Talk:Maria Sharapova/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2008 Australian Open sets

Do you think its worth mentioning that she's the first woman to win the AO without dropping a set since Lindsay Davenport in 2000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.96.27 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements & Fan Page

I have taken down a considerable portion of the Endorsements section seeing as this is an encyclopedia and not a magazine. I feel if you want to talk about her Endorsements you can without making a list of every single one. I also got rid of her Fan page. Since I find there is enough already in the external links section. I will continue to remove the Endorsements section as well if people keep adding itSatanical Eve (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Too much irrelavant information for 2007

Maria's 2007 year has too much irrelavant information. We do not need to add information such as "Sharapova had also been questioned over her uncharactersitic shaky serves and double faults this season, but she showed no signs of that as well as she hit 9 aces in her second round match, including one that reached 113 mph (181.1 km/h). Later in the tournament, she hit one that reached 184 km/h. We dont need this kind of things. It would edit it, but i might mess up the whole article so please put less information

I agree, there are quite a few current events and speculative statements in there. Jmjanssen 05:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits, but I am not the proper person to totally rework the section as it really needs. Also added a current sport tag. Jmjanssen 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the section a bit. In case anyone wants to re-add anything, here is what was there beforehand:

In 2007, Sharapova reached the final of the Watson Water Champions Challenge, an exhibition tournament and warm-up for the 2007 Australian Open, where she was defeated by Kim Clijsters 6-3, 7-6(8).

At the Australian Open, the top-seeded Sharapova defeated the 62nd-ranked Camille Pin in the first round 6-3, 4-6, 9-7 on her fourth match point. The match was played in air temperatures that exceeded 40 °C (104 °F) and on-court temperatures that exceeded 50 °C (122 °F). In the fourth round, Sharapova defeated compatriot Vera Zvonareva 7-5, 6-4. In the quarterfinals, Sharapova overcame the twelfth-seeded Anna Chakvetadze 7-6(5), 7-5. She then defeated fourth-seeded Clijsters 6-4, 6-2 in the semifinals to reach her first Australian Open final and gain the opportunity to win the only Grand Slam singles title that a Russian woman had not yet won. However, Serena Williams, ranked No. 81 in the world, overpowered Sharapova 6-1, 6-2.

Sharapova then achieved disappointing results at her next three tournaments, partly due to hamstring and shoulder injuries, which decimated the effectiveness of her serve. At the Tier I Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo, Japan where she was a champion in 2005, she retired to Ana Ivanovic when leading 6-1 0-1 in the semifinals; at the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California where she was the defending champion, she lost to Vera Zvonareva in the fourth round 4-6 7-5 6-1 (after leading 5-4 in the second set); and at the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida where she was a finalist the past two years, she was crushed by Serena Williams for the second successive time, with a lopsided scoreline of 6-1 6-1. However, she did beat a resurgent Venus Williams in the third round of Miami 2-6, 6-2, 7-5, a good result.

Sharapova would be forced to miss most the clay court season for the second consecutive year because of the aforementioned injuries. She made her clay season debut at the Istanbul Cup, where she lost to Frenchwoman Aravane Rezaï in the semifinals 6-2, 6-4, in preparation for the French Open. It was uncharacteristic of her to play a week before a Grand Slam.

Sharapova then reached semifinals of the French Open for the first time in her career. She defeated former top 10 player Patty Schnyder in a controversial fourth round match after being down two match points 3-6, 6-4, 9-7, then beat fellow Russian Anna Chakvetadze in the quarterfinals 6-3, 6-4. In her semifinal match she fell to up-and-comer Ana Ivanović 6-2, 6-1.

At the DFS Classic in Birmingham, United Kingdom, Sharapova lost in the final to second seeded Jelena Janković 4-6, 6-3, 7-5. Her record at the Tier III grass court event was extended to 23-3 in 5 tries. Sharapova played in the Wimbledon, falling victim to Venus Williams (a three-time champion at that time, and who would go on to win for a fourth time that year) in the fourth round 6-1, 6-3.

Sharapova was scheduled to play the Fed Cup for Russia in their semifinal tie against the USA during the weekend of July 14-15. However, she withdrew claiming that her shoulder injury that had been bothering her for most of the year was causing problems again. Sharapova was not able to play in the final versus Italy, but was flew to Moscow to be a hitting partner for her teammates since she could not serve on her doctor's orders.

