Offline
This is apropos of nothing, but I have to say Magdalena Rybarakova winning Washington D.C. is one of the most unlikely title defenses ever. She came out of nowhere to win it last year, did something close to nothing for the past 12 months and then won it again today over Petkovic.
Remarkable. Rybarakova didn't beat any really good players along the way, but just winning five matches in a row was incredible. There's something about D.C. she loves.
Meanwhile, del Potro broke Isner four times in the last two sets to win in Washington for the third time. I've been skeptical of him as a legitimate candidate to win the U.S. Open, but he looked awfully good in the last two matches, dispoising of Haas in two tight sets before standing 20 feet behind the baseline and making Isner's serve look average for the last two sets. I may have to reconsider.
And Stosur finally beat Azarenka. Vika looked very sluggish against Ivanovic in the last two sets of their semifinal, and Ivanovic essentially beat herself at the end (nothing new there), so I wasn't as surprised as I would have been otherwise by Stosur's victory. She has to be one of the great underachivers of our time, though. This was her first tourney win since clobbering Serena in the U.S. Open final two years ago and only the fourth title of her carrer. Amazing.
Last edited by funches (8/04/2013 9:24 pm)
Offline
The women's field at Washington DC ends up being pretty weak. It's opposite Carlsbad which pays better and where the women aren't considered second class citizens to the men (I think there was a New York Times article attesting to that fact). And last year it was opposite the Olympics.
Del Potro beating Isner was a little bit of a surprise to me, mostly because the court is so quick. But it did rain that day, so I suppose the air was thicker and that probably affected Isner's serve. Still, del Potro has a chance at being a contender, since he's got the game for it when he's on. He just hasn't been consistently "on" for a while.
EDIT: Here's the NYT article I was talking about:
Last edited by Forehand_lob (8/08/2013 11:55 am)
Offline
Interesting article, but my point was Rybarikova winning any tournament is incredible and her winning two in a row is astounding. She struggles to win first-round matches most of the time, regardless of the quality of the field.
Offline
Wow, Bartoli retired.
She was never one of my favorite players, but I got very emotional as she blitzed Lisicki in the final of Wimbledon. She deserved a slam for all the hard work she'd put into the sport and although I would have said I wanted Lisicki to win two days earlier, I would have been sick to the stomach if she had come back from the huge deficit in the second set and deprived Bartoli of her career-defining moment.
I'm not sure retiring is the right decision, but better for Bartoli to stop playing now than go through the motions like Majoli did for a few years after winning her lone slam at Roland Garros.
Offline
I was bummed out when Bartoli retired. She finally seemed to have been at peace after her father stopped coaching her. If she was as bad physically as she implied, then it's for the best. Still, I'll miss her bobbing and weaving on court; it was mesmerizing.
I've figured out why Serena has such problems with Azarenka, when I can't figure out what really makes Azarenka an elite player. Serena's used to pushing her opponent around the court (Sharapova is used to doing this too, which is why she has such a problem against Serena since she does it better). When somebody can stand up to it, she doubts herself a bit and can play tentatively. The thing is, very few people are able to stand up to it physically and mentally. My list would be: post-injury Clijsters, Venus (some of the time), Henin, and now Azarenka.
Kvitova and pre-2004 Clijsters had the physicality to stand up to Serena, but not the mental strength. Sharapova doesn't have either, when it comes to Serena (and Azarenka gives her problems the same way Azarenka gives Serena problems). Kuznetsova, Stosur, and Mauresmo could stand up to Serena when they were mentally together, which is not very often.
Offline
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure why you can't figure out why Azarenka is an elite player.
She has a fabulous return and she hits the ball hard with good angles. It's not as hard as Serena, but it's hard enough to get the job done and separates her from the Wozniackis and Radwanskas of the world. Put those strengths together with her incredible mental toughness (anyone who still has doubts there must not have watched her ignore the vicious crowd in the Aussie Open final and beat Li on sheer willpower while not playing very well).
Azarenka has been a little off this year. She doesn't move great or serve particularly well. But once the ball is in play, she is every bit as good as Serena and mentally tougher. If Serena plays her best, she beats Azarenka 4 and 3. But as we've seen repeatedly over the years, Serena's game goes down when someone hangs with her, as you pointed out.
Last edited by funches (8/20/2013 11:57 pm)
Offline
Azarenka has never had an overwhelming weapon. She's good in many areas, but I've never thought of her as being great in any of them. Superior to Wozniacki, sure. I guess I might be letting my personal feelings color things, but I don't actually dislike her. She just seems sort of there.
And I might disagree with you about her mental toughness, funches. She did lose her nerve at the US Open last year, despite being a break up against Serena in the final set. If Li didn't get injured in the final, well, she did, so it's not worth thinking about.
Offline
F'ing Rybarikova. I should have remembered my damn post here when I picked her (along with 70-plus others) on the first day of the U.S. Open and she went down in flames to Mayr-hyphen.
That proves my point, though. She defended her title in Washington when she can lose to anyone, anywhere, any time.