The women’s draw has been made, I’ve made my pick for the winner, and now it is your turn!
Tell us who you think will win the 2009 US Open women’s title in this week’s edition of Open Forum Friday.
Can defending champion Serena Williams repeat as the winner and claim her fourth US Open trophy? Will Dinara Safina or Jelena Jankovic finally win a maiden Slam? Can former winners Kim Clijsters, Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova or Svetlana Kuznetsova take advantage of the open field and win another title in Flushing Meadows? Or will we see a surprise champion at the end of two spectacular weeks of tennis in New York City?
Leave a comment below with your answer or send a reply on Twitter to @OnTheBaseline! Have a great weekend, everyone!
serena williams off course!! Go girl and get this trophy
Thinking that Serena has the edge at the moment over the field. But wouldn’t it be great if Kim stormed the field.
Vera Zvonarëva, as at Indian Wells. I’m well aware that her ankle-injury has set her back a long way, but I’m sick of everyone overlooking the current world #7 as a title-contender.
Dementieva, hopefully.
She just seems so positive right now. Dementieva has had the talent to win big for a while but it seemed like she was struggling with confidence issues and service game issues which made it appear as if she was battling against herself at key points in matches. Dementieva is playing good right now but she’s still under the radar. So, hopefully, not to much pressure.
Dementieva seems to have her mental stuff together.
Dementieva. I think she plays Serena really well, she almost made it this year at Wimby. I think she is more confident having won Rogers Cup this year. So good luck, Elena.
Or if Venus won that would be a blast. I think she is the dark horse for this one after Wimbledon loss.
Do You Know Prince? While gearing up for the U.S. Open, Prince is giving you the chance to test your tennis IQ and even win new gear.
Visit http://www.doyouknowprince.com Or visit us on Facebook (www.facebook.com/official.prince.tennis) or Twitter (www.twitter.com/prince_tennis) for additional daily Prince trivia and opportunities for complimentary Prince equipment!
Kim Clijsters.
She just has to win.
It would be an alarming indictment of women’s tennis if someone could just waltz in after a two-year absence and win a Major almost immediately.
Fortunately, women’s tennis is far too strong to let that happen.
I think federer
watch live HQ tennis matches @ http://tennisniksports.yolasite.com/
Who knows who’s going to win the title (predictions are best left to the truly clairvoyant)?! But on this day, at this moment, there’s one name that should be shouted to the rafters: Oudin!! Nice way to keep the unpredictability of tennis alive, Melanie. Once more: OUDIN!
Thursday, September 3, 2009, 5:18 pm
Goodbye Elena.
Goodbye Jelena.
Move over Melanie Oudin, it’s time to shout out another “upsetting” name.
The name is Shvedova, Yaroslava Shvedova.
The seeds are falling! The seeds are falling!
SHVEDOVA! OUDIN! SHVEDOVA! OUDIN!
Oudin has to play the great Maria Sharapova in the third round, so that’s as far as she’ll be going.
Shvedova has a golden draw to reach the semi-finals, given Safina’s imminent demise, but she has a tough next match against Gisela Dulko.
Maria might well reach the final, because there’s no one in the top half whom she couldn’t beat at this stage of her comeback – that includes potential quarter-final opponents Kuznetsova and Wozniacki.
As for the bottom half: I must admit that my heart rules my head while Vera Zvonarëva, Daniela Hantuchová and Magdaléna Rybáriková are still there, although I do think Magda can take care of Venus Williams if Venus’s knee isn’t 100% better by tonight.
Sharapova’s record for the year to date (not counting the US Open): 22 wins and 7 losses/ no title wins.
Dementieva’s record for the year to date (not counting the US Open): 50 wins and 13 losses/ three title wins: Auckland, Sydney, Toronto.
Coming off shoulder surgery, Sharapova’s return to the courts has been commendable but hardly dazzling; she still has some healing to do mentally if not physically.
