Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Venus Rising

Gangsta D:

Last week Da Realist said:

"venus is done. D.O.N.E. her game is erratic AT BEST...now, the lack of polish in her game is exposed. she needs to start over and hire a new coach and re-focus on smoothing out the rough edges of her game to be a top-quality player again..."

Well after winning her FIFTH grand slam, what you gotta say about thatHAMMER?!?!

Da Realist:

yeah i was wrong about this...there is a situation that could occur for venus to win a major. she was good enough to win wimbledon this year. i still don't think she can consistently beat the top players and i still think she needs polish to her game to get back to that level and i still think wimbledon's grass courts utilizes her power and negates her faults, but she did beat sharapova and she did beat a surprisingly good lindsay davenport to win the title. so she gets credit from me. i look at this as more of an anomaly than an indication that venus will dominate again. i'll be more impressed if she wins the us open in august/september.

hey! where's the kudos for the things i got RIGHT? did you guys see federer? he's dominating the game FROM THE BASELINE! this means that none of the top players are good enough to force roger federer to win the ultimate grass court championship by serving and volleying. he just won wimbledon with his b-game. you know if someone (roddick, hewitt, safin) was putting enough heat on him, he would switch gears and charge the net. federer is like a playstation game with his setting to NORMAL. no one can beat this setting yet. once someone starts to consistently show that they are good enough to beat this setting, federer will switch the setting to DIFFICULT. but no one has forced him to do this yet. THAT'S how good this guy is.

Gangsta D:

Federer has only lost FOUR sets in the past three tournaments, not rounds but tournaments. So yeah, you get credit for that. But the thing that burns me is that people are calling him the best ever. Whoa, slow down. He may turn out to be the best ever, but he hasn't won enough titles yet and he hasn't dominated long enough. Remember about five years ago, when people were quietly suggesting that Kurt Warner was the best QB ever? How's that working out right now. Just let the man play and whatever happens will happen. Maybe someone will figure out how to win a set one of these days.


Best ever??? He's the best right now and if he keeps playin the way he is playin then he will make a strong argument. I think the rush of the media to make stars outta the current "it" person in ANY sport makes it difficult for the diehard fan to embrace that it person as the best ever (see D. Wade).

As for Venus, the Williams' girls have won 2 of the 3 grand slams this year (Serena - Australian). Does that convince you Wilbon (Realist) that your girls are back???! Stop ridin Sharapova b/c she hasnt done diddly poo since Wimbledon last year. And if Davenport can last this long at 29, then why cant the Sisters come back at ages 24 and 25. Now sleep on that HAMMMER!!!!

Richard Williams

Da Realist:

it's funny how the williams sisters keep getting botched in together. i've always like serena better than venus, even before serena won a grand slam. i've always thought venus relied too much on her power andwingspan and not enough on point-making...and i still do. my argument wasn't against the williams sisters, but venus. they are a tandem only in relation, not as tennis players. it is possible to like one and not the other. venus doesn't get any credit if her little sister wins it all (which she has done and will do more than venus). venus hasn't won since the US open 2001. she's 1 for her last 15 slams. let's hold off before we say she's going to dominate the game again.

as for roger federer... who cares if the media is comparing him to the greats of all time? he may or may not be at that level, but when evaluating his play how else can you judge him? with contemporaries like safin, hewitt and roddick? where were the complaints when tiger was (and is) being compared to jack nicklaus? i don't believe we need to get into discussions about the best ever, just yet. but this guy is dominating like we haven't seen since pete in his prime. and as an overall player, he's more talented actually. does this mean he could beat pete or take down those records? time will tell. the media's penchant for hyperbole bothers me, but in this instance they may have no choice because none of his contemporaries can beat him. (see woods, tiger)

No comments: