ILE rolling non-slam Tennis thread

can't believe bartoli took azarenka to a 7-5 set

Here at KL ATP. Honestly, only came by to catch up with a former colleague and fellow tennis fangirl I worked this tourney with two yrs ago but she bailed at the last minute. so now I'm stuck here on my own watching the ode to baseline bashing that is Almagro V Ramos.

Sad to see attendance still hasn't improved but the small crowd here at least seem pretty devoted. Can't believe Almagro fans exist anyway.

Can you buy tickets on the spot at that KL tourney? Or you have to buy them somewhere else?

Yes you can. You in town Jibe?

Yup. I might go see a game, could be fun. I'm gonna ask a silly question, but that is an indoor tournament right? I don't know if I could stand the heat&sun if it's not.

hehe thankfully it is cause honestly, I wouldn't be able to stand the heat either. It should be fun - there will probably be a bigger crowd over the weekend too.

WTF.. Kvitova had 5-1 and ended up losing 6-7 0-6 to Bepa. Did anyone see this? Was this massive choking idiocy, an UE-fest, Bepa improving, all three, what the hell SERIOUSLY

Will try and go if i'm not too out of it on sunday. Even with bigger crowds i guess it won't be impossible to get tickets. Also, I might not have been looking in the right places but I don't think I've come across any ads for this tournament... except for one radio ad in a taxi this morning.

Oh I had this nightmare of Bepa taking out Petra and then losing to fucking Azarenka in the final, but A-RAD has taken out the trash first! Yes!

Of what I saw of Petra yesterday, she was serving well but not really imposing in any other way. Bepa can handle her serve for some reason so this result isn't too surprising, though the scoreline is ridiculous. She'll probably lose to A-Rad in the final though, A-Rad's beaten her twice this year and Bepa's big final record is appalling.

Funny, A-Rad has played really well every time I've seen her this year and has visibly improved a lot of her weaknesses, yet there she is, still stuck just outside the top 10 in the rankings forever. And then I remember her massive fails at the last two Slams.

and her serve, forehand and backhand

Her last slam fail is made a little bit better by the hindsight of what her opponent went on to do, kind of, sort of, maybe... (/end making excuses for my occasionally/often useless faves)

her BH has always been a weapon and her serve is what's massively improved this year. the FH, yes, well, but then look at Our World No 1.

Wozniacki's virtually sewn up year-end No 1 for the SECOND YEAR RUNNING OH MY FUCKING GOD, hasn't she

God I hate that she's played consistently better than anyone else, the bitch.

i wouldn't call her backhand so much a weapon as it is not as laughable as her forehand

hitting hard is not everything

Funnily enough Woz's 2011 is anything but consistent. Lot of first-round losses in that there record. Sharapova has very arguably been more consistent and has a slam F and a SF.

Yeah, Wozniacki is anything but consistent. Three opening round losses this year (Sydney to Cibulkova; Toronto to Vinci; Cincy to McHale) and early round losses to Goerges, Hantuchova and Kanepi. Sharapova has no 1R losses but she has lost early to Voskoboeva, Pennetta, Arn and Cibulkova.

The reason Woz is #1 by so much is because she's won 6 titles to Sharapova's 2. Even discounting international-level Copenhagen, that's 5 Premiers or over (ie the ones that should count). The trouble is she's very adept at sweeping the weaker Premiers like Charleston and Brussels in inconvenient spots in the calendar, hence lesser fields showing up for them.

In fact, no one else comes close to Wozniacki in terms of titles won. Kvitova is next with 4 (3 Premiers and over). Then Vinci with 3 (all internationals, lol). Sharapova, Li and Serena have won two Premiers or over; Zvonareva and Azarenka have won one premier-or-over and one international.

And if there is to be a solution to Wozniacki it's not to devalue the non-Slams any further. (Not unless you really hate women's tennis and only want it to be a sideshow to the men in Slams, because if no one cares about the tour then that's all it will be.) All these other bitches have to start bringing it whenever and wherever they play. It's not hard. Steffi did it. Hingis and Davenport did it. Serena did it for that one year. All the top men do it (and if Rafa can do it, I want to hear no whining about how the game is so physical now from the ladies).

hitting hard is not everything

omg :o

but srsly radwanska has zero rackethead acceleration and her groundstrokes/serve are harmless. this is probs why she never beats anybody good (serena/venus/clijsters/henin/kvitova/sharapova other than that one time)

http://espn.go.com/tennis/blog/_/name/bodo_peter/id/7038377/tennis-year-end-no-1-wta

damn, Bodo

But things changed dramatically in the fall of 2008, when Jelena Jankovic rose to No. 1 and kept the ranking until the first of February

no

no no no no no NO

such a superficial analysis the "slamless no 1" debate had been raging since 2000, when Hingis held it by a huge distance despite Venus sweeping the whole second half of the year.

