Archive for Percy896's Tennis Forum This is a new tennis forum to discuss professional tennis, vote and create polls, and ask advice about equipment, fitness, or anything regarding tennis! Now with a new Fantasy Tennis League!
SEOUL, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Russia's world number two Maria Sharapova will play Lindsay Davenport in an exhibition match in January in South Korea, an official at Seoul's tennis association said on Wednesday.
Sharapova, 19, will face American Davenport on Jan. 1 in the South Korean port city of Inchon, the official said by telephone.
Sharapova lost a previous exhibition match in Seoul in 2005 to American Venus Williams.
Next Tuesday, South Korea will also host an exhibition match between world number one Roger Federer of Switzerland and Spain's Rafael Nadal[/img]
dav6789
I thought they were both playing Hong Kong?
Anyway, this may not be the best decision for Lindsay, but at least she's playing before the A.Open. Hopefully she will start the new year on fire and ready for another double-bagel
J-man
Go Lindsay. I'm sure it will be fun for both players
stevos14
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
dav6789
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
Lol, I hardly think so. Their previous matches have all been tight (except the 'greatest match every played:wink: '). Lindsay has not played very well in those matches, it doesn't have much to do with Sharapov. It's nothing like a Federer-Roddick rivalry.
PSALT
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
leftys_rock
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
PSALT
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
leftys_rock
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
I think it is that Sharapova WANTS to win so much that pulls her through vs. Davenport. Had Sharapova not wanted to win so much, she might have just not tried as much once she lost a set. And by "grew tired" do you mean mentally going away because of the hard hitting or physically tired?
PSALT
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
I think it is that Sharapova WANTS to win so much that pulls her through vs. Davenport. Had Sharapova not wanted to win so much, she might have just not tried as much once she lost a set. And by "grew tired" do you mean mentally going away because of the hard hitting or physically tired?
It is never like Sharapova claws her way back while Davenport is still pounding away. Davenport is the one who physically can't keep her play up. Davenport is in her thirties now, she can't do three sets of hard-hitting tennis like she used to and Sharapova now can. Sharapova's mind has nothing to do with it. Not giving up is something pretty much everyone in the top 20 is able to do, it is not something special to them. That is not what was helping Sharapova win matches.
stevos14
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
How does it take mental strength to win the first set? That is normally just based on their game. I don't think Davenport ever had much mental strength, even in younger years. Sharapova clearly does.
dav6789
I think Lindsay has been the hungriest player on tour for the past couple of years, more than Sharapova.
Maria was very lucky to beat Lindsay in Wimbledon 04, in fact win the whole tournament. It was more mental than anything else for Lindsay, as all the pressure was on her to win the match, and she had trouble in the recent years at this stage of Wimbledon (constant losses to the Williams). A rain break frustrated her, and she didn't turn up for the final set. That was at a point when she was at her lowest in confidence, and the fact she lost that match made her say she would retire.
There other meeting have been close aswell, but Lindsay just hasen't played her game. Over 50 errors was the story in Dubai, nothing else. Lindsay didn't need to win the Los Angeles match, which she played pretty poorly anyway. Lindsay is a much better and more complete player than Sharapova. There is no way Sharapova dominates her.
PSALT
stevos14 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
How does it take mental strength to win the first set? That is normally just based on their game. I don't think Davenport ever had much mental strength, even in younger years. Sharapova clearly does.
I never said anything about needing to be strong mentally to win the first set.
dav6789
stevos14 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
How does it take mental strength to win the first set? That is normally just based on their game. I don't think Davenport ever had much mental strength, even in younger years. Sharapova clearly does.
You don't spend way over a decade at the top of the game, winning titles all over the place, and win over 700 matches in singles and over 350 doubles matches without mental strength. Of course she has mental strength! Unlike Sharapova, Davenport has rarely showed signs of choking in her career.
leftys_rock
About the 04 Wimby semi. Lindsay should not have lost that one, rain delay or not. Even with it, she had many chances to win the match. She was even 2 points away from winning!
stevos14
dav6789 wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
How does it take mental strength to win the first set? That is normally just based on their game. I don't think Davenport ever had much mental strength, even in younger years. Sharapova clearly does.
You don't spend way over a decade at the top of the game, winning titles all over the place, and win over 700 matches in singles and over 350 doubles matches without mental strength. Of course she has mental strength! Unlike Sharapova, Davenport has rarely showed signs of choking in her career.
Are you kidding?
I was saying Maria had a much better mental strength. I never said Maria was more complete.
How often does Sharapova show signs of choking, when she came back on Mashona Washington saving 3 mps?
In her Serena AO semi, Serena simply outplayed her, anyone could see that.
Davenport may not show signs of choking, but in that AO final? Losing the last set 6-0 after having that early lead, that is not just outplayed, that is choking as well.
dav6789
stevos14 wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
How does it take mental strength to win the first set? That is normally just based on their game. I don't think Davenport ever had much mental strength, even in younger years. Sharapova clearly does.
