I agree, the ankle sprain might have taken her off her game a bit. I am also
amazed at her run to the finals at the Pan, beating Chanda along the way but
I am not ready to place my bet on her should a match against the Belgians or
either Williams takes place. In my heart, I will always cheer and cross my
fingers for her. The bottomline is her level of fitness, although improved,
isn't comparable to the big guns mentioned.
It's true she beat Venus at the Aussie last year but remember, Venus was
semi injured at that match and wasn't moving well. What are the chances of
that happenning again this year? And it seems she's always seeded to meet
either Williams in the quarters (she was seeded to meet a Williams in the QF
in 4 of the last 5 Grand Slams).
I don't think her loss to Davenport in Japan is a bad result. I am happy to
see her push Lindsay to 3 sets, but like I said, Lindsay isn't exactly a top
caliber player these days. I admit counting her out of the slams this year
is premature. Until she produces results like those in the summer of 2001
where she beat JenCap, Hingis and Serena, (not that I expect Hingis to
return anytime soon; just an analogy) I will not be convinced that a Grand
Slam title will come for her this year.




>From: "slc2466 <slc2466@...>" <slc2466@...>
>To: monicaseles@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Monica Seles On-line] Re: Objective assessment Monica
>Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:31:57 -0000
>
>
>There is one very important factor you have not addressed in
>accessing Monica's recent (2003) performances, namely, the serious
>ankle sprain Monica suffered in round two at the Australian. As
>Monica mentioned during her Toyko run to the finals, she still was
>feeling pain from the sprain during her matches. However, even with
>this hinderance and her lack of match play, Monica was able to get to
>the finals at Toyko. How can this be labeled a bad result? True,
>Monica fell to Davenport (who is still a fierce top-ten competitor)
>in the finals, but to meet her Monica had to take out Chanda Rubin,
>who is indeed playing some of the best ball of her career (please
>review your less-than-objective "I don't think she's a threat to
>anyone anymore" assessment of Monica's game). At less-than-100%,
>Monica lost in three to Davenport, but if you look at Monica's
>OVERALL three-set record since January 2002 (seventeen wins, compared
>to five losses), she is defintely still finding a way to close out
>three-set matches.
> It's possible Monica's increased level of fitness (check out
>pictures of her a year ago (Australian 2002), then look at 2003 shots
>taken from Toyko or from the Australian Open- she's looking fitter,
>no doubt about it) helped her substantially at Toyko and could aid
>her in gaining better 2003 results. I agree, as with all the players,
>Monica's chances at winning the elusive slam #10 will be greatly
>increased with the right (or "perfect") breaks (ala Agassi's softened
>draw at this year's Australian during his run to the title); however,
>very much in the style of Andre, Monica is capable of a late-career
>resurgence, as she still shows tremendous fight in her matches (see
>U.S. Open 2002, her defeat of Davenport at the Porsche Championships,
>or her come-from-behind victory over Rubin in Toyko) and has scored
>some wins over the OTHER big guns on the women's tour during the last
>year. Finally, although it's true, with the Williams sisters
>dominating the last four women's slams, Monica's road to another slam
>title will be tough, check out this stat: Monica is the ONLY player
>to defeat a Williams sister at any of the last seven slams (from
>Wimbledon 2001 - Aussie Open 2003). Therefore, if Monica goes into a
>slam (especially the upcoming French) at 100%, it's a definite
>possiblity Monica could make another run at a major title.
> Please give Monica a chance to fully recover from her Aussie setback
>before counting her out in 2003- the support and optimism you mention
>have been objectively warranted to Monica through her play during the
>last year and via her improved physical conditioning.
>
>--- In monicaseles@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Paulo Consencino"
><evan_paulo@h...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think there is any indication that Monica is as "sharp" as
>some of
> > you guys think. I know, as fans, we should be supportive and
>optimistic
> > about Monica's performances. But honestly, I don't think she's a
>threat to
> > anyone anymore. Lindsay right now is obviously not the Lindsay
>Davenport of
> > the late nineties and yet Monica still can't put her away despite
>winning
> > the first set. Monica is incapable of sustaining her energy for
>these big
> > matches and she's obviously not fitter as some of you keep saying.
> > Furthermore, big matches right now come in succession in the
>earlier rounds
> > and this is a further blow to Monica's not so perfect fitness. As
>for 2003,
> > Monica does have another chance at a Grand Slam as much as anyone
>but that
> > chance for me is remote given the "perfect" circumstances necessary
>for such
> > a thing to happen. And these perfect circumstances are too numerous
>that
> > they seem almost impossible to happen for Monica at this stage of
>her
> > career. This is the most inopportune time for her to attempt
>another win at
> > a Slam, with the Williams and the Belgians always on the way, not
>to mention
> > young upstarts who can always come up with unexpected explosive
>matches and
> > the threat of floaters such as Daniilidou, the Italians,
>Shaughnessy, Molik,
> > Tulyaganova and Schnyder to name a few.
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>


_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail