BH, but she wouldn't.
Well, then that makes the weird whippy motion and open stance that much weirder. There's a hitch in it where she seems to plant herself before she swings and is stiff-armed in her delivery. She uses way too much shoulder in her swing and not enough leg.
So what does everyone think of the shot spot thing? I'm with Roger and Marat. I don't think I like it.
I think it's a great idea that was improperly implemented. It shouldn't be at the players request. It should be a tool that the umpire uses to correct bad calls. Mary Carrillo was right, after Cliff finally beat her obnoxiousness down, to get to the heart of the matter and say that if it is technology that helps maintain the quality of the game it should always be in play. Forcing a player to pick and choose when he/she is going to challenge a call will still allow bad calls to stand. If it's at the umpire's discretion, then linesmen who happen to be unsighted for a call can immediately let the chair know and the chair can go to review.
The player can still get two challenges above the chair's discretion, but the chair should also have the discretion to review any call he/she thinks may have been incorrect.
Bungalow Joy
Mar 27, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
I watched part of the Federer/Clement match and it seemed that if Arnauld could challenge every line call he would have. It's terribly disruptive. I would fear having to watch a player with a JMac attitude approaching the ref after every point, and the 2-challenge limit at least addresses that fear. Maybe more challenges can be allowed to strike a better balance, but I see that the limit was created for good reason. Unfortunately. Until technology has advanced so linesmen are completely unnecessary, I think the compromise is a reasonable one. Call me terribly old-fashioned (yeah, I'm a one-handed backhander too) but it's a human game where there will be bad calls. You win some, you lose some, and in the end it evens out, if not over the course of a match then over the course of a season or even a career. [shrugs.]
Doesn't Justine have an extreme Western grip on her backhand? Does that account for the whipping?
crimsongrl
Mar 27, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
Mary Carillo went on a kickass tirade about challenges during the Roddick/Verdasco match.
It started when Andy thought a ball was in, but didn’t want to waste a challenge so early in the match.
Mary Carillo: I know you think this is swell Cliff, but we have the technology to show weather this stuff is in or out and these players have to worry about when they’re going to challenge them? I just… I don’t understand the charm of this [bad] system. I really don’t. I thought we were putting this unbelievable technology in place so that everything would be fair, and accurate, and even. But now these guys have to worry about if their shot is in or out and that’s good? What am I missing here? [laughs]
And I can’t believe the US Open is going to take a risk in using this system.
Cliff: Obviously I completely disagree with you, it’s impossible for me to explain to you since your mind is so clearly made up. [Goes on to explain challenge rules.] Each player gets two challenges a set, which I think is terrific, rather than what you’re for which is unlimited challenges I’m assuming…
MC: I’m not… why put it on the players at all? I don’t understand why it’s up to the players to get a technically accurate call.
Cliff: Again it’s very difficult to convince you of something you are so adamantly against…
MC: [laughs] Here’s what I’m hoping: That at the US Open, there’s no more challenges left and it’s deep in the 5th set, and it’s somebody’s match point, okay. And the ball is called incorrectly but because all their challenges are up, the US Open championship is decided by this goofy system. Boy would I love to see… so what are you going to say “That’s showbiz”? Has anyone extended the logic of this format to include that possibility? So far there’s been nothing, it’s been so benign, there’s been no big moments. But what happens when that happens at the US Open? You’re going to say "that’s great, that’s exciting, that’s drama”?! That’s ridiculous!
Cliff: Um…Brad, do you have anything to say on this tirade from…
MC: [laughs] I’m just so tired of you two saying that this is good when it’s so obviously unfair and a misguided use of technology.
Brad: Where’s the boxing gloves guys?
Cliff: I’m withdrawing from this contest because it’s been decided by Mary Carillo.
Brad: I’m so glad you’re so passionate about it, but I like the show business of it.
MC: Do you understand what could go wrong? You guys are extremely aware of what could go wrong? And you still think it’s a good idea cuz you have a better flair of show business than I do?!