You don't spend way over a decade at the top of the game, winning titles all over the place, and win over 700 matches in singles and over 350 doubles matches without mental strength. Of course she has mental strength! Unlike Sharapova, Davenport has rarely showed signs of choking in her career.
Are you kidding?
I was saying Maria had a much better mental strength. I never said Maria was more complete.
How often does Sharapova show signs of choking, when she came back on Mashona Washington saving 3 mps?
In her Serena AO semi, Serena simply outplayed her, anyone could see that.
Davenport may not show signs of choking, but in that AO final? Losing the last set 6-0 after having that early lead, that is not just outplayed, that is choking as well.
I didn't say she was more complete in that post either....
In Maria's constant consecutive losses semis of all those tournaments, there were signs of choking.
Lindsay did not choke at that A.Open any more than Sharapova did. Sharapova's level dropped from what it was when she was serving for it multiple times. She got like no first serves in, her depth and movement decreased. She then ended up being outplayed but she was choking before. I'm not sure whether you could say Lindsay choked, or just was too tired to compete. That grand slam was extremely exhausting for many reasons. All through that match she was well aware of Serena's fight when behind, and when Serena came through those 2 tough games, Lindsay was just too tired to do anything. Serena was playing her best tennis by far at that event, and Lindsay was too tired to compete, double-faulting and netting her groundies all over the place.
PSALT
stevos14 wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
PSALT wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Sorry Davenport, Maria's got your number (except the match of which we do not speak )
a large majority (including Dubai) Lindsay ran out of gas. she was not outplayed. what does Sharapova have that Davenport doesn't? younger legs. Davenport truly is better at everything else. not a knock on Sharapova, simply the truth.
Mental strength. And I think that is what made the difference in the meetings which Sharapova won.
I disagree. Davenport blew Sharapova away in the first set if Dubai, she was not able to keep that play up however, something she would have been able to do if she was 5 years younger. Sharapova is grittier, yes, but if you look at the matches I can think of only one time when that came into play. The rest of the time Davenport simply grew tired of the bang-bang rallies.
How does it take mental strength to win the first set? That is normally just based on their game. I don't think Davenport ever had much mental strength, even in younger years. Sharapova clearly does.
You don't spend way over a decade at the top of the game, winning titles all over the place, and win over 700 matches in singles and over 350 doubles matches without mental strength. Of course she has mental strength! Unlike Sharapova, Davenport has rarely showed signs of choking in her career.
Are you kidding?
I was saying Maria had a much better mental strength. I never said Maria was more complete.
How often does Sharapova show signs of choking, when she came back on Mashona Washington saving 3 mps?
In her Serena AO semi, Serena simply outplayed her, anyone could see that.
Davenport may not show signs of choking, but in that AO final? Losing the last set 6-0 after having that early lead, that is not just outplayed, that is choking as well.
The AO is the only time in recent memory Davenport did anything resembling choking. Like Dave pointed out, Sharapova's inability to get past a Slam semi for over two years became a mental block for her. Should I mention Sharapova's match against Davenport at Indian Wells? Davenport was firing on all cylinders, for sure, but not even a game? She was No.3 in the world for God's sake, she should have been able to put her head down and claw her way to a game.
Saying Davenport is not strong mentally truly is silly.
stevos14
You don't have to be a fighter to win a double bagel.
And why did you highlight your own post?
Anyway, sure that was a brutal loss, but hey, they happen. And instead of berating Maria's ability to get past the semis, why not rejoice in the fact she made it there! She was mostly outplayed, was at a younger point in her career with not as much of a complete game to consistently beat the top players. But at least she could get there, like I said before, other players were having trouble putting two good slams together, Maria would put 4 in a row together. Not many players had that consistency. And then she got past the semis beating the world number 1 and 2! I think those doubts should be obsolete by now!
Tennis fan
Fact is that Davenport has played great tennis consistently while Sharapova had slowed down after her Wimbledon win. However. Sharapova has turned it around and today she is a better player than Davenport.
x.doublea
Davenport is by no means a weak mental player. She has lost to Sharpova in the past simply because she's older, and has some physical problems. You can't be mentally weak if you limp your way to championship point at Wimbledon vs. Venus.
leftys_rock
x.doublea wrote:
Davenport is by no means a weak mental player. She has lost to Sharpova in the past simply because she's older, and has some physical problems. You can't be mentally weak if you limp your way to championship point at Wimbledon vs. Venus.
I don't think anybody said Lindsay was mentally weak. I just said that Sharapova was better than Lindsay in that department, and then everybody tore that apart( ). But honestly guys, somebody with a 4-1 record over the other does not get ALL their wins simply on the other playing terrible!
Tennis fan
leftys_rock wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
Davenport is by no means a weak mental player. She has lost to Sharpova in the past simply because she's older, and has some physical problems. You can't be mentally weak if you limp your way to championship point at Wimbledon vs. Venus.
