Russian Ruin in Rome

At the WTA Tour event in Rome, Italy last week, Russia had three of the top six seeds and therefore should have had three of eight slots in the quarter finals.  Yet, not a single one of Russia’s three top seeds made it that far.  In fact, they didn’t get remotely close.  Instead, as per usual, Russia’s so-called “dominant” women humiliated themselves before a slack-jawed world.

Top seed Dinara Safina lost her opening match to an unseeded Romanian.

Number two seed Svetlana Kuznetsova lost her first match as well, to an unseeded Russian.

And then number three seed Elena Dementieva rounded things out by losing her second match to an unseeded Serbian.

Russia did manage to put two unheralded players into the quarter finals despite all this humiliating carnage among its top players. Both then each promptly lost in easy straight sets once they got there.  Hardly a surprising result, since it’s the top-seeded players who are supposed to win such matches.

So while Russia had great prospects on paper to have as many as three of the semi-finals slots at the Rome tournament, and even perhaps produce an all-Russian final, in the event it didn’t get a single such spot.   The country had only one impressive match victory in the entire tournament, and that was when the unseeded Russian, Maria Kirilenko, ousted another Russian, Kuznetsova.  As we’ve said before, this is typical.

A huge amount of the limited success Russians have had in international tennis has come simply by having a large number of contestants who sometimes get the chance to beat each other, rather than much tougher foreigners, to advance deep into tennis draws.   Kuznetsova, for instance, holds two grand slam titles, and got both of them by beating another Russian in the finals.   On the two other occasions when she made a grand slam final and faced a foreign opponent, she was blown off the court.  Safina has been in three grand slam finals and lost every single one, not even able to beat a Russian (Kuznetsova) when she got the chance and then losing twice to foreigners.  Dementieva has handed two grand slam titles to felllow Russians, one to Kuznetsova and one to Anastasia Myskina.  The only Russian to ever win a grand slam title by defeating a foreigner in a final match was Maria Sharapova, a player who lived virtually her entire life in the United States and learned her game there.

So much for Russian female dominance in tennis!

14 responses to “Russian Ruin in Rome

  1. The sham that is Russian woman’s professional tennis goes on.

    Reminds me somewhat of the sham that is Russia under the total control of the proud “chekist” V V Putin.

    So what’s new?

    • Voice of Reason

      What’s new? The new thing is that in your old times, your own country of Australia was dominant in women’s tennis, but now the thousandth best Russian woman will beat the fifth best Australian woman, even though Australia has an ideal climate for tennis, unlike Russia.

      What’s old is that your Ukraine sucks at tennis as much as ever.

      So, don’t gloat too loudly.

      • ReTaRded Voice of tReason, at least Australia got there without cheating. It got there by its own splendid tennis, especially for such a small and HONEST nation (less than 10 million at that stage).

        Besides the only thing that I gloat over! is the proven fact that you are such a lying soviet communist jerk. Period!

        • Voice of Reason

          Russians cheated? Excuse me, Bohdan, but which rules did the Russians break to win 4 out of the last 6 Fed Cups?

          BTW, congratulations on the silver anniversary: it has been 25 years since the last time Australia won the Fed Cup. It is now ranked 12th, right ahead of Estonia.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fed_Cup

  2. VOR,

    Russia only became good at tennis because Australia sent you old, wooden, tennis racquets for snow shoes!

    • Voice of Reason

      So, the Australians thought that tennis racquets can be used as snow shoes? How retarded. Thank god the Russians chose to use these wooden racquets to play tennis.

      And yes, indeed: a smart talented Russian woman, playing with an old wooden racquet, can beat in tennis any Australian woman playing with the most advanced composite racquet.

  3. Francis Smyth-Beresford

    Yawn. Another installment in a formulaic series which relies on (a)
    selection of a sport in which the U.S. is currently doing very well and
    Russia is not, and (b) using the result to imply this somehow is
    symptomatic of general failure on the part of Russia nationally. You’ll
    notice this time there is no tiresome-but-de-rigueur counterpoint that,
    because one of the Williams sisters won, this proves the general
    superiority of the United States. That’s because the winner was a
    Spaniard. Hey, didn’t they just beat the U.S. for world’s best
    restaurant, too? Well; what more evidence do you need that Spain rules?

    Notice you also didn’t see any bile about Spain cheating to win, which
    is standard for any mention of Russia and women’s tennis. That’s
    surprising, because champion Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez WAS accused of
    cheating, just last year during the French Open, in a match
    against…..Serena Williams. By Serena Williams, no less, loudly and
    dramatically. Imagine if she was Maria Jose Martinez Kuznetsova – you’d
    never hear the end of it.

    http://thetennistimes.com/maria-jose-martinez-sanchez-caught-cheating-in
    -her-match-against-serena-williams/

    Never mind that a country’s ability to field winning athletes in women’s
    tennis has nothing to do with anything but tennis (Vietnam, for example,
    did not even challenge the world women’s tennis title between 1959 and
    1975. It didn’t prevent that tiny country from withstanding an all-out
    American military assault). Let’s pretend that national prowess in one
    sport IS the benchmark for national greatness. But this time, let’s
    choose…..men’s tennis. How’s the U.S. doing there? Gee; not so well.

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

    The U.S. is currently in a pitiful 8th place, behind Russia, and the
    Swiss world champ has more than double the points of the American
    athlete. How about hockey? Since the contest between nations for the
    world championship began in 1920, the U.S. has won it twice – in 90
    years – and not since 1960.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_medalists

    By way of contrast, Russia as the Soviet Union didn’t enter the
    competition until 1954 and ceased in 1991 (to compete as Russia after
    that), and won a medal in every competition during that period. The
    Soviet Union won the world championship better than 4 times more often
    CONSECUTIVELY than the U.S. did in total. Russia alone has won more
    often than the U.S., and the U.S. has been competing since 1920 against
    1991 for Russia. Hard to see that as anything but failure on a grotesque
    scale.