But any way you slice it, Dementieva has had a very good year: fitter, more focused than ever during match play and even getting her serve in line to firm up her game overall (the Wimbledon semi-final against Serena was absolutely sterling tennis ). Elena seemed on track to win or come close to winning a first time Slam this year. Interestingly, just prior to the US Open, Dementieva defeated Sharapova in Toronto for the title in straight sets; 6-4, 6-3.
Oudin, out of the clear blue sky, derailed Dementieva’s quest. And by all accounts she is a confident, fierce, determined “rookie” who shows little fear when facing a veteran. It is doubtful that she will be intimidated by Sharapova.
Naturally, no one knows who will win the Oudin/Sharapova match (that’s why Oudin’s win over Dementieva came as such a shock to those who make predictions). The outcome will be somewhat surprising in any case. If Sharapova can defeat Oudin, who beat Dementieva who has been playing superb tennis all-season long (and who handed Maria her last loss), then Maria may well have regained quite a bit of her former stature. However, if Oudin pulls off a win the fans and the media will be heralding the arrival of a (potentially) new female tennis star. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
Falling seed update:
Goodbye Azarenka! All hail: SCHIAVONE!
Oudin’s win over Dementieva was a huge shock after Dementieva’s recent excellent form, but it would be an even bigger one if Oudin could follow it up with a win over Maria.
Young players who pull off massive upsets usually have a let-down in the next round. Even if Oudin can maintain the form that saw off the tired Dementieva, and even if Maria has another bad day with her own serve, Oudin will struggle mightily to contend with the fearsome power and iron will of Maria.
My prediction: Oudin will break Maria’s serve three times, but Maria will win 6-4 7-5.
Even fearsome power and iron will is no match for 21 double faults, 63 unforced errors and a feisty, crafty 17-year old from Marietta, Georgia who thrives on three-set victories!
For speedy relief from profound prognosticator’s shock please consult your physician.
OUDIN!
The previous exclamatory word (OUDIN!) should be viewed strictly as a roar of excitement, delight and appreciation and should in no way be considered as a prediction of the outcome of future tennis matches at the US Open.
All together now: OUDIN!
An earlier comment should read:
“Even fearsome power and iron will ARE no match for 21 double faults, 63 unforced errors and a feisty, crafty 17-year old from Marietta, Georgia who thrives on three-set victories!”
That’s better.
OUDIN!
Falling seed update (special “#1″ edition):
Goodbye Dinara.
Perhaps a Grand Slam for you in 2010, yes?
All hail: KVITOVA!
Congratulations to Oudin, but I didn’t count on Maria being injured (she took a medical time-out for a right-arm injury at 2-3* in the third) when I made my prediction.
At least I was right about “Safina’s imminent demise”! :-)
My new predictions for the top half:
4r:
+ Wickmayer d. Kvitová
+ Dulko d. K.Bondarenko
+ Oudin d. Petrova
+ Wozniacki d. Kuznetsova
Qf:
+ Dulko d. Wickmayer
+ Wozniacki d. Oudin
Sf: My Passion says Gisela, but my Reason says Caroline.
I won’t say much about the bottom half, because my hopes are pretty much opposite to my expectations.
Right now, I’m just focusing on tonight’s mouthwatering Vera v Flavia match, and hoping that Vera – as the sole survivor of my Eternal Fanship after Daniela lost earlier today – will prevail. Dare I expect it? Let’s just say that Vera is the “pretty” in “pretty much opposite”…
Oh, “injured” is it?
The following paragraphs and comments come from an article written in the New York Times by Christopher Clarey, dated Sunday, September 6th, 2009:
Paragraphs:
“Sharapova took an injury timeout for an arm problem when trailing by 2-3 in the third set, with the trainer massaging the area around her right elbow. When play resumed, there were six consecutive service breaks before Oudin finally held service to win the match with a forehand crosscourt winner”
“But this was a particularly demoralizing afternoon for Sharapova.. Her revamped motion has drawn criticism, and she continually struggled to control the pace and location of her second serve. She was unable to generate the sort of topspin that would have given her more margin for error.”