I don't think anybody said Lindsay was mentally weak. I just said that Sharapova was better than Lindsay in that department, and then everybody tore that apart( ). But honestly guys, somebody with a 4-1 record over the other does not get ALL their wins simply on the other playing terrible!
Absolutely!
stevos14
leftys_rock wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
Davenport is by no means a weak mental player. She has lost to Sharpova in the past simply because she's older, and has some physical problems. You can't be mentally weak if you limp your way to championship point at Wimbledon vs. Venus.
I don't think anybody said Lindsay was mentally weak. I just said that Sharapova was better than Lindsay in that department, and then everybody tore that apart( ). But honestly guys, somebody with a 4-1 record over the other does not get ALL their wins simply on the other playing terrible!
Thank you. I'm trying not to be a biased fan, but 4-1 is very impressive for Maria. I didn't say Davenport was weak persay, I just said compared to Sharapova she is not as strong in that department.
And TF, how has Sharapova really slowed down? She has won 5 titles this year (including Indian Wells and San Diego BEFORE the USO.) And last year held the number one ranking and was by far the most consistent player at every event. She made the quarters, and normally the semis, of every tournament.
Tennis fan
stevos14 wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
x.doublea wrote:
Davenport is by no means a weak mental player. She has lost to Sharpova in the past simply because she's older, and has some physical problems. You can't be mentally weak if you limp your way to championship point at Wimbledon vs. Venus.
I don't think anybody said Lindsay was mentally weak. I just said that Sharapova was better than Lindsay in that department, and then everybody tore that apart( ). But honestly guys, somebody with a 4-1 record over the other does not get ALL their wins simply on the other playing terrible!
Thank you. I'm trying not to be a biased fan, but 4-1 is very impressive for Maria. I didn't say Davenport was weak persay, I just said compared to Sharapova she is not as strong in that department.
And TF, how has Sharapova really slowed down? She has won 5 titles this year (including Indian Wells and San Diego BEFORE the USO.) And last year held the number one ranking and was by far the most consistent player at every event. She made the quarters, and normally the semis, of every tournament.
I said that she slowed down after her Wimby win, when people started doubting whether she could even win another GS. She eventually came back and has had a great year in 2006 topping it at the USO. (read my post again)
dav6789
stevos, you said Lindsay never had much mental strength at all, which is like the same as saying she is mentally weak.
It's funny how this thread about them playing an exhibition has turned into a Davenport v Sharapova argument!
Anyway, Sharapova by no means dominates Lindsay in their H2H. The main reason Lindsay is down 1-4 is because in most of them she wasen't at all near her best, yes most of those wins. Lets look at their matches:
Wimbledon 2004 SF, Sharapova won 2-6 7-6 (5) 6-1. I've already posted on this match, but I'll say it again. This was at the lowest point in Lindsay's career, and she was at her lowest in confidence. Her domination of the game in the late 90's and through 00-01 had been disrupted by that knee surgery in 2002. She had not been near her best form since then, and always had mental lapses in later stages of events. 2003 was horrible for her. She came into Wimbledon having recently had humiliating losses to Claudine Schaul and Elena Dementieva. She finally returned to the Wimby semis, and faced someone other than a Williams sister for once. She crushes Sharapova in the first set, is up in the second before a rain delay. She had had problems like this in her previous Wimby semis when she lost to Serena or Venus. Sharapova to her credit takes the second set. Lindsay has once again seen a lead cut to 1 set all, and just like all the other times, she goes out 1-6. At that time, it was a mental block for her at Wimbledon and she didn't even compete in the final set.
Pan Pacific 2005 Final, Sharapova won 6-1 3-6 7-6 (5). This was quite an even match-up all the way through, with huge momentum changes. Both had had long, emotional Australian Opens and even though Lindsay had played doubles here aswell and got to the final, it wasen't too much of a factor I don't think. Well done to Sharapova for winning this title, the third set was very close.
WTA Championships 2005 Round-Robin, Sharapova won 6-3 5-7 6-4. Lindsay had already gone through and didn't need this win. It was close, but Lindsay didn't really put much into the final set. This match is not really significant.
Dubai 2006 SF, Sharapova won 3-6 6-1 6-3. A very physical encounter. Lindsay's back was injury was at it's worst at this time. Both had played their QF's in the same day, Lindsay's was longer and harder. She slugged out the first set, but a nagging back injury affected her badly and over 50 errors was the story of the match.
I left out the Indian Wells match, not much to say about that, except 'Wow!'
Sharapova only got the number 1 ranking because of Lindsay's injury between Wimbledon and New Haven. If Lindsay was even able to play a couple of events, Sharapova would not have got it. When Lindsay started playing again, she rightfully took it back, and finished the year as number 1. She was the most consistent player of the season, constantly reaching the later stages of all events she played.
stevos14
I definitely think Lindsay was the better player that year, and deserved the number one ranking, however tennis sometimes is "last (wo)man standing", so kudos to Maria for being there to sweep up that #1 spot. She obviously had been playing well to even get close to that, so I think she deserved it. Injuries are a part of the game.
So you think Sharapova deserved that Tokyo final? Because it looks as if thats what you think. It doesn't really matter if she deserves them or not, or whether or not Lindsay was tired or at a bad point. The point is Maria won them, Lindsay didn't. I don't say, well Maria had a bit of a cold in Indian Wells, and she wasn't in it mentally. No, I say that Lindsay won the match, she played better, and there she has it. She's the winner, Sharapova the loser. It should be the same for all the other matches.
I kind of forget the point of this argument , but I think it's clear Sharapova has the edge over her. I mean, it would be much more arguable if it was 2-1 or something, but 4-1! You can't really have that many excuses, suck it up Lindsay and win the match.
dav6789
stevos14 wrote:
I definitely think Lindsay was the better player that year, and deserved the number one ranking, however tennis sometimes is "last (wo)man standing", so kudos to Maria for being there to sweep up that #1 spot. She obviously had been playing well to even get close to that, so I think she deserved it. Injuries are a part of the game.
So you think Sharapova deserved that Tokyo final? Because it looks as if thats what you think. It doesn't really matter if she deserves them or not, or whether or not Lindsay was tired or at a bad point. The point is Maria won them, Lindsay didn't. I don't say, well Maria had a bit of a cold in Indian Wells, and she wasn't in it mentally. No, I say that Lindsay won the match, she played better, and there she has it. She's the winner, Sharapova the loser. It should be the same for all the other matches.
I kind of forget the point of this argument , but I think it's clear Sharapova has the edge over her. I mean, it would be much more arguable if it was 2-1 or something, but 4-1! You can't really have that many excuses, suck it up Lindsay and win the match.
Yes, Sharapova did deserve Tokyo, that was a hard-fought match between 2 disappointed players, and she pulled off the upset. Sharapova doesn't have an edge on Lindsay though, as Lindsay hasen't lost those matches because of Sharapova entirely. Plus, their matches haven't been played within small amounts of time for there to be an edge. Their second meeting, in Tokyo was way after their first at Wimbledon. The double-bagel came soon after Tokyo, but they didn't play again until the end of 05, and then again all the way in Dubai. Lindsay lost those matches because of other factors, not Sharapova. There is no edge, it's not a one-sided rivalry.
stevos14
Okay, I am in disbelief!
How many factors does Lindsay need to go her way to win a match?
It would make much more sense if the matches were played closer together, because you could say Lindsay was in a slump, or was injured at that time, but you just shot yourself in the foot!
If Maria can beat her at all these different moments in her career, instead of just one good phase, what does that tell you? It tells you she can get her on all these different times. If someone is consistently beating someone at completely different stages, its got to mean something! Not everyone is completely "on" every match, I'm sure Sharapova had factors that brought her down somewhat in those matches.
And also, it's hilarious hearing you say it's not one-sided, and then you look and see
4 - 1 Sharapova
Its right there.
dav6789
stevos14 wrote:
Okay, I am in disbelief!
How many factors does Lindsay need to go her way to win a match?
It would make much more sense if the matches were played closer together, because you could say Lindsay was in a slump, or was injured at that time, but you just shot yourself in the foot!
If Maria can beat her at all these different moments in her career, instead of just one good phase, what does that tell you? It tells you she can get her on all these different times. If someone is consistently beating someone at completely different stages, its got to mean something! Not everyone is completely "on" every match, I'm sure Sharapova had factors that brought her down somewhat in those matches.
And also, it's hilarious hearing you say it's not one-sided, and then you look and see
4 - 1 Sharapova
Its right there.
No, if Sharapova beat Lindsay 4 times in one period of her career, then she would have an edge on Lindsay (it wouldn't mean she's better, just that she's in Lindsay's head). Sharapova has beaten Lindsay at times when Lindsay hasen't been close to 100%. Lindsay was at her worst at that time in 04, the WTA Champs match was dead, Dubai....her back was at it's worst. Sharapova does not have an edge over Lindsay. Yes, she has beaten her 4 times and they were all good wins, but they weren't all to do with Sharapova's play. Their H2H is alot closer than 4-1. There is no edge. When you double-bagel someone, you are never doubt on your chances. Lindsay walks onto court knowing what happened in Indian Wells, and knowing she has never been blown off court or outplayed by Sharapova, and that she has done that to her before.
PSALT
stevos14 wrote:
You don't have to be a fighter to win a double bagel.
And why did you highlight your own post?
Anyway, sure that was a brutal loss, but hey, they happen. And instead of berating Maria's ability to get past the semis, why not rejoice in the fact she made it there! She was mostly outplayed, was at a younger point in her career with not as much of a complete game to consistently beat the top players. But at least she could get there, like I said before, other players were having trouble putting two good slams together, Maria would put 4 in a row together. Not many players had that consistency. And then she got past the semis beating the world number 1 and 2! I think those doubts should be obsolete by now!
No? It takes mental strengh to realize "1 more game and I double bagel a top 5 player and Wimbledon champion" and not choke, agreed?