Brad: [rambles about it helping players move on, rather than obsess about a call. Says it will help players like Andy the most.]
[snip]
MC: Why can’t the chair umpire say “Oh that was a bad call, point goes to the guy who actually won it”?
Cliff: If I agree with you will you be quiet? Or are you going to keep going on, on this…
MC: You’re the one who keeps pouring me Kool-Aid and I keep pouring it into the now dead potted plant on my side.
Cliff: Ouch.
MC: [laughs] It’s gonna burn somebody and then you’re all gonna say “Oh yeah, maybe that was a bad idea”.
And then they went to commercial.
Hee! Yes, I have no life and used the pause button on my DVR to type all that out.
So who’s drinking the Kool-Aid? I think the players having challenges is stupid, but at least it’s a start in the right direction.
Distant Sun
Mar 27, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
Damn! I really wish I could've seen that. Miraculously, I think I just fell in love with Mary Carillo.
I think the system is about as good as we could've hoped for at this point. Maybe the chair umpire should have discretion to review any call, but I think the idea behind putting the onus on the players is sound (i.e., it'll cut down on frivolous arguing and misuse). So far, I think it's going rather well. I still heart Mary's rant though.
jimena
Mar 27, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
Gosh, how more could I love Mary Carillo? That was awesome. I totally agree with her.
Well, then that makes the weird whippy motion and open stance that much weirder. There's a hitch in it where she seems to plant herself before she swings and is stiff-armed in her delivery. She uses way too much shoulder in her swing and not enough leg.
I think it has to do with her grip. The weird thing for me is that she falls back on the shot a lot. She uses all her upper body to hit the ball, (and her racket head speed is incredible, which is how she can generate her power at her height). I guess it's a combination of all these things?
Oh, and add Richard Gasquet's backhand as one of the most drool worthy and effective ones in the game today.
I missed Roger's beatdown of Haas. You know, Haas is like Ljubicic last year. His draws have been less than optimal.
Harry24
Mar 27, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Enjoyed Mary's rant this afternoon. It really was a thing of beauty. I don't understand why the Shot Spot can't be a tool of the referee. He/she can double check any call at his/her discretion without any requests. I love the idea of something the crowd can get into, but not when it kind of distorts the game.
And now just a quick wade into the shallow end: Roger looks unbelievably hot in white. He has the most gorgeous skin, and white really highlights it. And I really love the henley collar shirt.
Haas needs to keep the hair short. And, although he's undeniably purty, his attitude towards the umpire was supremely snotty. Most unattractive.
tigertail
Mar 27, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
Ha! That's brilliant!
Cliff: Again it’s very difficult to convince you of something you are so adamantly against…
...especially since I really have no answer for your totally valid criticism...
vallegirl
Mar 28, 2006 @ 12:25 am
But they were arguing two different things. She was arguing that because it was implemented badly that it will alway remain a bad option and shouldn't be used and he was saying that he likes the technology and is willing to see how it progresses.
I think if she weren't so damn intransigent she'd realize that she kind of agrees with Cliff (good technology, good for the game, still in it's infancy) but she's so hellbent for speed on how bad she thinks the two-challenge rule that she's only giving the most cursory acknowledgement that the technology is a good thing and that they need to refine how it's used.
There are ways to argue your point but if all you're going to do is bludgeon and berate BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT AND NO ONE ELSE CAN SEE JUST HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!!!! then of course the other people are just going to patronize you until you shut up.
Thing is, I agree with what I believe is Mary's core argument, it's just that she's overloaded it with her loud and obnoxious righteous indignation over how poorly it was implemented that no one's listening to her. She needs to argue it like an adult and not like John McEnroe.
karashi
Mar 28, 2006 @ 10:51 am
*whew* Just read all the way from freaking January - that Australian Open was hilarious and I relived the broadcast memories! Grosjean and Assh... Kiefer! JHH's utter punk-out (I kinda liked her up until then - I never saw the thing with Williams.)