Sharapova then played her first summer hardcourt tournament, the Acura Classic in San Diego, California, where she was the defending champion. In the final, she faced #11 seed Patty Schnyder and ended up winning 6-2, 3-6, 6-0, claiming her first title of the year, 5th Tier I title, and the 16th singles title of her career. This was the first time she successfully defended at Tier I title. Sharapova had previously defended Tier III titles [Tokyo Japan Open in 2004 and Birmingham in 2005.

Her next tournament was the East West Bank Classic in Los Angeles, California. As the top seed, she moved into the semis after winning in straight sets 6-3 6-4 in 1 hour and 30 minutes against Russian rival and defending champion Elena Dementieva in the quartefinals. Sharapova currently leads the series 7-2. She lost to Dementieva in the semis last year. Sharapova was scheduled to face another Russian Nadia Petrova, but withdrew briefly before the match with a shin injury. She had already pulled out of the Rogers Cup. Sharapova clinched the US Open Series shortly before the US Open (tennis) in New York City began.

The US Open draw was released on August 22nd; with Sharapova seeded #2. She had a seemingly easy bottom half of the draw. She won her first two rounds against Roberta Vinci and Casey Dellacqua, dropping a total of only two games. Sharapova lost her third round match to 18-year-old Pole Agnieszka Radwańska in three sets 6-4, 1-6, 6-2. It was Sharapova's earliest exit at a Slam since she lost in the same round at the U.S. Open three years ago to Mary Pierce (also in three sets). Though her serve had looked back to normal during the US hardcourt season, the velocity on her serve diminished during the third set. When the September 10th rankings were released, Sharapova had dropped two spots to #4.

At the Kremlin Cup in Moscow, Sharapova crashed out to Victoria Azarenka of Belarus in the second round, 7-6(9), 6-2. Despite the tournament being held in her country of citizenship, Sharapova's lifetime record in Moscow is 2-2. Sharapova then withdrew from the Zürich Open in Zurich, Switzerland and the Generali Ladies Linz in Linz, Austria due to the continuing shoulder problems she has been suffering throughout the year. She was the defending champion at both events. Sharapova's ranking dipped to #6.

Resurgent top 10 player and former world #5 Daniela Hantuchová defied the odds and beat Patty Schnyder for the Linz title, thus knocking Sharapova off the eighth and final spot to qualify for the 2007 WTA Tour Championships. They were both exactly tied in points to qualify, but Hantuchova played over twice as many tournaments, thus giving her the edge. However, in a surprising turn of events, Venus Williams withdrew from the championships in Madrid due to medical problems. This meant that Sharapova was granted the vacant spot.

Maria Sharapova returned from a nearly three-week absence, including missing most of the indoor hardcourt season to beat Daniela Hantuchová 6-4, 7-5. It was the sixth-ranked Russian's first win since Aug. 31. She extended her head-to-head against Hantuchova to 6-1 (winning the last 6). Her second match saw her defeat World Number 2 Svetlana Kuznetsova 5-7, 6-2, 6-2 to advance to the semifinals. Sharapova now leads the series 4-3. In her third and final round robin match, Sharapova gained revenge against Ana Ivanović 6-1, 6-2 in just over an hour, thus evening the series to 2-2. Sharapova then defeated Anna Chakvetadze 6-2, 6-2 for a flawless 5-0 head-to-head lead to advance to the championship match. She then lost to top-ranked Henin 5-7 7-5 6-3 in a dramatic match that lasted 3 hours and 24 minutes.

Sharapova ended the year as number 5 on the official WTA tour rankings, her fourth year in a row with a top 5 finish.

I cleaned-up the section, only to have it reverted by the person primarily responsible for adding tabloid-style writing to this article. If you're interested in an encyclopedic version of 2007, see what I did and make your own decision. Tennis expert (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Romantically Linked"

Please stop restoring this paragraph to the article. It is in violation of Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons as it is both uncited and states itself that they are "unconfirmed". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it to be notable. There's credible evidence suggesting that something MAY have happened between Sharapova and all the people mentioned, therefore, I consider it a valid entry to state these rumoured relationships which all have evidence behind them (the evidence being articles, pictures, and other materials). My understanding of the general Wikipedia policy on this type of thing is that, if there is evidence strongly suggesting that a relationship has taken place, as long as it is stressed that the information is unconfirmed, it is generally acceptable. I was looking at Nicole Kidman's page just earlier, and that contained information of Kidman's rumoured relationships between her marriages to Tom Cruise and Keith Urban - none of have ever been confirmed, but they were nevertheless included, with a note stressing that they were unconfirmed. Therefore, I can't see why the same shouldn't happen here.

