Guest US Open Preview!!! (courtesy of John Lorenz)
Round of 16
Sharapova v. Mirza – Rule No. 1 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: If the pick is obvious, don’t bother explaining it. Sharapova in 2.
Petrova v. Vaidisova – Petrova has become the women’s tennis version of Joe Randa. Tough, dependable, not a franchise player. Petrova in 2.
Clijsters v. Vento-Kabchi – Clijsters in 2.
Williams v. Williams – Like ‘em or lump ‘em, they account for 2/3 of grand slams this year. Then why are they meeting in the 4th round? In a way, they deserve this for putting tennis secondary to other things. But, I think it’s also a flaw in the rankings and seeding system. By the way, trying to use logic to pick is match is quite…illogical. Williams in 2.
Henin-Hardenne v. Pierce – The French Open rematch. I predict this one will be closer. Henin-Hardenne has struggled since the French. Pierce only seems to have gotten stronger. Who wins? In case of a toss up, follow Rule No. 2 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: Pick the higher seed. The women’s side always goes to form. Henin-Hardenne in 3.
Mauresmo v. Likhovtseva – Rule No. 3 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: The Mauresmo Meltdown doesn’t happen until the quarters or semis. Mauresmo in 2.
Dementieva v. Schnyder – Dementieva’s serve is much improved, which should make her very scary. But for some reason it hasn’t. So do you pick talent or consistency? I’m going with talent on this one. Dementieva in 3.
Davenport v. Dechy – Davenport in 2.
Quarterfinals
Sharapova v. Petrova – It’s hard to resort to Rule No. 1 when 2 top ten players are involved, but Petrova… Sharapova in 2.
Clijsters v. Serena – Oh so you think I was just being cute before, huh? Rule No. 4: Until Venus proves otherwise, always go with Serena… no matter how bad she’s looked. (Possibly a corollary of Rule No. 2.) But Clijsters will win this. Clijsters in 3.
Henin-Hardenne v. Mauresmo – Mauresmo Meltdown? Henin-Hardenne has looked shaky and Mauresmo has the talent to win a slam. It may seem counterintuitive, but Mauresmo in 2.
Davenport v. Dementieva – The problem with the women’s side staying true to form is the 2nd week picks become that much harder. Like Mauresmo, Dementieva has the talent to win a slam. But Davenport has been the overall best women’s player of the last year. Does that get her a slam? It gets her a semifinal bad back and all. Davenport in 2.
Semifinals
Sharapova v. Clijsters – By this point, I’m positive this isn’t going as well as my Wimbledon picks. It’s hard to bet against either one. It’s either going to be the Sharapova/Davenport battle for number one or the Clijsters/Mauresmo battle of the have-nots. Crap. I’m calling rule number 2 on this. Sharapova in 3.
Davenport v. Mauresmo – I actually really think this might be the time for Mauresmo to break through with her 2 main rivals in her half of the draw battling injuries in Henin-Hardenne and Davenport. But Lindsay in 3.
Finals
Sharapova v. Davenport – Pick 1 and 2? I know – you could have done that. But could you have given witty, relevant commentary as well? Well, I certainly can’t. But Sharapova didn’t get to where she is because she’s pretty, or because she hits big, but because she’s mentally the toughest competitor on the women’s tour – something that has been a knock on Lindsay. But Lindsay has had a great year, and has been playing the most confident tennis of what could be her soon to be over career. I picked Lindsay in Wimbledon as a sentimental choice and she was runner up. So I pick Sharapova here with the knowledge that Lindsay will win it all just to spite me in the end. Sharapova in 3.
Sharapova v. Mirza – Rule No. 1 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: If the pick is obvious, don’t bother explaining it. Sharapova in 2.
Petrova v. Vaidisova – Petrova has become the women’s tennis version of Joe Randa. Tough, dependable, not a franchise player. Petrova in 2.
Clijsters v. Vento-Kabchi – Clijsters in 2.
Williams v. Williams – Like ‘em or lump ‘em, they account for 2/3 of grand slams this year. Then why are they meeting in the 4th round? In a way, they deserve this for putting tennis secondary to other things. But, I think it’s also a flaw in the rankings and seeding system. By the way, trying to use logic to pick is match is quite…illogical. Williams in 2.