Annyway. Shot-spot. I kinda love the system actually - though I've only seen it in two matches. Haas got one right and got one wrong. The ref totally gave an apologetic smile. Does it interrupt flow? Maybe, but for less time (~5secs) than a player ranting at the ump does! At one point, Haas started arguing with the ump and instead of wasting time, the ump just asked if Haas wanted to use a challenge. Haas subsided immediately.
Allowing the player to challenge is important, because when something drastically unfair happens you're doubly wronged. You lose the point unfairly and you have to play knowing you lost the point unfairly. At least if you don't challenge, you aren't playing under a sense of being wronged.
Having the ump consistently checking shot-spot obviates the need for any human involvement. Having him/her optionally checking it leads to cries of favoritism when they refuse. And could they ever refuse? Because if they did and the viewer shot-spot showed it was the wrong call, it would be a nightmare.
Having 2 challenges is perfect, because you only lose them on a lost challenge. If you've lost your 2 challenges, you deserve to be penalized by not having that privilege. Also, it does keep the human element in it - because not only does the ump have to be wrong, but the player has to catch him being wrong. So it takes good observation on the players' part as well as the umps'.
I likes it.
Heh, Hingis used it and was wrong. And very cutely admitted to "hoping" - but at least she can only try that 2x!
El Robzter
Mar 28, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Thing is, I agree with what I believe is Mary's core argument, it's just that she's overloaded it with her loud and obnoxious righteous indignation over how poorly it was implemented that no one's listening to her.
I'm with you. Being your own biggest fan club can sometimes backfire. :) But it will be funny if her 5th-set-in-the-US Open-finals doomsday scenario ever comes to pass, and to watch whatever fallout may ensue.
At one point, Haas started arguing with the ump and instead of wasting time, the ump just asked if Haas wanted to use a challenge. Haas subsided immediately.
In a way this is great, but I'll kind of be mourning the head games that go on after a player lets loose on the chair ump.
Have they made any mention of when/if Jennifer C. might come back? I had read awhile ago that Miami was going to mark her return, but clearly that didn't happen.
Bungalow Joy
Mar 28, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
Being your own biggest fan club can sometimes backfire. :)
Carillo is a McEnright. And Cliff is the wrong person to be so with, because he listens and responds reasonably. This isn't
Crossfire. She needs to ratchet down and let the argument develop, otherwise no one will listen.
Harry24
Mar 28, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
ESPN2 is showing the Nasdaq tournament this afternoon instead of the World's Strongest Man or whatevershit. Right now they're showing O. Rochus and Ferrer in a good, three-set match.
Can I just say again how much I'm loving that they're showing so much tennis this year?
seltzer4
Mar 30, 2006 @ 11:39 am
Watched the Jie Zheng and Golovin match.
-Zheng really needs to work on her net approaches. She always sets them up perfectly...but then completely whiffs the ball. If she got those, she could have won the match.
-Golovin was really passive today.
ruach
Mar 30, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
I watched the Mauresmo - Kuznetsova semi-final. Have to say I was really impressed by how Kuznetsova just overwhelmed Mauresmo. Especially entertaining was how Mauresmo had just gone down 0-4 in the first set and Cliff commented, "And Mauresmo clearly being the best woman player in the world right now..." I wasn't sure if he intended to be ironic or not, but it was perfect timing.
crimsongrl
Mar 30, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Cliff & Mary Jo talked to Jennifer Capriati before the Roddick match (what is going on w/ his game lately?) today. It took her 5 minutes to basically say she's had 4 surgeries since she's been away, her rehab isn't going as well as she hoped, and she has no time frame for when she'll return.
I kind of missed her on the tour until I heard her speak. I always forget how dead and uninterested she sounds during interviews.
ETA: Oh, and she just turned 30 yesterday.
OT:Is anyone else annoyed with that dammed eXtra large BBC America Ad that takes up half the screen!?
El Robzter
Mar 30, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
I kind of missed her on the tour until I heard her speak. I always forget how dead and uninterested she sounds during interviews.