For now, I will not re-add the information to the page, but I am genuinely interested to here your further thoughts on this, Escape Orbit (and anyone else). Musiclover565 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The information may be notable and may have been rumoured, and may even be fact, but unfortunately we can't tell, as we have no cites to establish anything. It's simply not enough for you to "believe" it to be notable, Wikipedia requires evidence that it is notable. If you note on the Nicole Kidman's page the information is cited. It also demonstrates how rumours about relationships can be both contentious and actionable. This is why Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this;

• "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."
• "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced"

Unless you can provide good solid references for this information it should not be on the page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight

There is simply NO WAY that an 1.88m woman as athletic and muscular as Sharapova could weigh anything even near 59kg! She would be 70kg absolute minimum. I don't mean to dispute the validity of the source but - it is just not possible! 58.178.8.108 (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem unlikely she weighs so little. But until we have a source that says this we can't add it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I added pronunciation. I hear Sharapova so often mispronounced as SharapOva, so I thought I need to make people aware - its' "SharApova". If you want rephrase it, it's OK with me.--Atitarev (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous extent of citations needed

The extent that people have been demanding citations recently has been ridiculous. For instance, in the 2008 section, the fact that she has been seeded lower than at any Grand Slam since 2004 has been marked as needing a citation. Why? It is a simple fact. In any case, what citation could possibly be found? Unless it is suggested we cite every single list of Grand Slam seedings since 2004? Citations are only really needed for more obscure facts or events, which aren't generally in the public domain; the quotations list and certain aspects of her personal life, for example. Events in the common knowledge (amongst the tennis analysts' community) do not need citations - unless every single result she's ever achieved should be cited? I also dispute the notice at the top of the article saying it is like a magazine article; how is it? I think it generally uses very unbiased, balanced tones. It is much more balanced than many other tennis articles, and in my opinion, by far one of the best organised of the tennis articles. Terms like "blasted through" instead of "defeated" for example does not make it unencyclopaedic; encyclopaedic does not necessarily mean it has to be a completely soulless article. More colourful language can be used to illustrate her play at a certain time. 172.143.183.232 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with your version of Sharapova's 2008 year?

Let's count your unsourced POV and commentary: (1) "swept through" to the quarterfinals "easily"; (2) "impressive" wins; (3) "stunned" world number one; (4) "resounding" 6-4 6-0 victory. Here is the complete text of your version: "Sharapova was the fifth seed at the Australian Open (her lowest seeding at a Grand Slam singles tournament since the 2004 U.S. Open) where she swept through to the quarterfinals easily, registering impressive wins over former world number one Lindsay Davenport (6-1 6-3) and 11th seed Elena Dementieva (6-2 6-0) en route. In the quarterfinals, she stunned world number one Justine Henin with a resounding 6-4 6-0 victory, ending Henin's 32-match winning streak, before defeating an injured Jelena Jankovic 6-3 6-1 to reach her second consecutive Australian Open final and fourth career Grand Slam final. She will play Ana Ivanovic for the title."

My version deletes the POV and commentary, deletes nonnotable information, preserves citations that previous editors had diligently added, reasonably requests a citation to support the "lowest seeding" assertion, and adds appropriate commas in match scores. No question that my version is more encyclopedic. Here it is: "Sharapova was the fifth seed at the Australian Open, which was her lowest seeding at a Grand Slam singles tournament since the 2004 U.S. Open. On the way to the quarterfinals, Sharapova defeated Lindsay Davenport in the second round and Elena Dementieva in the fourth round. In the quarterfinals, Sharapova defeated World No. 1 Justine Henin 6-4, 6-0, snapping Henin's 32-match winning streak. Sharapova then won her third consecutive Grand Slam semifinal and reached her second consecutive Australian Open final when she defeated an injured Jelena Jankovic 6-3, 6-1. She is scheduled to play Ana Ivanovic in the final." Tennis expert (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that while your edits may have the best of intentions, they are consistently un-encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and your edits frequently use emotive and hyperbolic terms. It is not for you to say whether her victories were "impressive". Either quote the score and let the reader decide, or cite a good reference that says it. If she "stunned" her opponent then let us see a cited quote from her saying "I'm stunned". Otherwise it's either your opinion, or you are a mind-reader, or (more likely) you are inappropriately spicing up your copy with "tabloidese".

While it might be considered over-kill to cite every result, the manner of the win, analysis of the play and reporting of what the players' inner-most thoughts are most certainly do need to be cited. It's unfortunate that you feel this makes the article "soulless", but that's how encyclopaedias are. They are not biographies and they are not magazines.