    Which means….nothing. If your country wins the World Iron Man
    Trialthlon 10 years running, it has nothing at all to do with your
    international status as a nation. I’m afraid tennis is just tennis.

    • Dude, don’t you realize that when you post a comment of that length you make your “yawn” seem like the statement of a gorilla with no brain at all? If you found the post boring, you would not comment on it at that length. You’re making a total fool of yourself. Think about it, doofus.

      • you steal, duffer.

      • Francis Smyth-Beresford

        At this point in our relationship, I have to tell you that your attempts to seduce me are failing, although it DOES make me hot when you talk about monkeys. For a while there you were trending disturbingly toward citrus fruits, which did nothing for me at all, I’m afraid.

    • FSB your understanding of history is somewhat limited at best you say:

      Vietnam, for example,
      did not even challenge the world women’s tennis title between 1959 and
      1975. It didn’t prevent that tiny country from withstanding an all-out
      American military assault

      What all out military assault? The US and other SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Organisation) allies were asked by the South Vietnamese to defend them from a North Vietnamese invasion.

      The US military, particularly in its attempts to disrupt the supply of communist terrorists and NVA regular units invading South Vietnam by bombing supply lines staring in North Vietnam, was fighting with one, and sometimes both, hands tied behind its back.

      Targets in Hanoi could not be attacked for most of the war, targets in North Vietnam’s harbours could not be attacked, MiG’s could not be attacked until they left the ground and were showing “hostile intent”, they could also not be attacked unless they were visually identified, there was no US invasion of North Vietnam.

      I suggest you get an education.

      • “The US and other SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Organisation) allies were asked by the South Vietnamese to defend them from a North Vietnamese invasion.”

        Er, no, dude, sorry to intrude in your tiny cosy world, but…

        That was the second Tonkin incident of 1964 that triggered the war.

        Remember “Those dinks are killing our boys near Tonkin!”

        “The outcome of this second incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression”.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

        Oops, there was no incident, it turned out to be staged by the US.

        The administration has drafted the resolution – oh my – months before the incident happened.

        Who could have imagined that…

      • Francis Smyth-Beresford

        All right, Andrew; as you are LR’s acknowledged history boffin, I defer to your larger forehead, and agree it was not an “all-out military assault”. Other references point out that if the United States wanted an all-out military assault, it would have gone nuclear. However, the foolishness in that amount of overkill is fairly evident.

        Here’s the thing, though, Andrew – were you there? I don’t believe you were, and I certainly wasn’t, although I was born before it began. Therefore, we both rely on historical references to make our points. You are obviously an excellent researcher, but I can find references by reputable authorities and subject matter experts that trend toward my viewpoint – so can you. In the end, who’s right? Whoever supplies the most references?

        And even if I acknowledge that the rules of engagement severely curtailed the military’s ability to fight the way it wanted to fight, owing to lily-livered policies imposed by weak-kneed civilians far from the scent of battle – so what? Civilian control of the military is one of the tenets of American democracy, one of the pillars that prevent civilized nations from being dictatorships. Analysts make the same arguments today about Iraq and Afghanistan – that the military could win easily, if only it were allowed to fight unrestricted. And in the end, there’s no use pretending the United States wasn’t trying to win in Vietnam.

        http://www.foreignpolicy.com/node/68820

        The United States would have had to remain in Vietnam – theoretically – forever, as the South Vietnamese Army was incapable of standing on its own.

        http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1583

        57,000 Americans killed. 150,000 wounded. 1,300 MIA. Compare those figures with Iraq, which is broadly agreed to be a war and which the U.S. is presumably trying to win. I realize Vietnam went on for much longer, but I’d point out that Iraq isn’t over yet.

        http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Operation_Rolling_Thunder

        “Before Rolling Thunder even began the North Vietnamese leadership knew what was coming. It issued a February 1965 directive to the military and the population to “maintain communication and transportation and to expect the complete destruction of the entire country, including Hanoi and Haiphong.” The communist leadership declared “a people’s war against the air war of destruction…each citizen is a soldier, each village, street, and plant a fortress on the anti-American battlefront.” All except those deemed “truly indispensable to the life of the capital” were evacuated to the countryside. By 1967, Hanoi’s population had been reduced by half.”

        Whether or not the military was restricted in its rules of engagement is irrelevant to this point – the North Vietnamese expected Hanoi to be bombed flat, and were apparently prepared to accept it.

        “Backing up the guns were the fighter aircraft of the North Vietnamese Air Force, which originally consisted of only 53 MiG-15 and MiG-17 Fresco aircraft. Though considered antiquated by the Americans when compared to their supersonic jets, the North Vietnamese turned their aircraft’s weaknesses into strengths. They were fast enough for hit and run ambush operations and they were also manoeuvrable enough to shock the American fighter community by shooting down more advanced F-8 Crusaders and F-105 Thunderchiefs, which had to quickly develop new tactics…The simple appearance of MiGs could often accomplish their mission by causing American pilots to jettison their bomb loads as a defensive measure.”

        “On 31 December 1967, the Department of Defense announced that 864,000 tons of American bombs had been dropped on North Vietnam during Rolling Thunder, compared with 653,000 tons dropped during the entire Korean Conflict and 503,000 tons in the Pacific theatre during the Second World War.”

        The whole point of the original comment was that success or failure in women’s tennis has nothing to do with general failure as a nation; there is absolutely and irrefutably no connection. Will you now acknowledge that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s