Quotes:
“Just couldn’t decelerate today,” Sharapova. “I was hitting second serves no less than 95 miles an hour. I even tried to hit it less, and I just couldn’t.”
“I think she (Oudin) has a great amount of potential,” said Sharapova, who, like Dementieva, was gracious in defeat. “I thought she played really well. I thought she has many weapons. You know, she really held her ground.”
If you scour the tennis websites (ESPN/tennis; Tennis.com, et al) or read newspaper articles like the one above, nowhere will you find a statement made by Sharapova after the match concerning any sort of injury to her person. As the Times article clearly stated, after the “injury break” (I believe it was McEnroe in the television broadcast booth who said something to the effect that the break was a smart move by a wily veteran) Sharapova broke Oudin three times; moreover, as Sharapova herself stated, she was crushing the ball without control.
This was not the physical behavior of an “injured” player. Not by a long shot. And Sharapova never claimed she was “injured’. But if believing that Sharapova was “injured” eases the impact of “prognosticator’s shock” upon your psyche, then by all means believe it.
Don’t know anything about predictions concerning “Dinara’s imminent demise” (didn’t read that comment). However, it must be said that even a blind man sitting in the deepest, darkest cave in the earth on a moonless night with a bag over his head could see that Dinara Safina was headed for an early exit at this year’s US Open.
The game of tennis has absolutely no regard or respect for predictions and that is precisely because the game is so unpredictable (see the latest “falling seed update”). Is it an impulse to assume certain paranormal qualities or supernatural powers that compels people to “predict” the future? In any case, from this corner of the world, the “wait and see what happens” method works just fine, thank you very much. But those who “predict” should proceed regardless; the law of averages indicates that sooner of later the “right prediction” will be made.
Falling seed update:
Goodbye Venus.
All hail: CLIJSTERS!
Falling seed update:
Goodybye Zvonareva #7 (uh oh, better check for “injuries”).
All hail: PENNETTA #10
Typo correction to the last sentence of the previous comment; it should read:
“…the law of averages indicates that sooner OR later the “right prediction” will be made.”
There ya go!
[...] are missing a fun—and informative—time. The best comment of the US Open so far goes to Wilson Spaulding for this explanation of why Safina’s loss was not much of a [...]
1. With all due respect to Oudin: injury was the primary reason for Maria’s defeat, but she would never be so classless as to use that as an excuse.
2. Vera certainly was injured: “her legs were hurting and she couldn’t get the tape-job she needed to make things right” [Associated Press].
That said, she also suffered one of her infamous emotional meltdowns after wasting 6 match-points in the second set.
3. The “supernatural powers” that allow us to predict the future do exist, because “reality”, as we know it, is just a simulation running on a spiritual computer, and therefore completely deterministic.
It’s difficult to interpret the signs correctly in advance because there are so many “red herrings”, but the signs are always there when you analyse a situation retrospectively.
Another problem with prophecies is that they don’t tell you everything. For example, I knew that Flavia would drop exactly 12 games to Vera (see “US Open: Day Seven Preview”), but it didn’t come true in quite the way I expected!
1. Now, now. Don’t slip back into the surreal. As of this writing Maria Sharapova has not, repeat, HAS NOT blamed injury for her defeat at the hands of Melanie Oudin! Kindly refrain from advancing unsubstantiated rumor and self-generated speculation; these things render your views bogus in the extreme. The best remedy for the pernicious tendency to fabricate is to allow the truth to stand without alteration: if the player in question does not cite “injury” then you must not cite “injury”. Just let the player do the talking.
2. “Hurting” is not the equivalent of “injured”. No, no. Not the same at all. Venus was “hurting” yesterday; there was pain but she was able to play through it. And though she lost against Clijsters in the singles match, after a short break she marched right back on the court and won her next doubles match with her younger sister.
Many players perform while “hurting”. Sometimes they win and sometimes, as in the case of dear, sweet Vera, they lose. Only in Vera’s case the loss came off very badly.