(I don't see a real difference between "No 1 who has never won a Slam" and "No 1 who has won a Slam, but doesn't hold one now" - it's the same maths that leads to both situations, and I don't think having won a Slam back in the mists of time mitigates it.)

(Actually, it had happened before Hingis too - Austin in 1980 and Graf in 1991 both were No 1 for a few weeks each without holding a Slam. Any ranking system that's based on a year's results is going to be playing catch-up to an extent because, duh, players' form doesn't come in handy 52-week blocks.)

After Hingis, you had Clijsters, who iirc held it in the brief interim after Serena got injured in '03 but before Henin's dominance caught up. Then Davenport who seemed to constantly be No 1, and end the year there, years after her last Slam, mostly because she used to sweep the Euro indoor events in the autumn all the time. Oddly she didn't seem to get as much stick as Hingis had #nationalism. Mauresmo got there in '04, too. All of that was down to exactly the same maths that has led to the swapsies of recent years.

Anyway the actual root of this situation is in 1997, when the WTA changed from a divisor system to an additive one, which privileged those who played more and allowed players to discount bad losses. Hingis becoming No 1 so soon that year despite holding one Slam to Graf's three was the first ridiculous consequence of that. And this situation has been with us ever since then, only disguised when one player is dominant enough at the Slams - Serena '02, Henin '03 and '07 etc. But what the Williamses kick-started was the trend of visibly not caring about No 1, because they weren't interested in playing as much as it would take to get there (once they'd got there for the first time). And that seeped out to the rest of the field. You don't get a sense that any former No 1 is going to bust a gut to get back there.

It's not just the system though - under any system, wacky results => wacky rankings. No sensible ranking system could possibly make a current Slam holder No 1 right now. It's getting to the stage where the Slam winners' inability to deliver in more than 2-3 events a year is devaluing winning a Slam as well.

The dirty secret of the ATP is that its ranking system is very similar. But for the past eight years, they've had very orderly, sensible results. So you'd only notice if you paid attention to some of the wacked-out things happening beneath the top 30 or so.

Anyway this is a perennial complaint of mine. If Serena repeated her 2002 over the next 12 months she'd be No 1. And no one would complain or say a thing. But it'd be the SAME SYSTEM with the SAME PROBLEMS. It doesn't suddenly become a problem when the results go mental and you end up with Jankovic at No 1. That's because the results are mental.

(still think the actual most ludicrous thing about points allocations right now is getting 100 points for a 1R Slam win. 100! Even if you've just beaten some random wildcard bumpkin or one of the many Slumpy McSlumps populating the tour at any given time. And then 160 if you win your 2R - ie you get fewer points for coming through a seed's section than for winning 1R over anyone. w.t.f seriously who thought of that. There are some players who are seriously overranked beneath the top 50 because of this.)

The ATP have had the additive system since 1990, isn't that right? Back in the '80s, it was a divisor system - every result counted - so you couldn't have anomalies like Kafelnikov becoming #1 after six straight first-round defeats (as I think he did in '99). They've tinkered with it ever since - ditching the bonus points for wins vs highly-ranked opponents, extending the number of tournaments that count, enforcing the "super nines", etc.

I remember the ridiculous fuss about Lendl becoming #1 in early '83, without a Slam to his name (just amazing dominance everywhere else, particularly indoors, and seven straight wins over McEnroe)...

lol @ you, zvonareva

well done tipsy

LILOLLOLLILOL def by Niculescu 4 & 0

OH DEAR.

FORMER world No. 1 Martina Hingis is expected to make a return to grand slam competition at January's Australian Open with a view to chasing London Olympic gold with Swiss compatriot Roger Federer.

Hingis, 31, has not contested a major tournament since the 2007 US Open, but is understood to be contemplating a two-pronged involvement at Melbourne Park next year.