LOL Thanks for the update. I have always loved Jennifer in spite of her interview skills. Hope she gets well soon.
tisha
Mar 30, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Mary was really insightful today about what Roddick needs: she says the troubles with his game are less about coaching than they are about teaching and that he needs somebody to go in there to fix mechanical problems. Old Brad Gilbert sat there silent through that. I'm sure he thinks it's a coaching issue...
The Zheng-Golovin match was an abomination. Why did they stay with that match when almost anything would have been more interesting and inspired more passion? There is too little tennis on TV and, when it is on, it would behoove ESPN to air something that people actually want to see. In contrast, earlier this week ESPN had the Hingis-Kutznetsova match, tied at a set apiece, and they left it! As it turned out, the final set was allegedly great tennis, a tiebreaker, etc. And, let's face it, people care about Hingis (me especially, I guess, since I even download her matches that don't make it to American TV) and almost nobody in the Western hemisphere cares about Zheng or Golovin.
Last thing, this time about Hawk Eye (or Spot Shot or whatever it's called). I was watching a match--maybe Federer?--the other day and the linesman called a serve in. Then the umpire overruled and called the serve out. Then the player challenged and the serve was actually in. What this should have led to, IMO, is the commentators (and the players, really) offering a thorough indictment of the way umpires control matches. They are only supposed to overrule if they think a clear mistake has been made. Well, how clear can a mistake be if it wasn't really a mistake to begin with?
ghetto hood rat
Mar 30, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
I liked the Capriati interview-I especially liked her sort of complaining about turning 30...honey, I'm with you right there.
Sometimes I think that Roddick is so intimidated by Federer that he starts thinking about having to play him even before he would have to play him and he doesn't start thinking about the game he is in right now. Federer would have been his next opponent. Or maybe I am projecting-sarcastically thinking that my 'gift' for beating this opponent will be yet another thrashing by Rog.
Harry24
Mar 30, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
I'm watching the Fed-Blake match tonight. Mary was just commenting on how long James has been with his coach and that he'll probably be with him for his entire career. She said Federer was the same type. And while I agree that Fed is the type of guy who makes choices carefully and sticks with them, he
did fire Peter Lundgren (is that his last name? AOAS, I'm not sure)
Mary was really insightful today about what Roddick needs: she says the troubles with his game are less about coaching than they are about teaching and that he needs somebody to go in there to fix mechanical problems
Do you remember any details about what shots or whatever she thought he needed to fix? We all know his backhand isn't the best. Is that what she was talking about? Or footwork and movement type of things? I like him as a guy and I'd like to see him get better.
tisha
Mar 30, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
Do you remember any details about what shots or whatever she thought he needed to fix? We all know his backhand isn't the best. Is that what she was talking about? Or footwork and movement type of things?
She didn't mention his footwork, which has never been that good. Maybe it's too late to really fix what should have been attended to when he was still in juniors and reinforced.
She said his game was like his clothing: big and loose. Roddick made lots of forehand errors today (I think about 35) and that is his money shot. But he was hitting it from well behind the baseline for most of the match and he was leaving his feet too often and he was losing control of his shot because of it. (Contrast that with Blake's forehand, for example: it's at least as big as Roddick's and he almost never leaves his feet.) In addition, she said that the forehand really is a problem when he wants to come into the net because he either hits it too hard, so he ends up at the service line and has to try to hit a half volley, or he hits it too loopy, which allows his opponents to hit down on it and dig a volley out of his sneakers.
She didn't really address his backhand, which has become more and more of a mess as he tries to fix it. His slice backhand has nothing on it--it's not like when Federer or Mauresmo or Henin-Hardenne hits one and it can just destroy you--and his two-handed backhand just seems "pushed" more than "hit" (Hewitt's has seemed like this recently, too).
I think the truth of the matter is that Roddick is going to have serious shoulder problems very soon, if he isn't having some now. The kind of impact his shoulder has to absorb because he prefers to boom shots instead of think about placement is just unimaginable to me.
