quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by big ben » Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:35:24


serena d. bartoli       6-1     6-2
        the outcome of this match was never in doubt, but it seemed
        that bartoli played a better match than the final score
        would indicate.  serena may not have been serving very well
        today, but bartoli punished serena on second serves.

clijsters d. dokic      6-2     6-0
        i didn't think that dokic would win, but i thought that she
        would still do better than this.

even if you don't like serena, i think you've got to favor her in the
semifinals against clijsters.  clisjters is one of the best defensive
players but she often doesn't do a lot with her returns; it seems like
her objective is to just get the ball over the net and hope for an unforced
error from the opponent, or a subsequent return with which she can do
something offensive.  it's not hard to see how serena is able to reel
of strings of won games when she keeps her unforced errors down.  in
this tournament, serena has been playing relatively cleanly; in each of
her matches so far #winners > #unforced errors.

i'll take serena in 2 sets: 6-4 6-3.

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by Hops » Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:10:07

Quote:

> i'll take serena in 2 sets: 6-4 6-3.

As an unbiased Serena observer, what odds do you give her of going
undefeated in 2003?

--
A screaming comes across the sky

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by wen.. » Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:41:56


Quote:


> > i'll take serena in 2 sets: 6-4 6-3.

> As an unbiased Serena observer, what odds do you give her of going
> undefeated in 2003?

Very little, and from her own statements, she agrees.  She's set it as a
goal/motivator.  Not as a prediction or a boast.

But the odds are vastly against *any* player to do that, no matter how
good they are -- have an injury or a cold one day, or come up against
something unexpected, and anything can happen.  Even Navratilova lost one
match in her best season (86:1, she went that year.  Unfortunately, the 1
as the AO semi).

wg

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by Quak » Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:23:22

Il 26/03/03 15:41  ha scritto in

Quote:
> Even Navratilova lost one
> match in her best season (86:1, she went that year.
> Unfortunately, the 1 as the AO semi).

Nitpick: it was the 1983 FO 4th round match. She lost to Kathy
Horvath 6-4 0-6 6-3.
The following year she lost to Mandlikova in her first tournament of
the year (Oakland final), went on a 74-match winning streak, and then
lost to Sukova in her last tournament of the year (Australian Open
semifinal).

--
dario
don't know anything about this man. Anyhow, I only know two things
about him. One is, he has never been in jail, and the other is, I
don't know why. (Mark Twain)

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by big ben » Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:58:12

Quote:



> > As an unbiased Serena observer, what odds do you give her of going
> > undefeated in 2003?

> Very little, and from her own statements, she agrees.  She's set it as a
> goal/motivator.  Not as a prediction or a boast.

actually, serena was not that far from being undefeated last year.  if you
exclude the match in which she got injured at the adidas international, and
the loss at the home depot championships, she was in a strong position to win
in each of the other losses.

but while it is definitely an achievable goal for serena, it really isn't
worth the pressures that come with making it a publicly declared goal.

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by Hops » Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:19:39

Quote:

> > As an unbiased Serena observer, what odds do you give her of going
> > undefeated in 2003?

> Very little, and from her own statements, she agrees.  She's set it as a
> goal/motivator.  Not as a prediction or a boast.

> But the odds are vastly against *any* player to do that, no matter how
> good they are -- have an injury or a cold one day, or come up against
> something unexpected, and anything can happen.  Even Navratilova lost one
> match in her best season (86:1, she went that year.  Unfortunately, the 1
> as the AO semi).

Sure, the odds are long.  I'm asking, how long are they, really?  If you
were an oddsmaker forced to post a number, what would it be, as of 3/28/03?
25-1?  50-1?  lower?

Since the beginning of 2002 her record is 71-5, which is a W% of 93.4%.  She
has about 45 matches left to play this year.  Using these assumptions, her
odds of remaining undefeated for 2003 are about 22-1.

--
A screaming comes across the sky

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by wen.. » Sun, 30 Mar 2003 23:40:19


Quote:

> actually, serena was not that far from being undefeated last year.  if
> you
> exclude the match in which she got injured at the adidas international,
> and
> the loss at the home depot championships, she was in a strong position
> to win
> in each of the other losses.

You mean, if she hadn't lost those five matches she'd have gone
undefeated?

Quote:

> but while it is definitely an achievable goal for serena, it really
> isn't
> worth the pressures that come with making it a publicly declared goal.

Apparently it is, to her.

wg

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by big ben » Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:41:28

Quote:



> > actually, serena was not that far from being undefeated last year.  if
> > you
> > exclude the match in which she got injured at the adidas international,
> > and
> > the loss at the home depot championships, she was in a strong position
> > to win
> > in each of the other losses.

> You mean, if she hadn't lost those five matches she'd have gone
> undefeated?

let me help you out here:

        loss #1: serena got injured in the adidas international while
                 playing shaughnessy.  that was just bad luck.

        loss #2: she lost to schnyder in a match where she had one or
                 two match points.  when you get to match point, while
                 it doesn't mean that you will necessarily win the match,
                 it's hard to argue that you weren't *close* to winning
                 regardless of the actual outcome.

        loss #3: she lost to henin in a third set tiebreak.  again, a
                 last set tiebreak doesn't guarantee a win, but it
                 suggests that serena came close to winning.

        loss #4: serena lost to rubin in a match where she had a
                 4-1 lead in the third set.  serena generally closes
                 those matches out these days, but in this case she
                 didn't.

        loss #5: lost to clijsters.  as i recall, you, and a few others
                 commented that serena's shoulder appeared to be bothering
                 her, but on any account this was the one match where she
                 didn't appear to be in a position to win.

the above is why big benz sez that serena was *close* to going undefeated last
year.

got all that?