You've submitted some good stuff here, so please don't stop. But you need to use the correct tone.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks both of you for your comments.

My view, and I believe this is in line with Wikipedia's general policy on sportspeople's articles, is that some context should be provided; if a player is playing impressively (and it is near-indisputable that Sharapova is currently doing so; even the BBC, about as neutral a news organisation as you're ever going to get, appreciates this) then I believe that should be conveyed, just like if she is playing poorly, it should also be conveyed (as in the case of the US Open 2007). Many other tennis articles conduct this. Saying she got to the QF's easily is acceptable, because, by the scorelines, she clearly do it easily; this is not even personal judgement of her performance in each match, it is just simply the facts. Similarly, I believe the use of "stunned" is appropriate; Henin was expected to win, but Sharapova instead registered a comprehensive win. If you want, I could find a citation stating before the match that Henin was favourite?

Finally, thank you Escape Orbit for your compliment, but I stand by that generally, I've used an appropriate tone. 172.143.183.232 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing is "simply the facts" or "near-indisputable" unless you cite it. If the BBC appreciates that Sharapova is playing impressively then cite them. You'll note that no-one has disagreed with the content of what you've said (even when it has been a matter of opinion), its the way you say it and the lack of cites that's the problem. If your edits were to be taken as acceptable then we'd also have to have to accept contributions from someone describing her wins as "lucky" or "unsporting". Without cites they'd be just as valid as what you're saying. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 2006 information

User 172.143.183.232 seems to revert virtually every edit I make to the Sharapova article. So, I am proposing a revision of the 2006 information here in case anyone is interested.

At the Australian Open, Sharapova lost in the semifinals to Justine Henin 4-6, 6-1, 6-4, the only match of the year that Sharapova lost after winning the first set.

Sharapova claimed her first title of 2006 and eleventh of her career at the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California. She defeated fourth-seeded Elena Dementieva in the final 6-1, 6-2.

Sharapova then lost in the final of the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open to Svetlana Kuznetsova.

Sharapova participated at the French Open without having played any of the clay court tune-ups because of injury. After saving three match points in the first round against Mashona Washington, Sharapova was eliminated in the fourth round by Dinara Safina 7-5, 2-6, 7-5, after Sharapova led 5-1 in the third set. Sharapova lost 18 of the match's last 21 points.

Sharapova then started the grass court season but failed to add a third successive Birmingham title to her collection, losing in the semifinals to American Jamea Jackson. At Wimbledon, Sharapova was defeated in the semifinals for the second consecutive year, losing to eventual winner and World No. 1 Amélie Mauresmo 6-3, 3-6, 6-2.

Sharapova claimed her second title of 2006 at the Tier I Acura Classic in San Diego, defeating top-seeded Kim Clijsters 7-5, 7-5. This was Sharapova's first victory over Clijsters in five meetings. She then played in Los Angeles, losing to Dementieva in the semifinals. This was Sharapova's only summer hardcourt loss of the year.

Sharapova was the third-seed at the U.S. Open. She defeated Tatiana Golovin 7-6, 7-6 in the quarterfinals before defeating Mauresmo in a semifinal 6-0, 4-6, 6-0. Sharapova then prevailed over second-ranked Henin in the final 6-4, 6-4 to win her second Grand Slam singles title, having dropped just one set en route and joining the list of eight players who had beaten the top two players in the world to win a Grand Slam singles title.

Sharapova then won two tournaments in consecutive weeks. At the Tier I Zurich Open, Sharapova defeated Daniela Hantuchová in the final. At the Generali Ladies Linz, Sharapova beat fellow Russian and defending champion Nadia Petrova to take her fifth title of 2006 and the 15th title of her career.

Until her loss in the semifinals of the WTA Tour Championships to Henin, Sharapova had won 19 consecutive matches. She finished the year at World No. 2 and, for the second year, as the top Russian player. During the year, she compiled a 59-9 record and won five titles (second only to Henin's six), including three Tier I titles, more than any other player.

Tennis expert (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 2005 information

User 172.143.183.232 seems to revert virtually every edit I make to the Sharapova article, in violation of WP:OWN in my opinion (he says that my edits are "rude" to him). Anyway, I am proposing a revision of the 2005 information here in case anyone is interested.

Sharapova started the year by reaching the semifinals of the Australian Open, where she lost to eventual champion Serena Williams 2-6, 7-5, 8-6, despite holding three match points.

