Serena Williams press conference after her first round win.
Q. That was a nasty sprain in Brisbane, pretty extreme. Are you surprised you're able to move as well as you did tonight? How hard was it to get yourself to this stage?
SERENA WILLIAMS: It wasn't easy to get myself to this stage. You know, I just had to think positive and be mentally there. And I'm just taking it day to day. You know, I'm doing everything possible that I can, things I've never done, just to get it better.
You know, last night was the first night I didn't have any pain in it. I was, Okay, that's pretty good. But it is a very, very, very bad sprain. So I'm just playing it by ear.
Q. You don't talk about your injuries too much. What did you do that was unusual?
SERENA WILLIAMS: Yeah, something was pretty bad. I tore a couple ligaments, so... But it's all right. I'm in here playing.
Q. In terms of therapy?
SERENA WILLIAMS: Oh, therapy‑wise? I'm not going to discuss that. It's working, though, I think. We'll see.
For Those Interested
Every weekday during this year's Australian Open, Peter Bodo will take your questions about the tournament at 2 pm EST.
It appears that Serena and Nadal are in a competition to see who can come up with the most dubious injury story. Claiming you "tore a couple of ligaments" a few weeks ago puts Serena in the lead.
ReplyDeleteDuring Nadal's match last night on ESPN Chris Fowler and Brad Gilbert were discussing his serve. Gilbert made the comment that Nadal only seems to be able to "bring it" around 125 MPH max nowadays and he commented, jokingly I think, that Fowler should do some "investigative reporting to find out what happened to his USO 2010 serve." Fowler then added that he thinks Nadal has intentionally opted for a higher percentage-serve. That makes PERFECT sense. Why on earth would he have decided to keep serving like that? I guess it's much much easier on his body to keep his serve games longer by chasing more balls around. Aces and service winners, I suppose, are bad for the Spaniard's game.
ReplyDeleteImagine for a second that Federer, in his quest to solve Nadal, experimented with a two-handed backhand and miraculously used it to beat Nadal at the French Open. Then imagine that he decided despite beating Nadal he was going to switch back to his old backhand, even when playing Nadal. He then goes back to losing to Nadal every time. Then imagine Fowler and Gilbert talking about it and imagine Fowler's stating "I think Roger has just opted to hit a less powerful backhand." Would that make any sense at all?? No, it wouldn't.
Exactly when did Nadal try to use his USO serve UNSUCCESSFULLY? Was it the winning of the USO that made him decide the serve was a bad idea? Perhaps team Nadal decided they'd only stick with the new serve if he went the entire USO without being broken once, but when he was subsequently broken a grand total of 5 times during the during the fortnight (I know that's a Wimbly term but it still applies) they decided that it just wouldn't work....a second time????? Nothing to see here.
Maybe I just misunderstood both of them... I'll admit it's hard to understand someone talking with his head buried in the sand, but oh well.
Good above post Swisscheese. Why would he stop the new motion if it worked so well?
ReplyDeleteWhy? So that he can complain about how hard his games are on his body, with all the running that he has to do. No cheap points for Rafa, with his "percentage" serve. (By the way, the bandage on his so-injured knee may simply be to reinforce his earlier comments about how unforgiving the modern tour is on players of his style, when he also - unpopularly - criticised Roger. "See - look at how I always get injured!" Sure, Rafa.)
ReplyDeleteI think I can smell poop.
ReplyDelete