Some examples of truly “injured” players (on the men’s side) follow: Nikolay Davydenko (in his match today against Soderling); Gilles Simon ( in his match yesterday against Ferrero); and Jose Acasuso (also yesterday in his match against Monfils) All three had severe physical ailments (known as “injuries”) that would not allow them to continue playing. And so, unlike Sharapova or Zvonareva, they were forced to retire from the match. Those were real “injuries” for the men, not fake “injuries” projected without credence by their “fans”.
An unequivocal statement from Zvonareva citing “injury” as a contributing factor in her loss to Pennetta is eagerly awaited.
3. A clear indicator of deep psychosis in an individual is a fervent belief in “supernatural powers” (categorical predictions), parallel universes or alternative realities. Indeed, the raging psychotic can only see the “world” as it exists inside the troubled confines of his or her mind. Even when sanity attempts to break through with clear, indisputable reality (OUDIN! PENNETTA!), the psychotic will often recoil in shock, falling deeper into a fevered fantasy world.
Psychiatric history is filled with many case studies of this type of individual. There was that famous case a few years ago of the subject named Neo (it was in all the newspapers); poor chap was convinced, in a very detailed manner, that everything we see and feel is a mere projection of elaborate images and neurological impulses fed into the minds of all humanity via direct cable (inserted at the base of the brain just at the point where the medulla oblogata begins) by an elaborate and completely computerized entity.
As stated earlier: poor chap. Neo is resting now, quite comfortably, in a very pleasant sanitarium. And the medication is working wonders for him. It is absolutely astounding how much benefit may be derived from peace, quiet, rest, and the application of safe and effective pharmaceuticals. It’s a formula recommended highly for the raging psychotic with delusions of “supernatural powers” coupled with visions of the future.
Meanwhile, we denizens of the sane, real world reside happily in an existence founded firmly on a stable mental equilibrium. And we do not deign to intrude on the outcomes of future events beyond our influence; we revere, respect, uphold and speak the truth. And we continue to allow the future to unfold in its own unique and unpredictable way.
Typo correction (from the seventh paragraph, fifth line), the words should read:
“…medulla obloNgata..”
Done.
Falling seed update:
Goodbye Svetlana #6
All hail: WOZNIACKI! #9
Before the US Open started, I was thinking that Safina would take the title. But after Clijsters beat Venus Williams on Sunday, it shows that this could really be anyone’s game. I read some good analysis about what was expected to come out of this year’s US Open in ACE Magazine.
Sheena, ACE Magazine
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ACE-Tennis-Magazine/50375017857
There’s nothing fake about Maria and Vera’s injuries, nor is it necessary for the players’ own words to verify that their injuries were the primary reasons for their losses, when it is perfectly obvious from other sources.
Maria took 9½ months off the tour for a chronic shoulder-injury, and had spoken before her loss about the continuing problems.
In her first-round press-conference, she had said: “It takes me a little bit longer for my arm to recover after such a long week, which I’m usually not used to. Especially my arms, when I would play really long matches, that was the last thing that would either bother me or get sore.”
Of course, Maria was too gracious to make the injury an excuse for her loss. She merely said: “It’s just been an ongoing thing.”
But those lucky enough to see the match commented on how she took a medical time-out for her right arm, and couldn’t hit her forehand properly.
Vera’s injury-problems this year began when she tore two ligaments in her right ankle on 16th April. She returned two months later (after missing the French Open), but her legs looked painfully thin as a result of not being able to train.
Both her knees were heavily strapped for her US Open fourth round, during which she was cruelly denied her right to take a medical time-out to adjust the strapping.
Vera commented on her physical problems, whilst having the class to credit her opponent: “I lost concentration because I knew I didn’t have the ability for the third set. Physically I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t get back into it. Flavia was on fire.”
Neither Maria nor Vera is classless enough to use injuries as excuses for losing, but the truth is that they would each have gone at least one round further – and perhaps much further – were it not for their injury-problems.