Henin-Hardenne v. Pierce – The French Open rematch. I predict this one will be closer. Henin-Hardenne has struggled since the French. Pierce only seems to have gotten stronger. Who wins? In case of a toss up, follow Rule No. 2 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: Pick the higher seed. The women’s side always goes to form. Henin-Hardenne in 3.
Mauresmo v. Likhovtseva – Rule No. 3 of writing my US Open Women’s picks: The Mauresmo Meltdown doesn’t happen until the quarters or semis. Mauresmo in 2.
Dementieva v. Schnyder – Dementieva’s serve is much improved, which should make her very scary. But for some reason it hasn’t. So do you pick talent or consistency? I’m going with talent on this one. Dementieva in 3.
Davenport v. Dechy – Davenport in 2.
Quarterfinals
Sharapova v. Petrova – It’s hard to resort to Rule No. 1 when 2 top ten players are involved, but Petrova… Sharapova in 2.
Clijsters v. Serena – Oh so you think I was just being cute before, huh? Rule No. 4: Until Venus proves otherwise, always go with Serena… no matter how bad she’s looked. (Possibly a corollary of Rule No. 2.) But Clijsters will win this. Clijsters in 3.
Henin-Hardenne v. Mauresmo – Mauresmo Meltdown? Henin-Hardenne has looked shaky and Mauresmo has the talent to win a slam. It may seem counterintuitive, but Mauresmo in 2.
Davenport v. Dementieva – The problem with the women’s side staying true to form is the 2nd week picks become that much harder. Like Mauresmo, Dementieva has the talent to win a slam. But Davenport has been the overall best women’s player of the last year. Does that get her a slam? It gets her a semifinal bad back and all. Davenport in 2.
Semifinals
Sharapova v. Clijsters – By this point, I’m positive this isn’t going as well as my Wimbledon picks. It’s hard to bet against either one. It’s either going to be the Sharapova/Davenport battle for number one or the Clijsters/Mauresmo battle of the have-nots. Crap. I’m calling rule number 2 on this. Sharapova in 3.
Davenport v. Mauresmo – I actually really think this might be the time for Mauresmo to break through with her 2 main rivals in her half of the draw battling injuries in Henin-Hardenne and Davenport. But Lindsay in 3.
Finals
Sharapova v. Davenport – Pick 1 and 2? I know – you could have done that. But could you have given witty, relevant commentary as well? Well, I certainly can’t. But Sharapova didn’t get to where she is because she’s pretty, or because she hits big, but because she’s mentally the toughest competitor on the women’s tour – something that has been a knock on Lindsay. But Lindsay has had a great year, and has been playing the most confident tennis of what could be her soon to be over career. I picked Lindsay in Wimbledon as a sentimental choice and she was runner up. So I pick Sharapova here with the knowledge that Lindsay will win it all just to spite me in the end. Sharapova in 3.
posted by mike at 12:37 PM
10 Comments:
I agree with every pick except for Henin-Hardenne vs. Mauresmo.
Can I make a corollary to rule number 4? I think it would be, "never pick Mauresmo if she's playing someone who's won one."
We will not have any spamming on this blog. It will be diligently deleted.
Let me eat crow, Justine just got straight-setted.
Mauresmo melt down vs. Pierce... what were you thinking putting her in the semis? crazy french people...
Mark, is that you? I know you have something to say about Mary Pierce's performances.
Suzanne, that man you're with, he ain't no innocent man.
What do you know?!?!
(Suzanne again)
"I'm not at liberty to talk about such matters," whatever that means.
I'm trying to think what could have happened that both Vermont and South Dakota have in common that would lead them to question my wonderful man's innocence... on a side note there is free ice cream for anyone having any information on the subject.
Look, if you really want to know, it involves the "Black" Hills and the "Green" Mountains. There's a specific reason those particular landforms have their colorful names... you know, maybe you should ask John about that. By the way, I'm surprised John hasn't been busted for his actions in New Hampshire... they're not called the "White" Mountains because of snow...
Post a Comment
<< Home