I didn't, Leftys did in her post.
It's very good to make semi's that young, but it doesn't change the fact semi's become a hurdle for her. She would easily get there, then always come up short. She had atleast 4 semi's between 04 Wimby and 06 USO and lost in all of them.
stevos14
dav6789 wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Okay, I am in disbelief!
How many factors does Lindsay need to go her way to win a match?
It would make much more sense if the matches were played closer together, because you could say Lindsay was in a slump, or was injured at that time, but you just shot yourself in the foot!
If Maria can beat her at all these different moments in her career, instead of just one good phase, what does that tell you? It tells you she can get her on all these different times. If someone is consistently beating someone at completely different stages, its got to mean something! Not everyone is completely "on" every match, I'm sure Sharapova had factors that brought her down somewhat in those matches.
And also, it's hilarious hearing you say it's not one-sided, and then you look and see
4 - 1 Sharapova
Its right there.
No, if Sharapova beat Lindsay 4 times in one period of her career, then she would have an edge on Lindsay (it wouldn't mean she's better, just that she's in Lindsay's head). Sharapova has beaten Lindsay at times when Lindsay hasen't been close to 100%. Lindsay was at her worst at that time in 04, the WTA Champs match was dead, Dubai....her back was at it's worst. Sharapova does not have an edge over Lindsay. Yes, she has beaten her 4 times and they were all good wins, but they weren't all to do with Sharapova's play. Their H2H is alot closer than 4-1. There is no edge. When you double-bagel someone, you are never doubt on your chances. Lindsay walks onto court knowing what happened in Indian Wells, and knowing she has never been blown off court or outplayed by Sharapova, and that she has done that to her before.
She's been outplayed.
And if Davenport loses again (even though it's an exhibition), what excuse will she have this time? I mean, you've given so many different excuses for all 4 losses, if Davenport is having such consistently bad circumstances she would quit by now, I mean Sharapova has had problems as well.
And PSALT, if you are up 6-0 5-0, the other person has MUCH more on her mind, thinking I cant lose to a top player 0 and 0, and how humiliated she is, and how unconfident she is in her game, while the other player has tons of confidence, has basically zero pressure on her to win the game, since she would have much more time to make it up. It's easy to see it would take less mental.
dav6789
stevos14 wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Okay, I am in disbelief!
How many factors does Lindsay need to go her way to win a match?
It would make much more sense if the matches were played closer together, because you could say Lindsay was in a slump, or was injured at that time, but you just shot yourself in the foot!
If Maria can beat her at all these different moments in her career, instead of just one good phase, what does that tell you? It tells you she can get her on all these different times. If someone is consistently beating someone at completely different stages, its got to mean something! Not everyone is completely "on" every match, I'm sure Sharapova had factors that brought her down somewhat in those matches.
And also, it's hilarious hearing you say it's not one-sided, and then you look and see
4 - 1 Sharapova
Its right there.
No, if Sharapova beat Lindsay 4 times in one period of her career, then she would have an edge on Lindsay (it wouldn't mean she's better, just that she's in Lindsay's head). Sharapova has beaten Lindsay at times when Lindsay hasen't been close to 100%. Lindsay was at her worst at that time in 04, the WTA Champs match was dead, Dubai....her back was at it's worst. Sharapova does not have an edge over Lindsay. Yes, she has beaten her 4 times and they were all good wins, but they weren't all to do with Sharapova's play. Their H2H is alot closer than 4-1. There is no edge. When you double-bagel someone, you are never doubt on your chances. Lindsay walks onto court knowing what happened in Indian Wells, and knowing she has never been blown off court or outplayed by Sharapova, and that she has done that to her before.
She's been outplayed.
And if Davenport loses again (even though it's an exhibition), what excuse will she have this time? I mean, you've given so many different excuses for all 4 losses, if Davenport is having such consistently bad circumstances she would quit by now, I mean Sharapova has had problems as well.
And PSALT, if you are up 6-0 5-0, the other person has MUCH more on her mind, thinking I cant lose to a top player 0 and 0, and how humiliated she is, and how unconfident she is in her game, while the other player has tons of confidence, has basically zero pressure on her to win the game, since she would have much more time to make it up. It's easy to see it would take less mental.
I should have phrased it properly. Davenport has outplayed Sharapova on alot larger scale than Sharapova has outplayed Davenport. Davenport knows what she can do to Sharapova is worse than what Sharapova can do to her.
Anyway the original point of mine was that Sharapova does not have Davenport's number. An small exhibition match on the first day of the year doesn't tell us anything about their H2H.
leftys_rock
One thing to point out. I don't think Lindsay is very motivated to win exos. She was content to lose a doubles set 6-2 to Anna K and Bush Sr. (I mean, not just Anna K but Bush Sr. TOO!?) And then Sharapova is so into winning, even if it's an exo.
stevos14
dav6789 wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
Okay, I am in disbelief!
How many factors does Lindsay need to go her way to win a match?