NoWayMan
Mar 30, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
James played really well a huge improvement over his Pacific Final appearance. I'm trying to figure out who on tour besides Federer can really take out Blake. I know you can lose on any day but he's playing with a huge, crazy amount of confidence. As his ranking continues to rise, we might see an actual rivalry develop, you know where the other guy kind of wins every now and then.
ShellsandCheese
Mar 30, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
I love Tatiana Golovin's dress, err tennis attire. I seriously am coveting it right now--and boy I can't stand Sharapova.
And on to less superficial things, James Blake aquitted himself quite nicely today. I think it is too early to say that he may eventually be a foil for Federer, especially since all signs point to Nadal. Anywho, I am really enjoying all of the tennis coverage lately.
ghetto hood rat
Mar 30, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
Oooh, did you guys see that? I totally thought I saw Maria Sharapova calling the line judge a bitch after she called her serve out.
As much as I admire her for being a fighter and all that blah blah blah, Sharapova seems like a miserable person in some ways.
Chesty LaRue
Mar 30, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
Sometimes I think that Roddick is so intimidated by Federer that he starts thinking about having to play him even before he would have to play him and he doesn't start thinking about the game he is in right now.
I think that is a little unfair to how darned well Ferrer played today. He is knocking on the door of the top 10 (at #11) and reached the semis in Miami last year. I thought Roddick - outside of some patches- played quite well today. But Ferrer was really, really good- and so scrappy. He is a guy who is almost ignored by the Spanish media but has such heart and a great work ethic so I am glad to see him do well.
Distant Sun
Mar 30, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
James Blake aquitted himself quite nicely today. I think it is too early to say that he may eventually be a foil for Federer
Well, I think he's shown he has the tools to attack Federer. I'll never forget that match they played at the U.S. Open in '04 when Blake fought off 19 of 20 break points in a set. How many times tonight did he hold after being down? He really seems to be able to pressure Federer (inconsistently, of course), which is more than all but a handful of players can do.
In addition, she said that the forehand really is a problem when he wants to come into the net because he either hits it too hard, so he ends up at the service line and has to try to hit a half volley, or he hits it too loopy, which allows his opponents to hit down on it and dig a volley out of his sneakers.
I think they hit the nail on the head in an earlier telecast. Roddick's needs to take some topspin off his forehand and hit it flatter. If he doesn't hit a really penetrating shot, it's going to sit up too much. That's not a good thing when you consider his relative lack of quickness.
ruach
Mar 30, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
tisha said:
The Zheng-Golovin match was an abomination. Why did they stay with that match when almost anything would have been more interesting and inspired more passion? There is too little tennis on TV and, when it is on, it would behoove ESPN to air something that people actually want to see. In contrast, earlier this week ESPN had the Hingis-Kutznetsova match, tied at a set apiece, and they left it! As it turned out, the final set was allegedly great tennis, a tiebreaker, etc. And, let's face it, people care about Hingis (me especially, I guess, since I even download her matches that don't make it to American TV) and almost nobody in the Western hemisphere cares about Zheng or Golovin.
I beg to differ. I kind of like watching the unknowns play - for one thing, the commentators have to work a little harder because they're unfamiliar with the games too, and sometimes you get quite an interesting match because there's less pressure.
Also, I was rooting for Zheng to upset Golovin, so I enjoyed that match. I agree with Brad Gilbert - the Chinese women are on the rise. They may never reach the top spot, but they're certainly going to be a factor in the years to come.
However, ITA that leaving the Hingis-Kuznetsova match made me want to kick ESPN. The irony, I suppose, is that they abandoned a perfectly good tennis match to show a tape-delayed Champions League football match. 'Cause more people want to watch football than tennis. SERIOUSLY?!
vallegirl
Mar 30, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Roddick's needs to take some topspin off his forehand and hit it flatter. If he doesn't hit a really penetrating shot, it's going to sit up too much. That's not a good thing when you consider his relative lack of quickness.
He's got the body of a power player and the game of a counter puncher. Didn't he have a late growth spurt? He turned pro too early and while he grew into his body his game never did. While he's learned to hit really hard, he hasn't learned how to attack. And if you're hitting hard from 20 feet behind the baseline, you're just making life harder on yourself.
