DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**effenseshoora** · 07-09-2012, 09:34 AM

Without compelling rivalries, women's tennis remains, well, not all that compelling.

These days, when Serena loses in Slams, it's because she beats herself. It's been a long time since she lost a big match because she was simply outplayed. Back when her biggest rival was Jennifer Capriati, that wasn't true. Now, her losses are baffling precisely because it's hard to wrap the mind around her ability to beat herself so thoroughly after all she's accomplished.

While Amelie Mauresmo was a headcase, no one, not even the diminutive one, had a game so complex and beautiful at the same time. I can't name a single player today who reminds me of her. She was able to beat Serena, Venus, Henin, Davenport, Hingis, and Capriati and Clijsters at the top of their games. When she finally got over herself, she was able to win two Slams.

I can't see Radwanska or Errani winning a Slam without a tremendous amount of luck.

I'm sure I'm going to have to duck for saying this, but in many ways Marion Bartoli is arguably the most compelling player in the game right now.

Bartoli is fantastic. I wish she reached the latter rounds of Slams more often and was a credible contender in Slams, though. I don't get to see her play very much because I can't watch many matches throughout the week, and she rarely gets a night session. Missed the Kvitova match.

To your point about Mauresmo, yes! One of my problems with today's crop is too many carbon copies. That perspective will vary from fan to fan. But most players haven't distinguished themselves in compelling ways, to me.

The opposite of the recency effect is happening here, too. The previous era or two had plenty of dull players. We remember only the epic matches. But Conchita Martinez? Natalie Thauziat? Natasha Zvereva? Other eras produced more stars and better big matches on average, but nobody remembers the bad matches because, well, they weren't memorable.

07-09-2012, 09:34 AM	#23
effenseshoora Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 504 Senior Member	Without compelling rivalries, women's tennis remains, well, not all that compelling. These days, when Serena loses in Slams, it's because she beats herself. It's been a long time since she lost a big match because she was simply outplayed. Back when her biggest rival was Jennifer Capriati, that wasn't true. Now, her losses are baffling precisely because it's hard to wrap the mind around her ability to beat herself so thoroughly after all she's accomplished. While Amelie Mauresmo was a headcase, no one, not even the diminutive one, had a game so complex and beautiful at the same time. I can't name a single player today who reminds me of her. She was able to beat Serena, Venus, Henin, Davenport, Hingis, and Capriati and Clijsters at the top of their games. When she finally got over herself, she was able to win two Slams. I can't see Radwanska or Errani winning a Slam without a tremendous amount of luck. I'm sure I'm going to have to duck for saying this, but in many ways Marion Bartoli is arguably the most compelling player in the game right now. Bartoli is fantastic. I wish she reached the latter rounds of Slams more often and was a credible contender in Slams, though. I don't get to see her play very much because I can't watch many matches throughout the week, and she rarely gets a night session. Missed the Kvitova match. To your point about Mauresmo, yes! One of my problems with today's crop is too many carbon copies. That perspective will vary from fan to fan. But most players haven't distinguished themselves in compelling ways, to me. The opposite of the recency effect is happening here, too. The previous era or two had plenty of dull players. We remember only the epic matches. But Conchita Martinez? Natalie Thauziat? Natasha Zvereva? Other eras produced more stars and better big matches on average, but nobody remembers the bad matches because, well, they weren't memorable.
	Quote