Quote:

> > but while it is definitely an achievable goal for serena, it really
> > isn't
> > worth the pressures that come with making it a publicly declared goal.

> Apparently it is, to her.

but then again, she also seemed to back away from her earlier statements to
some degree saying that it was a crazy goal but one that she set for herself
to see how close she could come.  my feeling about it is that had she had the
chance to do it again, she probably would not have made her statement at the
hopman cup tournament.
 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by Sakari Lu » Mon, 31 Mar 2003 07:40:30



Quote:
>    loss #2: she lost to schnyder in a match where she had one or
>             two match points.  when you get to match point, while
>             it doesn't mean that you will necessarily win the match,
>             it's hard to argue that you weren't *close* to winning
>             regardless of the actual outcome.

Is this true also if someone has match points against Serena? Can we
at least say that someone was close to winning? Or is that different?
 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by wen.. » Wed, 02 Apr 2003 12:23:05


Quote:

> let me help you out here:

>       loss #1: serena got injured in the adidas international while
>                playing shaughnessy.  that was just bad luck.

Yes.

Quote:

>       loss #2: she lost to schnyder in a match where she had one or
>                two match points.  when you get to match point, while
>                it doesn't mean that you will necessarily win the match,
>                it's hard to argue that you weren't *close* to winning
>                regardless of the actual outcome.

And yet, many of your postings seem to suggest Clijsters was not remotely
close to winning her sf at this year's AO against SW, even though *she*
held a match point.

Quote:

>       loss #3: she lost to henin in a third set tiebreak.  again, a
>                last set tiebreak doesn't guarantee a win, but it
>                suggests that serena came close to winning.

It does to me.  But not to people like Whisper, who think that Seles's
winning 10-8 in the 3rd at the FO is evidence that Graf was the better
playter.  Seriously, what it does suggest to me is that SW was not quite
the mental force then that she is now -- rare for her to lose the big
points now.

Quote:

>       loss #4: serena lost to rubin in a match where she had a
>                4-1 lead in the third set.  serena generally closes
>                those matches out these days, but in this case she
>                didn't.

But Rubin also played exceptionally well.

Quote:

>       loss #5: lost to clijsters.  as i recall, you, and a few others
>                commented that serena's shoulder appeared to be bothering
>                her, but on any account this was the one match where she
>                didn't appear to be in a position to win.

Yes.  

Quote:
> the above is why big benz sez that serena was *close* to going
> undefeated last
> year.

> got all that?

Yes, I've got that.  But it's still *five* losses.  The pattern is there.  
Had it been one or two, I'd feel differently.  This is not, to me, close
to going undefeated.

wg

 
 
 

quarter final results (upper bracket) (w/semifinal prediction)

Post by big ben » Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:34:47

Quote:



> And yet, many of your postings seem to suggest Clijsters was not remotely
> close to winning her sf at this year's AO against SW, even though *she*
> held a match point.

what i stated was that clijsters did not generate her own offense; she relied
upon serena hitting a lot of unforced errors.  when serena stopped hitting the
unforced errors, the match was pretty much over for clijsters.

was clijsters close to winning the match?  yes.  is clijsters close to being
as good a tennis player as serena?  no.

Quote:

> >       loss #3: she lost to henin in a third set tiebreak.  again, a
> >                last set tiebreak doesn't guarantee a win, but it
> >                suggests that serena came close to winning.

> It does to me.  But not to people like Whisper, who think that Seles's
> winning 10-8 in the 3rd at the FO is evidence that Graf was the better
> playter.

the problem with this kind of analysis is that serena puts forth a consistent
level of effort to win each point in a match.  from what i can tell, that is
not the way that serena tends to play, she seems to be drift in and out,
having stretches of brilliant play, and stretches of unfocused play.  at the
critical points, however, she is fairly consistent in stepping up the level
of her game.

by contrast, clijsters seems like a player who goes flat out, playing
consistently throughout the match.  thus, clijsters can rip through the field
in a tournament, defeating opponents by 6-0/6-1 scores but then lose to serena
in straight sets later in the tournament.

Quote:
> Seriously, what it does suggest to me is that SW was not quite
> the mental force then that she is now -- rare for her to lose the big
> points now.

last year serena was putting away the matches in which she was in a position
to win.  i think that she entered 2002 with the mindset that she wasn't going
to lose matches in which she had 8 match points.

i think that the outcome of this match was partly influenced by the fact that
it was played on clay.  keep in mind that at the time the conventional wisdom
was that serena couldn't play on clay.  granted, she had a determination to
prove the naysayers wrong, but that kind of thing can influence a person
nonetheless, particularly given the fact that she had lost to schyder in her
previous tournament.

but i also think that even though she lost this match, it gave her enough
confidence to run the table in the rest of her matches on clay.

Quote:
> >       loss #4: serena lost to rubin in a match where she had a
> >                4-1 lead in the third set.  serena generally closes
> >                those matches out these days, but in this case she
> >                didn't.

> But Rubin also played exceptionally well.

yeah, but serena is an exceptionally good tennis player, so regardless of how
well an opponent plays, if she gets a 4-1 lead, that opponent is still going
to need some help from serena to pull out the win.

Quote:
> Yes, I've got that.  But it's still *five* losses.  The pattern is there.

that was what i was commenting on; the pattern; not the result, which was
five losses.  what the pattern suggests is that if she got to play these
match situations over again, the outcomes would have been different and she
would have won.  even in the match that she lost against clijsters, she was
serving for the set in the first set.

what the pattern suggests is that serena is going to be every match with a
chance to win.  under those circumstances the odds are always going to be
in serena's favor.