11/17/24
July 06, 2002
Is this a dynasty in the making?: I mentioned this before, but something about this article scared me. Serena vs. Venus in the Finals of Wimbledon, I understand...But, Serena & Venus in the Doubles Final of Wimbledon as well? Are they that damn good?
Yes, sadly. Today's final was, in spite of the best attempts of the BBC to spin the post-match, a rather lame affair, in which Venus perceptibly gave up the ghost at the end of the first set. Their talent is unquestionable, but its effect on womens' tennis isn't necessarily for the good: it's hard to see how someone such as Justine Henin, who plays a very pure, intelligent game, can ever compete, particularly on grass, given that both Venus and Serena could probably use her as a racquet. Roll on yet more Grand Slams in which the Williamses swat away the opposition and decide the title based on half-hearted desire. They're the Ferrari of tennis. And F1 is boring now, too.
posted by etagloh at 10:33 PM on July 06, 2002
well, they ought to be dominating the competition, they're practically men ;) This would be really fun to watch if they weren't both total bitches. Because really, it's quite a story. It's too bad I can't friggin stand them :(
posted by Bernreuther at 03:41 AM on July 07, 2002
You have to give the Williams sisters their due. You don't win three of the last four Grand Slams on pure athleticism. To suggest that the Williams sisters don't also play an intelligent game is naive (or wishful thinking). If they're better conditioned than other players on the women's tour, then perhaps the onus is on the other players to approach their training regimen differently. At any rate, their current dominance represents the ongoing evolution of the sport. As in any sport, I'd figure we'd cheer stronger, smarter, better play. They've upped the ante and elevated the competition. Trust me, there will be players who can compete with the Williams sisters. (Of course, if there is some McEnroe-esque steroid revelation about the Williams sisters that's waiting to reveal itself, then I take this all back.)
posted by waterbedk at 09:45 AM on July 07, 2002
As in any sport, I'd figure we'd cheer stronger, smarter, better play. Ferrari got a one-two today at Silverstone. Again. It's not particularly competitive. Same here. If they're better conditioned than other players on the women's tour, then perhaps the onus is on the other players to approach their training regimen differently. I was waiting for that reply from someone: do you suggest stretching Justine Henin on the rack? What's worrying is that women's tennis may be set to impose the same kind of physical thresholds as basketball, which is, to coin a cliché, just not tennis.
posted by etagloh at 11:22 AM on July 07, 2002
So what exactly is the problem here? If these sisters are winning through fair means, then can someone clearly articulate the reason for the opposition to the Williams sisters' dominance? Is it because they are too strong? Too good? Too fast? Too bitchy? Too black? Are we saying that, for example, in basketball, the rules should've been modified so that Michael Jordan or Shaq were forced to shoot only from the outside, or that they should play with five-pound weights in their shoes, so that "inferior" players would have a more even chance? I've seen a lot of whining and cattiness, but no real substance to the criticisms. I can't say I'm much of a fan of the Williams sisters (or any women's player except for maybe Martina Navratilova, who was dominant -- fast, strong, smart, and not above a little bitchiness/combativeness -- in her time), but it is breathtaking to see their power and speed given the generally slower pace of women's tennis. The previous comments in this thread tend to leave me with this question: Are there some deep-rooted gender and race biases that are playing into your objections? Do you want women's tennis to reflect a gentler (not so fast, not so strong), kinder (not so bitchy), and more familiar (not so black) stereotype? Hmm? If so, you're asking for even more boring tennis (I'll ignore the other implications 'cause lots of other people can deal better with them).
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:35 PM on July 07, 2002
I often wonder if we'd see these kinds of objections if all things were equal, but one of the sisters had chosen not to play professionally. What if one of them had come up in the last few years, just as strong, same attitude, same ferocious play, winning six major tournaments as each of them has -- would there be such derision for Venus or Serena on their own if one of them was only known because she was frequently in the grandstands cheering for her sister? It makes me wish that Patrick McEnroe or the Maleeva sisters had been better players, so that there could be some precedent and some grounds for comparison. As it stands, worldciup2002's questions ring louder and louder the more they are decried for their excellence, and especially when people feel free to tar the #1 and #2 female tennis players in the world with ridiculous comments like "they're practically men", winky smiley appended or not.