Distant Sun
Mar 30, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
Damn. Golovin is my hero. Seeing her try to continue after doing that to her ankle almost makes up for the Australian Open final.
seltzer4
Mar 30, 2006 @ 11:53 pm
It is true that no one in the western hemisphere cares about players about Zheng and Golovin. Its kind of a pity, since ESPN for a while only really cared about Roddick/Davenport/Williams Sisters/Sharapova (It is getting better). So obviously the other players won't get featured.
Zheng is one of the rising Chinese tennis players. They do have 5 chinese players in the top 100. 7 of them got into the main draw for the Australian Open. Jie Zheng and Zi Yan were the doubles champions for the Australian Open.
Golovin is also one of the upcoming stars. Watch her be in the top 10 in a year for two. There are a bunch of teenagers rising in the ranks. Ivancovic, Mirza and others.
Chesty LaRue
Mar 31, 2006 @ 12:22 am
While he's learned to hit really hard, he hasn't learned how to attack.
I actually think that another one of Roddick's problems is that he doesn't really know how to play defense. The points are longer now as the men's players have gotten accostomed to the power game that was prevelant a few years ago (outside of Hewitt)- and Roddick has a hard time being able to stay in points until he can attack.
That is one thing that has helped Blake- building up his defense. As the announcers keep saying.
SamPJackson
Mar 31, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Golovin looked good last night, in more ways than one.
But, she more or less hurt *herself* by chasing a ball that was out of reach.
When Sharapova played the signature Bolletieri shots: the "master blaster" down the line, working the topspin forehand down lower every exchange, and the weak forehand that goes away from the opponent, she did well, but when she played up the center and cross-court, Golovin usually outlasted her.
Yes, I believe Sharapova did call the ref a bitch. I did think the one lineswoman did seem to enjoy calling outs on Sharapova.
Sharapova is such an improvement over AK: just as attractive, more personable, and a much better player, that I can't dislike her.
Poker players call an Ace King opener an "Anna Kornikova". It looks good, but you can almost always beat it.
ruach
Mar 31, 2006 @ 10:37 am
SamPJackson said:
Poker players call an Ace King opener an "Anna Kornikova". It looks good, but you can almost always beat it.
LOL...I'm gonna have to remember that - so much better than Big Slick. I think we should come up with more names like that, like a pair of sixes could be a tiebreak (I know, that's boring, but it was the only thing that came immediately to mind).
Hippy Joe
Mar 31, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
What's the consensus here about Sharapova being allowed a bathroom break when it wasn't her serve? Sure, the previous game was a long one but had it been say, Golovin, or a lower ranked player, would they have been given a break?
Very sad about Golovin. I have done this myself and give her a tremendous amount of credit for at least trying to play again. I almost threw up during the slo mo.
I usually turn off Sharapova as I get very bored watching her and find the grunts and screams annoying...not to mention the OCD serve prep...Shuffle shuffle hair hair bounce bounce bounce..GAH!!!...but I could not turn this match off and I hope Golovin's OK. I will certainly look for her matches in the future.
CurlyWhirly
Mar 31, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
They most certainly would not have given any other player a bathroom break at that time. Sharapova is becoming legendary for her bathroom breaks which oddly enough only occur when her opponent is on a major run. It happened when she played Na Li earlier in the week, during the US Open against both Clijsters and Petrova, and a few other occasions. Really sad attempts to interrupt the momentum of her opponents. I'm glad Golovin didn't fall for it. Maria was rightfully booed by the crowd. I think she lost quite a few fans last night, and if she keeps up her gamesmanship antics, ridiculous screaming at opponents' errors, and bs line challenges (like the point that won Golovin the second set -- she clearly saw that ball was in, and actually hasn't been correct on any one of her challenges throughout the entire tournament!) she is going to become a bit of a villain, someone the crowd starts to root against consistently a la Hingis in her heyday.