Name the “sources” that “verify” the “injuries”; name these sources in detail and precisely where they may be found so that all may read them; and again, if the words of the players in question cannot be accepted as the only bona fide truth then certainly no unverified opinion, assertion or looney reverie is going to be believed. So name those verifiable sources and be quick about it.
Sure, everyone saw Sharapova take that timeout on the court in the third set. John McEnroe saw it and voiced his disdain at the veteran Sharapova taking an “injury timeout”. He said something about the timeout being a “good strategy”. Wonder what he could have meant by that?
Truly injured players have real class; they respect the game and their bodies; when they recognize that they are injured they retire (as in the previously cited cases of the male players).
Once again, denial of reality leads to outright lying in a pathetic attempt to bolster the sagging fortunes of a favorite player or players and, of course, to aid in removing the enormous amount of egg clinging to the face (keep scrubbing; it will come off eventually).
Now, get moving on those “sources”!
Falling seed update:
Goodbye Pennetta #10
All hail: SERENA #1, er..#2
Special falling “Cinderella” update:
Goodbye Melanie (it was a terrific run and you must keep it going in the years ahead).
All hail: WOZNIACKI!
The truth about Maria’s loss is in this thread:
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=389737
And the truth about Vera’s loss is in this one:
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=389876
Article that verifies that Maria took a medical time-out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090905/sp_afp/tennisusaopensharapovaoudin
Article that verifies Vera’s (denied) request for a medical time-out:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_BCpN0Onyh3IJQQDMVBAFE89dxgD9AI7N8O1
Articles that verify the extent of the damage to Vera’s ankle in April 2009 – the root-cause of her problems ever since:
http://www.fedcup.com/news/newsarticle.asp?articleid=12397
http://womenwhoserve.blogspot.com/2009/04/confirmed-zvonareva-has-two-torn.html
Article that verifies the extent of the damage to Maria’s shoulder in August 2008 – the root-cause of her problems ever since:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/tennis/7536416.stm
Articles that verify that Maria had surgery:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7805689.stm
http://www.mariasharapova.com/ (filed under OFF THE COURT -> MY WEEKLY DOODLES -> December 30, 2008)
Photographic evidence:
http://legacyeditorial.gettyimages.com/ms_gins/source/home/home.aspx?pg=1
- search for “sharapova” to verify that Maria took a medical time-out for her right arm;
- search for “zvonareva” to verify that Vera’s knees were heavily strapped.
I would love to be able to provide video evidence too, but unfortunately the USTA, which owns the copyright, has forbidden the distribution of US Open videos.
I tried to post the sources, but it seems that my message has been classified as spam and rejected.
Sorry about that, Andrew. Our automated spam filter tagged it as spam, but I just found it and reposted it.
Depending on one’s perspective, the latest submission appearing above, providing a cluster of web links which supposedly “prove” that both Maria Sharapova and Vera Zvonareva were “injuried” during the course of their losing matches at the US Open, can be viewed as achingly hilarious, very sad or more than a little frightening (that is if one takes the submisssion seriously at all). Indeed, the submission of this “proof” incorporates all three elements.
Hilarious: because even an automated spam filter can recognize trash when it senses it and will move with all deliberate speed to dump that trash (nice going ASF!).
Sad: because the individual who deemed it appropriate to make the submission of meaningless links apparently has great difficulty discerning fact from fiction or the truth from lies.
Frightening: because the individual who made the submission of meaningless links may actually be non compos mentis.
No one questions Sharapova’s shoulder surgery because everyone know that she actually had shoulder surgery; that’s not the issue.
No one questions whatever physical problems Zvonareva had prior to playing in the US Open because clearly she had some; that’s not the issue.
No one questions Maria’s “time out” or the tape on Vera’s leg because everyone saw them both; they are not the issue.
The issue is (wait for the fanfare) whether Maria and Vera were “injured” during the course of their losing efforts against Oudin and Pennetta. That is the issue and nothing else.