posted by Dreama at 01:19 PM on July 07, 2002
Intimating racism is rather cheap, worldcup2000. Did you just watch the women's doubles final? The Williamses missed as many smashes as they hit, had no real coordination at the net, and played essentially as separate singles players rather than as a doubles team. And they still steamrollered their way to the championship. That kind of success is a kind of death sentence on Grand Slam women's doubles, which is an endangered species as it is; compare it with the men's final, which was all about two pairs who've honed their skills for the doubles game, rather than regarding it as another trophy and another week's shopping money. (After all, most of the other top women's singles players can't really waste time on doubles: they're too busy trying to work out how to beat the Williamses.) There was a comment by Virginia Wade during the final saying that Martina Hingis retreated to the gym to pile on the muscle after being flattened in the US Open final. 'I can't do anything I enjoy any more,' she was quoted as saying: no horse-riding, no recreation beyond a bulking-up that has almost certainly worked to end her career. That kind of thing does the sport itself damage. Finally, here's the thing: the modern era of tennis has always been about big rivalries, usually between players with contrasting styles: in the womens' game, it was Evert/Navratilova, then Graf/Navratilova, then Seles/Graf and so on; in the men's game, you think of Borg/McEnroe, or McEnroe/Connors, or even Edberg/Lendl. Now, an Evert/Navratilova rivalry invariably led to entertaining finals; a Williams/Williams 'rivalry' hasn't, and doesn't. (Which answers your question, Dreama.) They're astonishingly great talents who are killing women's tennis. If anything, it makes one long for a third-place playoff, as in the World Cup: Capriati-Mauresmo would have been a better spectacle as a competitive match than yesterday's final.
posted by etagloh at 01:58 PM on July 07, 2002
Etagloh: What's worrying is that women's tennis may be set to impose the same kind of physical thresholds as basketball, which is, to coin a cliché, just not tennis. Even if you're to make the comparison to basketball, consider that Allen Iverson, listed generously at 6'0, has been the scoring champion for two of the past three years. If height were really the decisive factor, why did this year's 10 ten NBA scorers include only one centre and only three power forwards? Achievement in most sports is determined by countless factors: body size, speed, smarts, reflexes, natural ability, conditioning, desire. Different athletes have these in different combinations. And many find a way to win even though they're lacking in one or two particular areas. Take baseball: Maddux doesn't throw heat. Pedro is tiny. But both find ways to win. Or football QBs: Some are slow as molasses, but have pinpoint, canon arms. Others can't throw far, but can scramble and manufacture passes. If a player like Justine Henin plays such a "pure, intelligent game" then she'll find a way to beat Serena and Venus. Otherwise, I guess her game isn't good enough, in which case, why should she deserve to win? Etagloh, I understand your point that without a great rivalry, tennis may be less gripping. But shouldn't the best always win? Otherwise, what's the point?
posted by waterbedk at 02:39 PM on July 07, 2002
etagloh: "The Williamses missed as many smashes as they hit, had no real coordination at the net, and played essentially as separate singles players rather than as a doubles team. And they still steamrollered their way to the championship." "Intimating racism" is not "cheap" if it's true. But I guess nobody is going to own up to it. And certainly, nobody has provided a clear, strong argument against the Williams' dominance. Let's take your statement above, which comes closest to a technical criticism. I understand from that statement that you're saying that even though the Williams sisters were far from perfect, uncoordinated even (altho I'm not sure that's true), they still powered their way to the championship. That, weaknesses and all, they still beat every one of their opponents. What does this say about their opponents? That they did not have the guile, skill, stamina, power, speed to beat the sisters? Are you trying to imply that their power is the only thing that distinguishes them from their opponents? Whether they are strong or not, they still need to be able to string shots together, retrieve shots, volley, lob and take whatever their opponents throw at them. And that little vignette about Hingis complaining that she doesn't have time to do anything else but train ... what is she expecting? To be handed the silver platter on a silver platter? Sorry, mate, I still don't see any strong arguments. I'm off this thread before the hole-digging gets any deeper.
