BBC Home

Explore the BBC


user rating: 2 star

Safina loses in second round of Tokyo

by discoagogo (U8856061) 28 September 2009
comment on the article

To an unknown qualifier.

Don't worry Safina fans, i'm sure this is only because she's focusing solely on the Slams.

This means she will win the Australian open.

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by C2 (U9956155)

posted Sep 29, 2009

"Most current commentators and journalists lament the poor standards of the women's game.."

They are clearly nonentities and know-nothings, pining almost always for the dead past.
All anyone has to do is turn to ES right now, right at this very moment as I type.
JJ/Sabine Lisicki.
Talent overflowing in all departments.
Power, movement, attacking, counter-attacking play and much, much more from two of today's (as opposed to yesterdays) great young players.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by shivfan (U2435266)

posted Sep 29, 2009

Yes, Left Ear, been there, done that, yawn....

Play a new record, will you? This is terribly boring.
On threads about women's tennis, let the likes of conosu and I discuss the sport, and please take your whining and whinging elsewhere. Oh yes, and please take FH2 with you!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 29, 2009

One swallow........

It doesn't mean the womens game is in a good condition at the moment.

You only need to look at the lack of competitive matches (i.e close 3 set games) seen this year the rest of the top players consistently underperforming and the dire 45 minute wipouts we have seen far too many times in many tournaments recently to see all this.

I don't think this is a case of nostalgia. It is a response to the the results and matches coming out of the womens game over the past 18 months

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 29, 2009

Shiv, not sure what your problem is but you obviously have some issues with anyone who doesn't agree with you so maybe these sites aren't the best place to hang out. Your within your rights to offer your opinion but you don't seem to have learnt how to deal with opposition yet.

You do very well in turning every thread you post on into a slanging match.

I will continue to post my views on subjects I wish to post them on and won't be told I am wrong or be asked to leave by someone with an over inflated sense of self importance.

have a nice afternoon

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 29, 2009

Lisicki is a good looking player actually conosu, I'll give you that. She appears to have more to her game than just smacking it as hard as possible.

There are a few decent players out there, but too many matches follow the same pattern and it is frustrating to see so many u/e's in every match.

U/E's are of course prevalent in men's tennis, but not to the same level, although a couple of the matches at the USO were dreadful on the men's side as well.

JJ's retrieving is always impressive (not as good as C-Woz's smiley) but she has been found out by the better players because she lacks a real offensive weapon.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Ginger (U9105878)

posted Sep 29, 2009

I think the womens game is in a right state at the moment and having a number 1 who hasn't won a slam is just odd!

That said it is good to see the comebacks and Kim's win at the Open was fabulous.

I watched a few good games also at the Open (on TV) and there was a few good games. Needs more though, I agree that there are too many 6-1 6-0.


add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 29, 2009

I feel the need to second fh on this as well.


Just who do you think you are telling us what we can think and say about women's tennis? If you think what we're saying is wrong, present a case to the contrary. Don't just spout nonsense and tell us we're wrong simply because it conflicts with your own view.

I humbly suggest you stick to the athletics board, a place you admitted is less antagonistic then here. On the tennis forum, people have strong opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you are offended by someone offering a contradictory view, don't expect people to lie down and take it when you tell us we're flat out wrong and wums for backing up our opinions with evidence and supporting cases.

fh has stated quite clearly why he/she feels the current womens game is weak. You have presented no such case to explain why you feel it is strong. Instead you have just told us we're clueless and spoiling the thread (which incidentally is a thread specifically written to discuss the fact that the current No1 is failing to beat much weaker opponents at the moment).

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 29, 2009

i have refused to be drawn into any arguments about the depth of the women game. When Goran Ivanisevic came back to win Wimbledon in 2001 as a wild card, was that due to the depth of the men's game?.

I quite agree that the matches seem to be shorter and there's no real rivalry, i will put that down to injury to key players like Sharapova, the Williams Sisters never taking anything seriously outside of the Grand Slams & the retirement of Henin. When Clijsters was playing, apart from the US Open in 2005, she was not as consistent as the likes of Mauresmo, Sharapova & Henin.

If Masha can overcome her shoulder/serving problems, we all know she'a a very hardworking & committed young woman, who despite all the glamour outside of tennis, has kept her head in place and won several tournaments including 3 Grand Slam titles. No one should ever castigate her, before her shoulder problems started in 2007, she was one of the most consistent players on the tour & got to the latter staged of tournaments.

The return of Henin & Clijsters & the return to form of Masha, plus the rising talents such as Wozniacki as well the evergreen William Sisters will make 2010 season very interesting.

On the men's side, what do you consider as "Depth"?, that only two players have dominated in the last 6 seasons. Bewteen 2004 & 2009, 24 Grand Slam tournaments have been played and between Roger & Rafa, they have won 20, and you call that "Depth", please spare us!!!

What's better, to know who will play in the finals (men) of a tournament or not to know (women)?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 29, 2009

but look how hard Fed and Rafa still had to work for these victories...? Wimbledon 08 and 09 finals were unreal.

Just because the spread of winners in the slams is small doesn't mean there is no depth. The mens side is crammed full of high quality players pushing each other all the way. You only need to see the number of 5 setters to realise that it's no easy path.

You make excellent points regarding the positive outlook of the 2010 season.... but these are all if's and but's and when's. If we are talking about right now, or at least about the 09 season. I don't think anyone can argue that this was a positive or glowing advertisement for Women's tennis.

And actually I would rather watch a high quality tournament with maybe a winner I expected (who would likely have to have played incredible tennis esp in the slams) than a low quality womens tournament which was actually lost by someone playing poorly rather than won by a great player). Especially when the final is over in 50 minutes!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 29, 2009

"When Clijsters was playing, apart from the US Open in 2005, she was not as consistent as the likes of Mauresmo, Sharapova & Henin."

No, this is wrong. She was World No1 long before she won the USO in 2005. She won 34 titles before retiring. Sharapova totalled 17 weeks at No1, Clijsters 19. She and Henin swapped the No1 spot twice in 2003, when Henin went on to her first long run.

Clijsters was one of the most consistent performers on the tour and the very same criticisms that are being levelled at Safina were at her, but she backed it up by finally winning that GS. She was a losing finalist on 3 other occasions, all to Henin.

The WTA rewards consistency over Slam wins. In many people's opinions that skews the rankings.

Mens tennis. You make the points that the slams have been dominated by two people, which is correct. That is not down to lack of depth. Some of the matches at QF and SF, especially in the last 3 years have been simply stunning. I cannot say the same about the womens.

It's funny, simply because we don't like the current style of play and feel the quality is poor, we are in some way being unfair. I used to prefer womens tennis to mens in the late 80's and 90's because by and large the matches were better, more interesting affairs.

So am I now being unfair to the men of the time? No. The women's game today does not match up to the men's. This is not a comparison to the womens game from the era I mention (that is a seperate debate), but to the mens game of today.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.


Rate Breakdown

  • 5 25.00%
    1 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2 25.00%
    1 votes
  • 1 50.00%
    2 votes

average rating:
2.25 from 4 votes