When even Mary Jo Fernandez and Cliff Drysdale (who are practically professional Sharapova ass-lickers during the commentary for all her matches) are calling her cold-blooded and heartless (for shadowboxing moves and her refusal to even look at Golovin once or express even slight concern during her injury) then something is up. What a crushing result -- the momentum had shifted so clearly toward Golovin and that match was very winnable. She displayed tremendous guts with that comeback. I look forward to the next match-up.
Hopefully the reinvigorated Kuznetsova will be the only Russian not to fold like a dollar bill in front of Maria during Saturday's final-- go Sveta!
tisha
Mar 31, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
That was a very good match last night and Golovin should be proud of how well she performed. I could NOT watch that injury in slow-motion because I have done that to my ankle too many times and I know how badly it hurts.
I wish the corporate entities would get this through their heads: fans do not like Sharapova. I seldom see a match where the fans are rooting for her, and it's not just because they "love an underdog." They have tried to convince us she is attractive (she is, but less than Kournakova and many others on tour) and that she is marketable. Well, when she manages to land huge contracts with Prince, Nike, Canon, etc., it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (profit-cy), but it doesn't feel organic to me.
ETA: I have also grown weary of Sharapova's gamesmanship all the time, with her saying "come on!" all the freaking time and turning her back to her opponents when they want to serve and she wants to delay them. Give it a rest. I hope somebody starts mocking her on court for the "come on" bullshit like Coria did to Hewitt in the Davis Cup (and later talked about in his press conference). She really deserves it.
Virginia
Mar 31, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
CurlyWhirly, tisha, I totally agree with you about Sharapova. (And, yes, I still have a problem with Mary Joe calling Sharapova's matches because her husband's finances are tied up with Sharapova's success, if I'm not mistaken.)
The screaming, if nothing else, is enough to make me pull against her every time she's on (which is every freaking day, seems like). Cliff even noted that as bad as the TV viewers think it is, it is much louder and more annoying in the stadium (and, no, I couldn't believe he said it either).
I think the bathroom breaks were bogus and I was secretly hoping that Golovin would pull the same crap on Sharapova in the next set. But, to her credit, Golovin was as cool as she could be and the gamesmanship didn't work.
Is there absolutely no way that Maria's getting coaching when she goes off the court? I noticed the cameraman made a point of showing Yuri's empty seat during the second bathroom break. I imagine it is probably more to break the opponent's momentum because she never seems to have to go when SHE'S on a roll.
Also, Maria definitely looked over at someone in the stands (Yuri?) before she challenged at least two of the calls. Coaching? Or doesn't it matter in this circumstance?
I thought the chair umpire missed a call, too. Spotshot showed Golovin's ball catching the line although it was called out, and Cliff said, "If she'd challenged that she would have won". It was right on the sideline under the umpire. Do you think that the umpires will be more reluctant to overrule now that they are waiting for the players to challenge? This looked like one the chair should have caught to me.
CurlyWhirly
Mar 31, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Virginia, I remember that ball, that point gave Sharapova the game and Tatiana should have challenged, but Tatiana was down 0-40 in that game so it wasn't a turning point at least. You have a great point about the umpires -- I think if anything, the challenge system has made the umpires lazier and less likely to overrule since they know a challenge may be coming. There are so so many flaws in this new system.
I find it so funny that Sharapova hasn't been proven correct on any of her challenges so far throughout the whole tournament. And she hasn't been shy about using them. I wonder if any other players have such a bad challenge record! I hope that at some point she drops that loony father of hers and takes more control of her career, because she seems to have gotten all her antics and bad behavior from him. Maybe then she can find some joy and happiness in the game -- whether she's leading or trailing, she always looks miserable out there until she wins that final point. She loves winning, but it doesn't seem like she loves playing.
Hippy Joe
Mar 31, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Re: Sharapova coaching...at one point during the match, the camera went over to Maria's box. Her father and coach were looking obviously at Maria and quickly nodded their heads at exactly the same time. Psychic? Joined at the head? Or coaching? Hmmmm.....Wouldn't it be fun if all the other women on the tour started to pull the old "I can't hold it" routine on her?
