Talk:Justine Henin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

6-0 6-0 vs. Bartoli: notable match or not?

Ok, so let me start by agreeing that this is of course all arbitrary, but let me defend this one.

Henin is known for routinely losing concentration against opponents who don't offer much opposition. That's what I meant with "choking": not necessarilly losing the match, but failing to uphold her high level for the entire match, having a sudden dip for no obvious reasons. The end of the second set in her recent match against nobody Su-Wei in the 4th round was another example of this, but it is very common. When she has been dominating the first set, she often seems to let go for a couple of games. So this is a reason why she has much less 6-0 6-0 matches than one would expect when watching her play at her best against lesser opponents. It really catches the eye that she didn't let this happen here, especially since it was not that terribly important (unnecessary last group game). It catches the eye even more, because Bartoli could hardly be called a "lesser" player. If you want to bagel her, you'll have to try harder than against the #150. So to understand what's going on here, you have to stand back and look at the context. And that context is revenge (because Bartoli beat her so unexpectedly and traumatically) combined with fear for letting it slip away again in the second set (like she did in the last match she lost many months ago), and combined with the drive to extend her winning streak. Putting an end to the winning streak would have been the only practical consequence of a loss, anyway.

I think all of this combines to make this a notable match. It tells something about her character, her game and about the most important events of her 2007 annus mirabilis.

JH-man (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More than a week and noone objects. It seems I was convincing, so I put it back in.  :) JH-man (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Serena Williams

There needs to be something about Henin cheating Serena in the '03 French Open. Everybody saw it. You can look it up on YouTube. It was despicable.

Do we have a link supporting the evidence that Henin raises her hand too late, when Williams was serving? JeDi 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove it? It seems unnecessary and totally out the blue. The paragraph seems biased to me. Sumhtun 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That is something that is significant, hence necessary. Serena Williams kept on talking about it after the match, and that claim, whether true or not, has worked against Henin-Hardenne's credibility. That was the reason why she refused to call a trainer in her US Open semi-final match against Jennifer Capriati, because she wanted to prove that she can win justly. So with respect to that, it is important and relevant. Joey80 14:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was that paragraph removed unilaterally. I think it should go in, and I'll link to evidence of it. I'll wait to see if there are any further comments before adding it. Agrippina Minor 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't correct. Henin didn't take an injury timeout because ESPN questioned her over a lie from Kim Clijsters after losing to Justine in the 2003 San Diego F "She always [takes injury timeouts] to me," which ESPN failed to acknowledge was a lie.

This is a total fabrication of the facts of that incident. No player in history, including Serena, has ever "dumped a ball into the net", and the rules don't provide for that. The reality is that Justine was ready to return serve, and Serena went up to serve the ball, then Justine raised her hand, which Serena saw after she served. Under the clear rules of tennis "raising your hand" means nothing. Once a player is "ready to return serve" (which means making eye contact with the other player), that player cannot become "unready", absent outside interference. The serve counted, in or out. Moreover, nobody has any idea what the conversation was between the umpire and Justine. The only people who could hear it were the fans near the court, and it was apparent they thought Justine was totally justified. The only proper question would be "Were you ready to return serve at any time before Serena started her motion?", and the only response would have been "yes". This nonsense that Justine "lied" to the umpire is not supported by anything whatsoever. If Serena saw her hand up, then why did she serve? If she didn't see her hand up, then the serve counted, since she wouldn't have started her service motion unless she saw Justine was ready. If anyone's sportsmanship needs to be examined, it's Serena's, not Justine's; and under the very clear rules of tennis, the serve counted, in or out. 69.221.1.92 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Bob