It would make much more sense if the matches were played closer together, because you could say Lindsay was in a slump, or was injured at that time, but you just shot yourself in the foot!
If Maria can beat her at all these different moments in her career, instead of just one good phase, what does that tell you? It tells you she can get her on all these different times. If someone is consistently beating someone at completely different stages, its got to mean something! Not everyone is completely "on" every match, I'm sure Sharapova had factors that brought her down somewhat in those matches.
And also, it's hilarious hearing you say it's not one-sided, and then you look and see
4 - 1 Sharapova
Its right there.
No, if Sharapova beat Lindsay 4 times in one period of her career, then she would have an edge on Lindsay (it wouldn't mean she's better, just that she's in Lindsay's head). Sharapova has beaten Lindsay at times when Lindsay hasen't been close to 100%. Lindsay was at her worst at that time in 04, the WTA Champs match was dead, Dubai....her back was at it's worst. Sharapova does not have an edge over Lindsay. Yes, she has beaten her 4 times and they were all good wins, but they weren't all to do with Sharapova's play. Their H2H is alot closer than 4-1. There is no edge. When you double-bagel someone, you are never doubt on your chances. Lindsay walks onto court knowing what happened in Indian Wells, and knowing she has never been blown off court or outplayed by Sharapova, and that she has done that to her before.
She's been outplayed.
And if Davenport loses again (even though it's an exhibition), what excuse will she have this time? I mean, you've given so many different excuses for all 4 losses, if Davenport is having such consistently bad circumstances she would quit by now, I mean Sharapova has had problems as well.
And PSALT, if you are up 6-0 5-0, the other person has MUCH more on her mind, thinking I cant lose to a top player 0 and 0, and how humiliated she is, and how unconfident she is in her game, while the other player has tons of confidence, has basically zero pressure on her to win the game, since she would have much more time to make it up. It's easy to see it would take less mental.
I should have phrased it properly. Davenport has outplayed Sharapova on alot larger scale than Sharapova has outplayed Davenport. Davenport knows what she can do to Sharapova is worse than what Sharapova can do to her.
Anyway the original point of mine was that Sharapova does not have Davenport's number. An small exhibition match on the first day of the year doesn't tell us anything about their H2H.
You're right, she probably doesnt care too much about an exho. Thats why I said "(even though its an exhibition).
It will be more interesting if she wins rather than if she loses.
dav6789
leftys_rock wrote:
One thing to point out. I don't think Lindsay is very motivated to win exos. She was content to lose a doubles set 6-2 to Anna K and Bush Sr. (I mean, not just Anna K but Bush Sr. TOO!?) And then Sharapova is so into winning, even if it's an exo.
I agree, Lindsay does not care about exhibitions. I don't think Sharapova will care much either.
btw, when did Lindsay lose to Kournikova and Bush Sr?
leftys_rock
dav6789 wrote:
leftys_rock wrote:
One thing to point out. I don't think Lindsay is very motivated to win exos. She was content to lose a doubles set 6-2 to Anna K and Bush Sr. (I mean, not just Anna K but Bush Sr. TOO!?) And then Sharapova is so into winning, even if it's an exo.
I agree, Lindsay does not care about exhibitions. I don't think Sharapova will care much either.
btw, when did Lindsay lose to Kournikova and Bush Sr?
It was at that Chris Evert event in around August. But I would think that Lindsay would have the heart to make it at least close!
J-man
Here's the result/article on the Federer and Nadal exobition in Korea:
SEOUL (Reuters) - World number one Roger Federer overcame nemesis Rafael Nadal for the second time in less than a week with a masterful display in a 6-3 3-6 6-3 exhibition match victory in South Korea on Tuesday.
The Swiss asserted his nce of men's tennis by beating world number two Nadal 6-4 7-5 in Shanghai on Saturday to reach the final of the Masters Cup, getting past the man responsible for four of his five defeats in 2006.
Playing for pride and a plentiful purse kept secret by the sponsors, the boisterous crowd in Seoul enjoyed a match where the pair traded blazing groundstrokes and serves across the net with precision.
Federer began the first set by winning nine straight points on his serve and breaking his Spanish opponent to stake himself an early 4-1 lead. He ended as he started with a love game off on his serve to take the set 6-3.
Nadal took advantage of a rare lapse on Federer's part to break him in the eighth game to take the second set.
The middle set had its moments of theatrics, including Federer taking a break to watch a big screen replay of a point won masterfully by Nadal by flying through the air to smash volleys at the net.
The two were all business in the third, holding serve for the first seven games.
In the eighth, however, Federer broke his opponent thanks to a pair of unforced errors and a double fault before he ended the match emphatically with an ace.
The HK doubles match should be very interesting. Clijsters and Kuznetsova vs. Davenport and Sharapova. This isn't for the January 1st exhibition though, it's the one starting Jan. 3rd. And there's the earlier doubles match with Dementieva and Vaidisova as a doubles team.
leftys_rock
I found a "draw" for singles and doubles.