Two pronged? Hope that means doubles and mixed because I fear the most perfect woman to walk the earth losing to idk Dulko or Hercog or someone in singles might make me cry. Though I would die happy if she actually won RG. Which she will not.

Nonetheless totally going if she plays! Will fake media credentials to go to press conferences.

Meanwhile wtf scoreLINA did Dolgopolov just lose by?

just caught up with Roddick's latest antics. no wonder he and Serena are mates, they're such dicks. wonder if they discuss all the ways they can insult everyone who works in the sport who they consider lesser than them when they get together.

to be fair, it was kind of a stupid question. loved his response.

btw, bepa just lost to ivanovic.

Worst result ever.

Save tennis again, Kaia!

Wonder if Dimitrov tried to kiss Tsonga yesterday eh. I'd pay to see that too (also 7-5 7-6 makes it sound like it would have been pretty great to watch the actual match too).

I predict the WTA does everything possible to avoid that by wildcarding her into that Bali end-of-year championship-of-suck with its disgraceful amount of points, which she'll end up winning again over the likes of Medina Garrigues.

This just happened, didn't it?

Ewwww. I hate the WTA so much. Stupid tournament in the first place but if its entire raison d'être is to reward players who win weak tournaments, maybe you'd actually want to DO THAT? Ivanovic hasn't even reached a final this year. Is there another WC? What's the betting Kirilenko gets it. Why not just have a ranking system based on prettiness ffs, it's clearly what they want.

At least Niculescu has just beaten Kirilenko to make the SF of the so-called "mandatory" event in Beijing that no one cares about. Points! Many of them!

In my dreams they WC in Clijsters! That'll stop Ana defending. Oh what, she's not pretty? Uh. WTA, go away.

There's a middle path between handing out wild cards based on sex appeal and the massive pretty girl-shaming in this thread.

Accusing organisers of favouritism on basis of looks != pretty girl shaming. See, "WTA, go away". I dislike Ivanovic because she's regressed both tennis-wise and temperament-wise, from being a hungry player with a massive forehand and some decent strategy, to being this tic-infested fool whose game has pretty much regressed to "whack forehand; hope".

Sure, but "grunting and ball-bashing is fine as long as the player hasn't been in a magazine photoshoot" and "Niculescu>Kirilenko" = pretty girl shaming.

And there's a midpoint between trying to popularise and publicise the game, and throwing points potential at a player who hasn't earned it. A wildcard for a player only ranked 28 in the race who hasn't made a final, to an event that's supposed to be for winners of tournaments (as laughable as THAT is) amounts to gifting points to someone because she's marketable. That frankly sucks, and pretty girl shaming has fuck all to do with it.

x-post seriously in what universe is preferring Niculescu over Kirilenko automatically pretty girl shaming? I don't like Niculescu that much because I don't really enjoy junk-ballers. I love variety and drop-shots and lobs but I get that from A-Rad, Niculescu is too extreme for me. But I can completely see why someone like Lex might prefer it to Kirilenko's game.

That said, what I've seen of Kirilenko lately is a lot better than before. She's using her net skillz more (Saw her play dubs with A-Rad a few years back and she was fantastic, hitting sick angles and blanketing the net) and taking the emphasis of those HORRIBLE puffy groundstrokes which she nonetheless shrieks during. But preferring some odd player you like over her isn't shaming MK because she's pretty.

re: the grunting/photoshoot, you might be on slightly less shaky ground here. Kind of going out on a limb and assuming it's the "yay Kvitova, boo Sharapova thing"?

For me, I think when either has their A-game on it's absolutely amazing to behold. Kvitova just hasn't had a period of several years where her game has been winning ugly (tho Masha was close to great this year and a more worthy YE #1 than Wozniacki) and she's never going to seem overexposed and thus a bit fatigue-inducing the way Masha sometimes can be. The other thing with Masha is that lots of the raw, on-the-spot creativity she showed in that 04 Wimby final seems to have vanished. Sure, she hits great shots still, but that final she was amazingly inventive at the same time. Kvitova showed the same stuff this year - much more recent - conjuring winners from any court position in a way Masha hasn't come close to doing since her injury, thus, is much better to watch when she's on (if it should happen again).

(or maybe it's yay Schiavone, boo Sharapova if you mean grunting. But I'd suggest that in cases like that it's love of variety overriding hatred of grunting rather that it having to do with looks. Sharapova doesn't have any variety these days - have you seen her at the net lately?)