posted by worldcup2002 at 03:16 PM on July 07, 2002
waterbedk: I remember people saying that the Baltimore Ravens or the New Jersey Devils 'won the wrong way'. Now, granted, there's a substantial difference between team performances and individual ones, but you have to admit that there are ways to win that are more 'satisfying' than others. (And the baseball analogy is slightly misleading, if you're not prepared to acknowledge what hitters, not pitchers, have been doing in recent years.) But shouldn't the best always win? Otherwise, what's the point? Not always, as the World Cup just showed. Tennis, like football, is played on grass, not paper; and Marcelo Rios, controversial though he was, was right to say that the 'any given day' effect just isn't there right now in the women's game, while it's there in bundles for the men's game. worldcup2002: their power covers for their technical fallabilities. When you've got such a strong serve, and hit the ball so hard, then you're usually less reliant on the 'finesse' shots, which is very often the case with the Williamses. And has been noted by the BBC talking heads, when they come under pressure, they just hit the ball harder. And you totally miss the point about Hingis. She's being forced to train in a way that's directly contrary to the way that she became a tennis player in the first place. This isn't about comparing the Williamses with Anna Kournikova, a player who redefines the phrase 'style over substance'. This is about players that redefine the base requirements for the sport, at least in the minds of their opponents. Tiger Woods hasn't substantially changed the way that people play golf; Serena and Venus Williams are changing the way that women prepare for tennis championships. (For comparison's sake: Ronaldo was encouraged to bulk up when he moved from Barcelona to Milan, by fitness coaches who thought it would help him deal with Italian defenders. It probably contributed to the severity of his knee injury, by overloading his frame. Expect to see lots of women tennis players suffering the same kinds of injury.) I'm off this thread before the hole-digging gets any deeper. Is that directed at me? I'm not the one waving around the racism card, mate. It wouldn't matter if the Williamses were white, black, pink or green: they're doing to women's tennis what Ferrari is doing to F1. Let me put it this way: if you'd seen both sides of the women's singles draw separately up to the semis, you'd have had two compelling tournaments that the Williamses would have deserved to win. Put them together, and you have a championship that ends with a whimper, not a bang, because the only person who's capable of challenging a Williams sister strictly in terms of ability right now is precisely the one least capable of doing so on court, judging by previous meetings.
posted by etagloh at 05:56 PM on July 07, 2002
because the only person who's capable of challenging a Williams sister strictly in terms of ability right now is precisely the one least capable of doing so on court, judging by previous meetings. That said, the Williamses do have to earn the right to face each other in every tournament they play in. If you can't hang, you can't hang. Take the semifinal cash and go home. As for the "new" demands on Hingis, they're no different than those placed by Navratilova on her contemporaries once she started serious training two decades ago. Evert got with the program and stole a few titles. Everyone else seemed content to play for third place. Finally, this fitness issue is another example of people bundling Venus and Serena as one player when they are not. Hingis had better wake up early in the morning if she expects to look like Serena, ever. Venus, on the other hand, is something of a string bean to say the least. So cut the crap about bulking up.
posted by jackhererra at 10:03 PM on July 07, 2002
I remember when, right after the LA Olympics (I think), when Mike Tyson came on the scene as a pro and was consistently winning fights by KO within the first three rounds, and sportswriters everywhere were declaring boxing a dead sport because Tyson had taken all the suspense out of it. Things change.
posted by Bixby23 at 03:30 AM on July 08, 2002
That wasn't a particularly readable comment, now that I look at it, but I hope my point got across somehow anyway...sorry...
posted by Bixby23 at 03:32 AM on July 08, 2002
Well, if there's one lesson to be learned from the Tyson saga is that dominant performers often get bored. Even Jordan, as dominant as he was, took leaves of two and three years. Venus Williams is entering the age at which she might decide that she's had enough of crap like this and that there's little else for her to prove. The other lesson from Iron Mike is that if you're one-dimensional as he was and as Venus and Serena supposedly are (according to certain people on this list) such talents become easy to beat. Truth is, the sisters would have been winning titles from Day One -- pretty much like Tyson -- if mere physicality were the lone measure of success in tennis. "What's worrying is that women's tennis may be set to impose the same kind of physical thresholds as basketball, which is, to coin a cliché, just not tennis." No one had a problem with these "physical thresholds" when these two came on the scene six or so years ago as "ghetto kids" with braided hair and a cluck for a father. Those in tennis could have seen this coming when the sisters first become pros. They didn't, probably for the same reason why folks choose to disparage their tennis ability. Basketball isn't tennis, right? The problem with this reasoning, of course, is that it's unlikely that Richard Williams has his daughters playing that many games of pickup hoops. Finally, the physical thresholds are ones an athlete places on him or herself, not ones put on by the expectations of the sport. The goal of Henin or Hingis should be the best athlete they can be, in service of their tennis skills. If that burden is too much, then prepare to watch on weekends.