Singles:
Doubles:
J-man
Davenport teaming up with Sharapova there's going to be some big hitting
leftys_rock
J-man wrote:
Davenport teaming up with Davenport there's going to be some big hitting
Of course if she's by herself, the hitting will be big regardless.
x.doublea
J-man wrote:
Davenport teaming up with Davenport there's going to be some big hitting
You mean Sharapova, don't you? I'll be scared if it were two Davenport's on a team.
stevos14
J-man wrote:
Davenport teaming up with Davenport there's going to be some big hitting
another silly typo from j-man
J-man
Correction
leftys_rock
Their exo between each other has been canceled because Lindsay has stated that she is pregnant! Congrats to her!
x.doublea
leftys_rock wrote:
Their exo between each other has been canceled because Lindsay has stated that she is pregnant! Congrats to her!
Wow, what a surprise! Really congratulations to her. Does that mean she won't be playing this year, though....
leftys_rock
But it seems like it will be the end of her career. You will be missed Lindsay and no one will ever strike the ball like you did. You are one of the best players ever and your years on tour have been filled with good memories.
Enjoy the rest of your life with your husband and upcoming baby! (and make a consideration of coming back to do some commentary )
J-man
leftys_rock wrote:
Their exo between each other has been canceled because Lindsay has stated that she is pregnant! Congrats to her!
Well so much for her last run at it, so to speak. One the contrast congrats to her and I hope she has a good year, with the new baby.
dav6789
I have completely mixed feelings about this.
I am really pleased for Lindsay and her husband Jon that they are having a baby. She has wanted a baby for a while now. I am sure Lindsay will be a great mum
I am also gutted though because this probably ends her tennis career. I have followed Lindsay's career since the mid-90's (97 +). Tennis is probably the only sport I care about, and Lindsay was my favourite by far. I have admired her tennis and everything, but also her personality and the ways she dealt with things. She was a professional all over. She has done so much for the game and gave the fans at tournaments more than what would have been required of her. She was one of the few players to actually understand what she needed to do and that the fans were the reason that she could even play tournaments. She has achieved so much in tennis and will be known as one of the most-loved and admired champions in tennis aswell as one of the all-time greats.
Another reason why I am sad Lindsay is going is because it effectively ends the perfect era of players (the 90's). Lindsay was the last standing from that era, and now it is over. The 90's were such a good time for women's tennis, and now only Hingis and the Williams' are still playing (and it is unlikely any of them will win a slam again). Capriati and Seles better make their minds up soon aswell.
Tennis will never be the same without Lindsay. She will always be my favourite athlete. I think tennis will be quite boring for me next year. I still have a few players I like, but most of my all-time faves are now retired. I hope Lindsay is happy with her family and she can get involved in tennis again.
there's an article that she says that she 'can't imagine playing again'.
That's sad.... two American greats who basically carried the pride for the past few years now bowing out just three/four months apart....
leftys_rock
Davenport to retire after birth of first child
LONDON (Reuters) - Three-times grand slam tournament winner Lindsay Davenport has no plans to play tennis again after giving birth to her first child next year.
"I hate the word 'retirement' but this season was such a struggle physically for me and I can't imagine playing again," Davenport told ESPN.com (www.espn.com).
The 30-year-old American missed most of 2006 with back problems before reaching the quarter-finals at the U.S. Open.
In her career, she has won the Australian Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open singles titles plus the 1996 Atlanta Olympics gold medal. Her 51 singles titles put her ninth on the all-time list.
Davenport began her professional career in 1993 and was one of the pioneers of the power game in women's tennis.
In the early stages, her strength was offset by a struggle with her weight but she devoted herself to fitness training and in 1998 won the first of her three majors by defeating top seed Martina Hingis 6-3 7-5 in the U.S. Open.
She beat Steffi Graf in the 1999 Wimbledon final and captured the Australian Open title in the following year.
Davenport struggled with injuries in 2002 but came back to win 13 tournaments in 2004 and 2005. Her loss to Venus Williams in last year's Wimbledon final was the longest championship match in the tournament's history.
"I can't say there's any sadness, yet, about missing tennis. My life is with my husband and my future child," Davenport said.
"I feel like the second part of my life is about to begin, and I feel so lucky that if everything goes well, I'm able to go out like this. The timing couldn't be better."
U.S. Fed Cup captain Zina Garrison said: "I'm excited for her. She's very family oriented, has a great, close-knit family. I don't think she would have any regrets. She can walk away knowing she gave her all."
I'll miss you Linds. Have fun with your new baby!
Benchwarmer1
guess its official now, good luck after tennis, hope you have a good time with your baby. You will surely be missed thanks for the memories
stevos14
dav6789 wrote:
I have completely mixed feelings about this.