Both, and more. I don't enjoy Mashas detoriation any more than the next guy, and being a fan has been absolutely painful, but her recent form is not why the haters hate... not as if they used to praise her. Anyway this isn't about her as much as it's about fundamentally decent players, like Kirilenko, getting hate for no reason. She's improved her game and stayed doggedly determined to work her way back from the career low without ever making much fuss about herself, behaving like a spoiled brat or taking easy on the pro life / dropping the intensity. She's hardly been in the spotlight at all the past years, so pretending that she's somehow forced on us is just wild imagination. That doesn't mean you should like her, but there's no basis for saying she's somehow a golden girl because of her looks. She's an example of someone who's worked steadily on her game and stayed low-key but gets hate _just_ because of her looks, if she gets anything at all.

If you look up two posts, you'll see that I conceded Kirilenko has made distinct improvements to her game, strategically. Her groundstrokes are still unimpressive but she's becoming more of an all-court player which is the smart thing to do if you've got the capacity to go to net and hit passing shots and such.

She's a different case to Ivanovic, the pretty girl who is actually being actively disliked in tihs thread by me and Lex. Kirilenko is pretty and has annoying fan boys, but hasn't just been granted a WC into a tournament with a stack of points populated by a bunch of players who would be flat out getting half of what's on offer there at a Slam. Kirilenko = having success due to hard work. Good luck to her. Ivanovic = distinctly weaker results over last two years than a stack of others, rating inflated by huge motza of points at pissweak Bali event likely to be repeated by undeserved wildcard.

In any case, MONICA NICULESCU will probably be a seed at the Australian Open. As will Care Bear. I think we can all agree that any reaction between "point and laugh" and "enjoy extreme nuttiness" is acceptable.

ps I would welcome a Sharapova revival if she would begin slaughtering Wozniacki on hard courts.

wish i'd seen some of pennetta def wozniacki. lol @ scoreline

Never understood why Pennetta hasn't had more success, she's really versatile, can give pushers and ball-bashers alike hell.

Psyched that the most likely outcome of this tournament is either a Radwanska or Petkovic win - two players I love. Or Pavlyuchenkova who, if she starts getting some good results, might start working on her fitness, step up and be the great player her junior results hinted she could be. Or lol Niculescu or Pennetta winning would be "point and laugh" but in a good way.

(okay I know why she hasn't had more success, her serve is shit. But anyway. Forza Flavia!)

also she's a headcase

heh, the "you hate pretty girls" accusation is funny in light of how much I loved KOURNIKOVA. I was pretty ambivalent about her by the end, though I think I actually admire her much more in retirement. Also, Demented! Cibulkova! Myskina!

My dislike of Ivanovic is pretty much the same as Ed's. I used to like her but I can't abide her tics and desperation any more (plus when one of those rivalries occurs you inevitably have to take a side to an extent, and I'm pro-Jankovic). The WTA is essentially attempting to keep her ranking artificially high with this move. Why an event like Bali even has WCs is beyond me, it makes NO SENSE. I love Krumm, but the year she was parachuted in ahead of people who qualified legitimately ahead of her was so ridiculous.

The likes of Hantuchova, Kirilenko, Cirstea - partly a hangover from TennisForum and their deluded fans, going by the posts there you'd think they were all elite players rather than top 30-50 journeywomen. I actually saw a post along the lines of "but she's too pretty to lose!" about Cirstea once, after her 949349830th 1R loss in a row. Kirilenko really isn't going to end up with a significantly better career than Niculescu. Those three are all especially brainless on court, just total twits tactically. So sure it's more about their fanboys - seriously I am never going to get over the "Makiri" nickname, ever - but I'm all for arbitrary hate in sports.

Sharapova, it's the corporate air around everything she does I can't abide. Kvitova is the exact opposite of that - unshowy, undemonstrative, unaware/unwilling to play a clichéd media game. Her reaction on winning Wimbledon was very real, I thought.

It could easily have been Pennetta who pulled a Schiavone, and it might yet be. You sense she kinda thinks that, too. She's had inopportune injuries over the years but overall has had pretty much exactly the right career commensurate with her talent - top 10, couple of big tournament wins and lots of little ones, deep Slam runs everywhere, tons of upsets.