It is now September 10, five days after Sharapova was defeated and four days after Zvonareva was beaten. On the day they lost and in all the intervening days since, no one in authority from either Sharapova’s camp or Zvonareva’s camp has released any statement that confirms any sort of “injury” to either player which contributed to their failure. Maria and Vera and the people who manage and train them are the only voices of authority when it comes to determining if they were “injured” or not during match play. The silence from both players about “injuries” speaks volumes.
(Yes, doubtless that both players are too “classy” to complain about non-existent ailments; however some of their “fans” have absolutely no class and will stoop to any level, making up the most absurd excuses, in their lunatic desire to explain away the agony of defeat).
The mass of days old stories (merely stating what has already been stated about Maria’s “timeout” and other well known facts) and ludicrous fan hearsay (Tennis Forum?! Now, you REALLY cannot be serious) that constitute the “sources” amount to less than nothing because they never even come close to addressing the issue of “injury” to either player while they were competing.
If you persist in lying, kindly keep the lies to yourself and kindly refrain from submitting more “spam” to this website (carefull the ASF is ever-vigilant). Your apparent uncontrollable impulse to indulge in mendacity only serves to diminish you and only helps to increase the amount of egg from a mere blob clinging to the face to an avalanche burying the body.
Interesting discussion, fellows! Feel free to continue, but let’s not make things personal. Andrew’s comment was certainly not spam, rather our automated filter is hypersensitive to comments that include multiple links. This certainly isn’t the first time we’ve lost comments to it, and unfortunately, it’s not going to be the last.
Andrew, many of those links are credible, but I think the main thing that all this boils down to is that neither woman point-blank attributed her loss to injury. Zvonareva came close but stopped short. She had plenty of other opportunities to call for an injury timeout, but because of the WTA’s rules, she was denied a chance to take one outside of the set parameters.
Players often dance around injury discussions, not only because they don’t want to take anything away from someone else’s rightful win, but also because it never pays to tell potential opponents how banged up you are on court. Case in point, Venus Williams. She could be hobbling around a tournament with nearly as much strapping on as a mummy, but still content to tell you that all’s well except for a few minor issues.
Was Maria Sharapova or Vera Zvonareva dealing with an injury at the time of defeat at the USO? No official word on that came from either of their mouths. Could they have been? Absolutely. But again, we don’t know.
Regardless of an injury, they were both outplayed by a better, if not more healthy player in the draw.
The glory of the Internet is that it can provide a wealth of helpful facts and information so long as it is verifiable.
The curse of the Internet is that every day bloggers of every stripe pump out misinformation and outright lies to millions of people around the world without restraint; and many of the lies are believed.
When an individual deliberately, maliciously and repeatedly advances misinformation and lies as the truth, it is a personal affront to every person reading that misinformation and those lies; that individual must be challenged and the lies must be exposed.
In the context of the question posed (was Sharapova or Zvonareva injured during match play) none of the links were credible because none of the links addressed the question, not even remotely. But the individual (and you can’t get more impersonal than that) who posted the links offers them up as some sort of “proof” of the players “injuries”, which is risible nonsense. In short, he is lying (again)!
And of course the links were not “spam” in the strict sense of computer/Internet lingo. But those links certainly were “spam” (junk or garbage) as far as the question of proving or disproving the players injuries is concerned; it was a laugh-out loud coincidence that the automated spam filter identified the links as “spam”: strictly speaking it wasn’t true but the timing of it was deliciously humorous and apt.
Finally, I am a strong advocate for civil discourse and I believe everyone should be given the opportunity to air their views freely, openly and without fear. But, as I stated in another discussion, freedom of speech does not mean an individual is free to lie. And when the lie is upheld as the truth then those with the will and fortitude to expose and denounce the lie are morally bound to do so.
I have not posted any lies. My sources verify my point, which is that injuries contributed to Maria and Vera’s losses.
I’m not going to stoop to the level of exchanging insults with a fellow poster, so this discussion is over as far as I’m concerned.