Funny, though I don't fault her for not looking over at Golovin while she was getting treatment. I would try to stay as focused as possible, considering the way the match had gone to this point. She did express her sympathy to Golovin after the match was called.
ghetto hood rat
Mar 31, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Carillo trashed Sharapova at the beginning of the men's match today for the bathroom break and the gamesmanship.
The screaming, if nothing else, is enough to make me pull against her every time she's on (which is every freaking day, seems like). Cliff even noted that as bad as the TV viewers think it is, it is much louder and more annoying in the stadium (and, no, I couldn't believe he said it either).
He's not lying. I saw her at the US Open in 2004 and I was up in the nosebleed seats in Arthur Ashe Stadium and I could hear her loud and clear. Like she was sitting near me. I had a friend who went to Wimbledon in 2004, the year she won and he said she could be heard a couple of courts over when she played. It's insane.
For some totally irrational reason, Thomas Blake (James' brother) bugs me a bit.
tisha
Mar 31, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
I have really liked Gilbert's stock option thing on the players. I can't remember all of them, but they were something like this:
Sell: Hewitt, Coria, Clijsters, Davenport (?)
Hold: Nalbandian, Mauresmo, ...I'm blanking
Buy: Federer, Ljubicic, Blake, Badhdatis, Hingis, Chinese women
I used to hate Brad, but he has an encyclopedic mind about the game and he says smart things more often than I'd like to give him credit for. Maybe now I have to move on and start bitching when Cliff announces "game point" when it's 40-30. No shit, Cliff!
Distant Sun
Mar 31, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Re: Sharapova coaching...at one point during the match, the camera went over to Maria's box. Her father and coach were looking obviously at Maria and quickly nodded their heads at exactly the same time. Psychic? Joined at the head? Or coaching?
Sharapova (and JHH) are famous for getting coaching during a match. They've been caught during broadcasts a couple of times.
Golovin looked good last night, in more ways than one.
Yes, she's looking much better now that she put on some weight. She used to be as bony as Sharapova, but it looks like they started feeding her again.
ghetto hood rat
Mar 31, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
The Miami newspaper said Golovin had to be taken out of the grounds in a wheelchair and will be out for six weeks. She came back to the tournament the next day on crutches and was showing off her hot pink cast.
SamPJackson
Mar 31, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
I'm surprised there's not some rule on the pee breaks. That's just asking for abuse by someone who doesn't care how they win.
Look at what pro football does with ref challenges. You only get so many, and if you don't get an over-rule, there's a penalty.
Jer2002
Apr 1, 2006 @ 2:38 am
I wish the corporate entities would get this through their heads: fans do not like Sharapova.
I do. I guess I'm chopped liver.
vallegirl
Apr 1, 2006 @ 10:37 am
I do, too. Unlike Kournikova I like the fact that when she's on the court she's all business and has that perma-scowl on her face when she plays. No one asks the men to be "happy happy joy joy" when in the thick of a match, so why should Sharapova? Does she have some annoying habits and engage in "gamesmanship?" Probably, but it's up to the chair to call her on it.
Athletes don't usually become popular because they have all those sponsorships, they get all those sponsorships because they're popular. It's her management's, or if she has one, publicist's responsibility to present Maria in a likable manner, but her sponsors only want one thing from her, to improve sales immediately. That's why Nokia was ready to sign her the second she stepped off Centre Court when she won Wimbledon.
Stuckinowhere
Apr 1, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
I still like Sharapova too. I think it's easier to root against her because most of her oppononts are now in the "underdog" role and we always root for them. Plus, she's tall and blonde and that's not gonna have people thinking "Poor you". I think Maria actually earns all the dough when she wins. When she wins big she goes from kind of serious and unattractive to waving happily and smiling like in Wimbledon '04 and she's looks cute again.
Bungalow Joy
Apr 1, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
I like her too. Because she wins. I don't necessarily like her game, though. Her strokes aren't very stylish, and it starts with the ball toss of her service. Same with Roddick. Aesthetically, Federer is perfection.