Quote:
Originally posted by Sir. Will
Oh shut up, as Amelie could've won that one, too. Anyone who is so ignorant as to say that the #1 player in the world can not win a grand slam is sooo in denial.
|
And so could the rest of the draw. Anna Kournikova was in the semi-finals of Wimbledon once and she actually won those matches...imagine if 3 players just withdrew against her starting in the quarterfinals...then she would have won without earning it like Mauresmo. That comment was just plain ignorant in itself. Not only was Clijsters, but also Mauresmo herself #1 last year W/O a Grand Slam under their belts. That right there was enough to contradict that statement alone, but also the fact that Mauresmo is only leading Clijsters in the race by less than 300 points, which means if she had not won the Australian Open, even with Wimbledon, she would probably not even be #1 today. That win alone was enough to give her confidence, something she has ALWAYS lacked. I have no problem saying that if she didn't have the Australian Open, then she wouldn't have won Wimbledon either.
Let's check a couple of records for Mauresmo against top hitting players @ Wimbledon.
Davenport 3-11
S. Williams 1-9
V. Williams 3-5
Literally, although I think she is very good @ Wimbledon...there are betters. Go ahead and quote me for saying that Amelie Mauresmo won Wimbledon very well, but the Australian Open was just a one time fluke in which she falsely gained her confidence to now win more matches. If you don't agree with the "Mauresmo/Australian Open" sequence then go ahead and take it up with the rest of the chat rooms in any of the tennis sites...I even recall Brad Gilbert and Cliff Drysdale (sp?) speaking of the same thing @ Wimbledon this year.