I agree. I can't find a source for Justine's conversation with the umpire. When did she deny raising her hand? Why would the umpire care? The author needs to cite his sources. I think I'll pare this section down in the meantime. Yano 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, isn't the current section focusing a little too one-sidedly on what Justine did wrong? If Serena claims Justine's raised hand bothered her when she saw it, why did she continue her serve anyway? I agree that Justine was a little dishonest, but so was Serena - you can't claim to see your opponent's objection, ignore it and serve anyway, and then ask for a new serve when it doesn't work out for you. Maybe it should say something like: "At one point during the semi-final, Henin raised her hand during her opponent's service, but Williams continued her serve and faulted. Williams then asked the umpire for another first serve, claiming that she saw the gesture and was bothered by it, but the fault was none the less upheld." I think this would reflect the reality better, and show that both players were a little in the wrong here. 81.240.169.113 09:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've removed the line about Serena accusing Justine of cheating in the meantime. Unless someone can find a cited source that properly clears Justine of wrongdoing within the rules of tennis, the accusation of cheating, by itself, leaves the question of sportsmanship unfairly open. Personally, however, I would prefer to leave this episode in its current low-key depiction, as it doesn't deserve much mention. -- Yano 03:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Justine was dishonest or not, since we don't know what the conversation between her and the umpire was. If the umpire asked her if she raised her hand, that would be an inappropriate question to ask, since it's irrelevant whether she raised her hand or not. Presumably she hadn't raised her hand when Serena looked at her and then looked up to serve, since otherwise Serena wouldn't have started her service motion. I've never seen any player in the history of tennis serve when she saw the other person's hand up. Since the rules don't permit the returner to become "unready", once you are ready (even if you notice a broken string), the serve counted, just as Sharapova's did in this year's 2007 FO match against Schnyder (who put her hand up as Maria was starting her motion). The rules don't mention "raising your hand". They define "ready to return" as making eye contact with the server for a couple of seconds. Raising one's hand is more of asking for the courtesy of a couple of seconds than a rule of tennis. The unpire's questions should actually have been directed at Serena, rather than Justine. He should have asked Serena if Justine appeared to be ready when Serena started her service motion. If the answer was yes, then there would be no need to ask any questions of Justine. If the answer was no, then the next question would be "Then why did you serve the ball?" The focus was on the wrong person. 69.214.158.88 03:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Bob

I have moved this section back up to the top so it can be viewed more easily. I don't understand why there is nothing in this article about the infamous Serena incident. To this day, it is one of the things that most sticks out in my mind about Justine Henin. At the very least, the fact that her action is and was controversial should be mentioned. There must be a non-POV way to mention it. The amount of discussion generated below shows that it is something worth talking about.76.217.104.88 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom of a discussion page, not the top. Tennis expert (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot put what Serena did in the US Open 2009 playing against Kim Clijsters in Serena's article, then you should not think of putting what Justine Henin did in 2003 in Justine's article. Please do not bias in favor of your "favorite" tennis star :) Jondalar 15:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaturnineMind (talk • contribs)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis

There is a long, ongoing discussion at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found in tennis articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g., this type of table). The discussion is about whether the "official sponsored name" of a tournament - such as Pacific Life Open - or another tournament name without the sponsor - such as Indian Wells Masters - must be used in those articles. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable matches

Please provide neutral, clearly defined and measurable criteria as to what constitutes a "notable" match. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write the section, so I don't know how the matches were selected, but I don't think it's something that we need worry about unduly. They are just matches about which something can be written. All Wikipedia editing involves selecting (necessarily subjectively, to some extent) what we think is notable information about the subject. Would it make you happier if the section were retitled just "Matches"?--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd be happier to see it deleted. It represents one (or a few) people's idea of which matches were more significant than others. There are no criteria defined. It makes the section inherently POV. She was a professional tennis player who played against other professional tennis players hundreds of times. All of her matches could be considered notable. This section is not needed and makes the article more like a sports almanac than an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But all information in WP represents some people's idea of what's notable about the subject. There seems to be nothing unusual about this list by WP standards (and even random collections of WP:TRIVIA are not supposed to be deleted outright). However I'm happy to leave it to the tennis project people to decide - they generally do a sound job with their articles, from what I've seen.--Kotniski (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding? The tennis project is in disarray. Not a single featured article, editors insisting the MOS is ignored, it's appalling. There's little point in the project right now. But, I agree with you other sentiment, the project should decide. And as for "all information representing what's notable", typically we have notability critieria which should be defined. Otherwise who's to say what should be included? In my opinion, notable matches should be every final she was ever in... but I also think making Wikipedia tennis bios any worse than they already are by loading them down with further trivia should be avoided. We should note WP:SUMMARY here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

This has been tagged for over six months now without anyone doing anything about it so I've moved it to the talkpage. It is inherently subjective and as such fails WP:NPOV. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable matches

• 2003 Australian Open fourth round: defeated Lindsay Davenport 7–5, 5–7, 9–7. In a match lasting more than three hours, Henin overcame a 4–1 final set deficit, high temperatures, and muscle cramps to defeat Davenport for the first time in her career.
• 2003 U.S. Open semifinal: defeated Jennifer Capriati 4–6, 7–5, 7–6(4). Capriati was two points away from victory eleven times in a match that stretched to midnight. After her victory, Henin went to the hospital for rehydration treatment. The next day, she defeated fellow Belgian Kim Clijsters for the title.
• 2004 Athens Olympics semifinal: defeated Anastasia Myskina 7–5, 5–7, 8–6. After months of layoff due to a virus, Henin competed in the Olympics. Henin rallied from 5–1 down in the third set to defeat reigning French Open champion Myskina. She went on to capture the gold medal.
• 2005 French Open fourth round: defeated Svetlana Kuznetsova 7–6(6), 4–6, 7–5. Henin saved two match points to earn a quarterfinal spot. In winning the tournament, she became only the second woman to win the French Open after saving a match point. (Myskina accomplished the feat a year before, also against Kuznetsova.)
• 2005 Wimbledon first round: lost to Eleni Daniilidou 7–6 (8), 2–6, 7–5. It was the first time that a reigning French Open champion failed to win a match at Wimbledon.
• 2006 Australian Open final: lost to Amélie Mauresmo 6–1, 2–0. Henin retired from the match with stomach pain. This was only the fourth Grand Slam women's singles final that ended by retirement since 1900 and the first in the open era. Henin stated afterwards that she feared possible injury had she continued to play. She was widely criticized by tennis commentators and writers for not finishing the match.
• 2006 Wimbledon final: lost to Mauresmo 2–6, 6–3, 6–4. The final round was notable for featuring two finesse players who used their all-court games, a break from the previous years that featured a succession of power baseliners claiming the title. At almost every point throughout the match, both players approached the net to volley. Tipped as the tournament favorite, Henin won the first set. But Mauresmo recovered to win the next two sets and her second Grand Slam singles title and deny the Belgian a career Grand Slam.
• 2007 U.S. Open semifinal: defeated Venus Williams 7–6(2), 6–4. Henin was up a break in the first set but could not hold it. She finally won the set in a tiebreak. In the second set, Henin was ahead 3–0 before Williams leveled the set at 3–3. Williams then had three break points on Henin's service but could not convert and lost the game. Henin then broke Williams's serve and held her own serve to go up 5–3. Williams then broke Henin to pull within 5–4 but Henin broke Williams again in the last game to reach the final and eventually won the title.
• 2007 WTA Tour Championships, third round robin match: defeated Marion Bartoli 6–0, 6–0. Henin had won 22 consecutive matches since Bartoli defeated her in the 2007 Wimbledon semifinals. Although Henin had already clinched a spot in the semifinals, she took full advantage of the fact that Bartoli was unprepared. Bartoli did not know she had to replace Serena Williams until several hours before the match.
• 2007 WTA Tour Championships final: defeated Maria Sharapova 5–7, 7–5, 6–3 in 3 hours, 24 minutes. Sharapova won the first set on her eighth set point in the 12-minute last game. Henin won the match on her fifth match point in the final game of the match. This was Henin's longest ever match, the longest final in tournament history, and the twelfth longest women's match ever.
• 2008 Australian Open quarterfinal: lost to Sharapova 6–4, 6–0. Before this match, Henin had won 32 consecutive matches since the 2007 Wimbledon semifinals. Sharapova, who eventually won the title, was the first player to win a 6–0 set against Henin since the 2002 French Open.
• 2008 Sony Ericsson Open quarterfinal: lost to Serena Williams 6–2, 6–0.

Winning Percentage

Henin had better than a 82% winning % in singles play [1]--Billymac00 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

fansite tag

Please read the information in the tag and at WP:SUMMARY before simply removing information from this article. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that "every match, every score, every tiebreak" she ever played is listed in this article? I believe that exaggerated edit summaries should be avoided because they are unconstructive and don't help anyone to improve articles. Tennis expert (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I seriously believe that any article I have tagged with {{fansite}} needs a lot of work. I think you're making rather a mountain out of a molehill regarding the edit summaries, people seeking to help improve the articles are much more likely to look at the article itself rather than the edit summary history. I'm not even sure "unconstructive" is a real word. The real issue is that these articles are way off the standard required to make either good or featured article and that should be the aim for every article here, as I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing your edit summaries to be more constructive. For your edification, you can find "unconstructive" in this online dictionary. Thanks also for again assuming my bad faith. When will you stop doing that? And what Wikipedia policy requires every article to achieve good or featured status? Tennis expert (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness for American spelling! Nothing suggests articles are required to achieve GA or FA status, but you must agree that we're here to make an excellent encyclopedia and it's generally agreed that both good and featured articles are something we should strive for, not deliberately avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)