Of course you were lying and seemingly you’ve finally come to your senses. Well, to some small degree anyway. Meanwhile, Maria and Vera continue to stand by in stony silence, refusing to lend even the slightest support to your “point” . And, naturally, their silence removes all credibility and all veracity from your “sources”.
You are thanked most kindly for not stooping any lower than you have already (if such a thing is possible). The next step is to recognize, confront and come to grips with the profound flaw in your character. Only then will you be able to devise a solution and effect a change. If you can do this it will bode very well for the truth in all your future comments. Good luck.
Let’s tone down the rhetoric a little, please.
Calling someone a liar and accusing them of character flaws just because you don’t agree with their perspective on a murky subject is making this discussion a little too personal.
And for what it’s worth, Vera Zvonareva was injured during her match. I noticed this when I read through Andrew’s link more carefully:
That sure sounds like an injury to me. Now whether she actually lost the match because of the injury is another thing, but apparently Vera considers that bagel loss a result of her hurting legs.
Do you believe in the truth?
If you will scroll back to my extended comment of September 7 you will find a clear and unmistakable example of what a player does when they are truly injured. In fact you will find three examples. But first, look at the second paragraph; it clearly delineates the difference between “hurting” and “injured”. Then look at the fourth paragraph.
Davydenko, Simon and Acasuso all retired from their matches due to injury. Not because they were “hurting” but because they were injured. No question about it. Now, if i logged onto a website and declared that they retired because they just didn’t want to face certain defeat or because they wanted to go home and take a nap or some other ridiculous reason and then, after repeated calls to stop the lying, I persisted in my views (offering up utterly bogus links for example) that clearly don’t speak to the truth of what occured, then those who oppose my contentions would be well within their rights to call me liar and to question my character and my sanity.
This is not about agreeing with my perspective. This is about accepting and telling the truth of what actually happened on the court during match play and afterward in the post match period. Vera Zvonareva may well have said she was “hurting”; yet as of this date no one has been able to show a quote where she stated that she was “injured”. Had she been injured she would have retired as the men did. She did not retire. She did not say she was “injured”. That is the truth. Anyone who persists in saying otherwise is lying. And those who rave on and on with utterly baseless assertions should have their character and sanity called into question.
Lastly, as stated earlier, when you lie repeatedly to others you commit a “personal” insult to the person or persons reading the lie. And because the liar is the first to commit a “personal” transgression in the form of a lie, the first to get “too personal” in other words, it then leaves the liar wide open for all manner of pointed ridicule or derogatory comments.
Tell the truth. Or face the consequences.
Just because you don’t retire from a match, doesn’t mean you’re not injured.
Most players are classy enough to complete a match for the sake of the spectators and not denying the opponent the satisfaction of closing out the win.
A classy player only retires if (s)he absolutely cannot continue, or would risk long-term damage by playing on.
“…so this discussion is over as far as I am concerned.”- Sep 11, 2009
Can’t you even be true to your own statements?
As mentioned previously, truly classy players who recognize when they are injured retire from the match and they do so because they respect the game, the fans and their bodies. Players who are merely “hurting” play through.
And, of course, there is, unfortunately, a surfeit of classlessness ever residing within the multitude of rabid “fans” who resist reality and the truth with growing pathological fervor. They sink into a deep mire of denial and have neither the will nor the ability to pull themselves out.
Falling seed update:
Goodbye Serena #2 (Smashed racquet; Foot faults; Profanities; Code Violations; Controversy; Wow!).
All hail: CLIJSTERS!
The Final Falling Seed Update:
Goodbye Wozniacki #9 (very fine run Caroline; you’ll be going up the rankings, no doubt)
Who says that a two-year absence and childbirth isn’t a good formula for winning a Major tennis tournament?
Not Kim Clijsters! Absolutely astounding! Way to go Kim!
ALL HAIL CLIJSTERS! ALL HAIL CLIJSTERS! ALL HAIL CLIJSTERS!