Dwightarm wrote:
John Utah wrote:
The Kardashians are extremely popular but that doesn't make it good. I'm very exited to move into a new era without the Williams sisters. Actually, Serena is a POS. Venus is not so bad. .
We aren't discuss what is 'good' or not, we are discussing Serena being 'finished.'
John Utah wrote:
And your point about volleying is bizarre and inaccurate.
You clearly know nothing about tennis. It's well-known that Martina Hingis was the last successful serve-and-volleyer. Today's rackets do not even enable this type of play any longer ever since the power hitters took over.
Total twaddle. Hingis was not a serve-volley player; she was a baseline-allcourt player - which meant she was versatile enough to come to the net when she had to. Before her, Steffi Graf was a power-baseliner who could also play net; Monica Seles was almost exclusively a baseliner. The only true serve-volley player at the top of women's tennis was Martina Navratilova. That was back in the eighties. Her main rival was Chris Evert, another baseliner. Serve-volley has never been a mainstay of women's tennis, chiefly because it depends on a serve weapon which most women players lacked, and a greater degree of athleticism than most women players possessed. It also requires learning reflexive skills that are harder to acquire than the kind of metronomic baseline strokes that pass for much of the modern game. Serve and volley was predominantly the male game for a period for essentially the reasons that it wasn't present in the women's game; a great serve, athleticism and reflexive skills. What the Williams sisters brought to the women's game was bashing from the baseline, aided by modern rackets and strings, shrieking - topping even Monica Seles in that regard - and in Serena's case an unparalleled sense of entitlement. Viewing figures haven't gone up for women's tennis: for the most part television doesn't cover their tournaments.