I am really pleased for Lindsay and her husband Jon that they are having a baby. She has wanted a baby for a while now. I am sure Lindsay will be a great mum
I am also gutted though because this probably ends her tennis career. I have followed Lindsay's career since the mid-90's (97 +). Tennis is probably the only sport I care about, and Lindsay was my favourite by far. I have admired her tennis and everything, but also her personality and the ways she dealt with things. She was a professional all over. She has done so much for the game and gave the fans at tournaments more than what would have been required of her. She was one of the few players to actually understand what she needed to do and that the fans were the reason that she could even play tournaments. She has achieved so much in tennis and will be known as one of the most-loved and admired champions in tennis aswell as one of the all-time greats.
Another reason why I am sad Lindsay is going is because it effectively ends the perfect era of players (the 90's). Lindsay was the last standing from that era, and now it is over. The 90's were such a good time for women's tennis, and now only Hingis and the Williams' are still playing (and it is unlikely any of them will win a slam again). Capriati and Seles better make their minds up soon aswell.
Tennis will never be the same without Lindsay. She will always be my favourite athlete. I think tennis will be quite boring for me next year. I still have a few players I like, but most of my all-time faves are now retired. I hope Lindsay is happy with her family and she can get involved in tennis again.
Good post, I'm sure this must suck a lot for you right now, I would probably be really upset if I were as big of a Lindsay fan!
Merry Christmas though
PSALT
stevos14 wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
I have completely mixed feelings about this.
I am really pleased for Lindsay and her husband Jon that they are having a baby. She has wanted a baby for a while now. I am sure Lindsay will be a great mum
I am also gutted though because this probably ends her tennis career. I have followed Lindsay's career since the mid-90's (97 +). Tennis is probably the only sport I care about, and Lindsay was my favourite by far. I have admired her tennis and everything, but also her personality and the ways she dealt with things. She was a professional all over. She has done so much for the game and gave the fans at tournaments more than what would have been required of her. She was one of the few players to actually understand what she needed to do and that the fans were the reason that she could even play tournaments. She has achieved so much in tennis and will be known as one of the most-loved and admired champions in tennis aswell as one of the all-time greats.
Another reason why I am sad Lindsay is going is because it effectively ends the perfect era of players (the 90's). Lindsay was the last standing from that era, and now it is over. The 90's were such a good time for women's tennis, and now only Hingis and the Williams' are still playing (and it is unlikely any of them will win a slam again). Capriati and Seles better make their minds up soon aswell.
Tennis will never be the same without Lindsay. She will always be my favourite athlete. I think tennis will be quite boring for me next year. I still have a few players I like, but most of my all-time faves are now retired. I hope Lindsay is happy with her family and she can get involved in tennis again.
Good post, I'm sure this must suck a lot for you right now, I would probably be really upset if I were as big of a Lindsay fan!
Merry Christmas though
I find it near impossible that anyone isn't a Davenport fan. she is like Mauresmo, there is no reason not to like her.
leftys_rock
Some people are just weirdos and don't like them. (like people on the ESPN board)
stevos14
PSALT wrote:
stevos14 wrote:
dav6789 wrote:
I have completely mixed feelings about this.
I am really pleased for Lindsay and her husband Jon that they are having a baby. She has wanted a baby for a while now. I am sure Lindsay will be a great mum
I am also gutted though because this probably ends her tennis career. I have followed Lindsay's career since the mid-90's (97 +). Tennis is probably the only sport I care about, and Lindsay was my favourite by far. I have admired her tennis and everything, but also her personality and the ways she dealt with things. She was a professional all over. She has done so much for the game and gave the fans at tournaments more than what would have been required of her. She was one of the few players to actually understand what she needed to do and that the fans were the reason that she could even play tournaments. She has achieved so much in tennis and will be known as one of the most-loved and admired champions in tennis aswell as one of the all-time greats.
Another reason why I am sad Lindsay is going is because it effectively ends the perfect era of players (the 90's). Lindsay was the last standing from that era, and now it is over. The 90's were such a good time for women's tennis, and now only Hingis and the Williams' are still playing (and it is unlikely any of them will win a slam again). Capriati and Seles better make their minds up soon aswell.
Tennis will never be the same without Lindsay. She will always be my favourite athlete. I think tennis will be quite boring for me next year. I still have a few players I like, but most of my all-time faves are now retired. I hope Lindsay is happy with her family and she can get involved in tennis again.
Good post, I'm sure this must suck a lot for you right now, I would probably be really upset if I were as big of a Lindsay fan!
Merry Christmas though
I find it near impossible that anyone isn't a Davenport fan. she is like Mauresmo, there is no reason not to like her.
I do like Lindsay a lot, I think she is an amazing person and a great champion, its just Im not a HUGE fan of hers, thats why I said I would be upset if I were AS BIG of a fan, just so you know
Lindsay just isn't as emotive and intense, which is something I am a big fan of.
)
). But honestly guys, somebody with a 4-1 record over the other does not get ALL their wins simply on the other playing terrible!
And then Sharapova is so into winning, even if it's an exo.
another silly typo from j-man
You will be missed Lindsay and no one will ever strike the ball like you did. 
(and make a consideration of coming back to do some commentary 