posted by jackhererra at 07:40 AM on July 08, 2002
Hingis had better wake up early in the morning if she expects to look like Serena, ever. Did you not read my last reply? Obviously not. Venus, on the other hand, is something of a string bean to say the least. So cut the crap about bulking up. As soon as you stop intimating that the rack is a legitimate part of a training regime.
posted by etagloh at 11:08 AM on July 08, 2002
I'm with WC 2002, comments like "they're nearly men" show a clear gender bias, as if being female necessitates weakness, and I think there are some more subtle biases rearing their heads as well.
Tenniswise, I don't understand the assumption that a power game will always beat a finesse game - I think a healthy Martina Hingis will have something to say about that, or even a focused Henin or Kournikova. They've dominated the last two years, but that's not a dynasty yet.
posted by djacobs at 11:50 AM on July 08, 2002
I said I'd be off this thread. But I lied. ;-) It ... was ... hard ... to ... resist ... especially after seeing Howard Fendrich (AP tennis writer)'s article praising the Williams sisters. Excerpt:
"But Serena's 7-6 (4), 6-3 victory over Venus in Saturday's final at Wimbledon helped produce ratings roughly 50 percent higher on NBC than for Hewitt's 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 defeat of David Nalbandian on the same court the following day. And the Williams sisters' doubles victory Sunday drew roughly a third more viewers, on average, than Hewitt-Nalbandian (it helps, no doubt, that the sisters are American)."It also helps, no doubt, that Hewitt and Nalbandian were worshiping the baseline in the temple of serve-and-volley. Sure looks like the Willliams sisters are making women's tennis more interesting than the men's. Maybe we should aim our "boring" critiques someplace else. OK. Now, I'm really gone. Really.
posted by worldcup2002 at 03:04 PM on July 08, 2002
The men thing, even with the ;) may have been in poor taste... basically it was meant to say that they do have a physical advantage over most of the rest of the players. [never did I say being female = weak, that's a bit of a stretch.] And that's not a bad thing at all. I think they're good for tennis, which I haven't really found particularly interesting in about ten years. I just simply don't like them because of their attitude. It's just like baseball fans who respect but detest the Yankees. Of course, as a Yankee fan it's a bit odd to be on the other side in this sport. So uh, I take that one back :) WC2002 is right though, they're not just winning due to strength and physical advantages... I watched Serena vs Hantuchova (sp) and she won because she was just making great shots, several of which made me shake my head, because they were so well placed. They're smart too. Kind of goes along with Bonds saying that you can be a bodybuilder but still not hit a home run... there's more at work than just strength.
posted by Bernreuther at 03:14 PM on July 08, 2002
Only if their father wills it...
posted by Bag Man at 03:51 PM on July 08, 2002
Apologies, etagloh... I had read your previous post before my original post. Sorry for repeating what you'd said, but I simply don't see it being a problem if that's okay with you, of course... BTW, I'm willing to take a beating and ask what a "rack" is.
posted by jackhererra at 07:44 AM on July 09, 2002
rack (rak) : (noun) : jubblies, bombs, ta-tas, biguns, floaters, mammaries, etc.
posted by garfield at 04:25 PM on July 09, 2002
oops. i gave up reading the cross talk above, and merely assumed someone stooped to my level and was commenting on the endowment inequality displayed on centre court. nevertheless, to provide assistance to the original question, a rack is an ancient torture device which stretches its victim in several directions..... or a nice set eye magnets. you decide.
posted by garfield at 04:33 PM on July 09, 2002
i know the low-brow meaning, thanks... as for the rack and it's relevance to henin, you have what you have and if it's her misfortune to look like gary coleman, that's not venus and serena's problem. jockeys don't have a place in tennis any more than "basketball" players.
posted by jackhererra at 11:56 AM on July 10, 2002
Watching both play throughout this tournament and the French before says that yes, they are that damn good. They simply are outhitting, outserving and outrunning the other women on the tour. Now, if all of the female power players were completely healthy -- Hingis and Davenport, specifically -- this may not be the case, but it might be regardless. They've got a combination of speed, stride, strength and skill that is hard to reckon with. Of course, I'm a fan, especially of Serena. I'm thrilled with their success.