In February, Sharapova won her first Tier 1 event in Tokyo. Three weeks later, she won the tournament in Doha. To complete the spring hard court season, Sharapova reached the semifinals of the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California and the final of the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida.

Sharapova participated in two of the clay court tune-ups for the French Open. She lost in the quarterfinals of the Qatar Telecom German Open in Berlin to Justine Henin and the semifinals of the Italian Open in Rome to Patty Schnyder. At the French Open, Sharapova lost in the quarterfinals for the second consecutive year, falling to Henin, the eventual champion.

On grass, Sharapova successfully defended her Birmingham title, defeating Jelena Janković in the final to extend her winning streak on grass to 19 matches. She then was unsuccessful in defending her Wimbledon title. She reached the semifinals without losing a set, where she lost to Venus Williams, the eventual champion.

Lindsay Davenport injured her back in the Wimbledon final, preventing her from defending the ranking points she obtained during the U.S. hard-court season of 2004. Sharapova had fewer points to defend and therefore rose to the World No. 1 ranking on August 22, 2005. She was the first Russian woman to hold the position. Her reign lasted only one week, however, as Davenport re-ascended to the top ranking after winning the title in New Haven.

At the U.S. Open, Sharapova lost in the semifinals to eventual champion Kim Clijsters. Sharapova lost to the eventual champion in all four Grand Slam events of 2005. Nevertheless, the points she accumulated at the U.S. Open meant that she once again leapfrogged Davenport to take the World No. 1 ranking on September 12, 2005. She kept that ranking for six weeks before relinquishing it again to Davenport following the Zurich Open.

Sharapova failed to defend her title at the season-ending WTA Tour Championships, losing in the semifinals to eventual champion Amelie Mauresmo.

Sharapova finished the year ranked World No. 4 again and as the top-ranked Russian for the first time. She won three titles during the year and was the only player in 2005 to reach three Grand Slam semifinals.

Tennis expert (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 2001-2004 information

User 172.143.183.232 seems to revert virtually every edit I make to the Sharapova article, in violation of WP:OWN in my opinion (he says that my edits are "rude" to him). Anyway, I am proposing a revision of the 2001-2004 information here in case anyone is interested.

===2001-2003: Early promise===

Sharapova turned professional in 2001, although she played a total of just two WTA tournaments in 2001 and 2002 plus six challenger events. She started playing tour events full-time in 2003. She won three qualifying matches at both the Australian Open and the French Open to reach the main draw, although she lost in the first round in both events. She received a wild card into the main draw at Wimbledon, losing in the fourth round to compatriot Svetlana Kuznetsova 6-1, 2-6, 7-5 after defeating the 21st seed and the 11th seed in the second and third rounds, respectively. Sharapova then lost in the second round of the U.S. Open to Emilie Loit.

In October, Sharapova won her first title at the Tier III tournament in Tokyo and then won her second Tier III tournament four weeks later in Quebec City. She finished the year at World No. 32 and was named the WTA Newcomer of the Year.

===2004: Breakthrough year===

Sharapova started the year by reaching the third round of the Australian Open, where she lost to seventh-seeded Anastasia Myskina 6-4, 1-6, 6-2. The week after the Australian Open, Sharapova lost in the second round of the Tier I Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo to Daniela Hantuchova. She then returned to the United States for three hard court tournaments, reaching the semifinals in Memphis, the fourth round at the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California, and the fourth round of the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida.

During the spring clay court season leading up to the French Open, Sharapova lost in the third round at both Berlin and Rome, which were both Tier I events. At the French Open, Sharapova reached the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam singles tournament for the first time in her career, losing to Paola Suarez 6-1, 6-3.

The tour then switched to grass courts in the lead up to Wimbledon. In Birmingham, Sharapova defeated Tatiana Golovin to win the title.

The 17-year-old Sharapova went into Wimbledon as the thirteenth seed. She reached her second consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal, where she defeated Ai Sugiyama 5-7, 7-5, 6-1, and then upset fifth-seeded and former World No. 1 Lindsay Davenport in the semifinals 2-6, 7-6, 6-1. She then faced two-time defending champion Serena Williams in the final, with Williams the heavy favorite. Sharapova, however, caused one of the biggest upsets in Wimbledon history by beating Williams 6-1, 6-4, to become the third-youngest Wimbledon women's champion (after Lottie Dod and Martina Hingis) and second-youngest in the open era. She was the first Russian to win the tournament and was, at the time, the lowest seed to win the women's event. (Venus Williams was seeded lower when she won the tournament subsequently in 2005 and 2007.)

During the North American summer hard court season leading up to the U.S. Open, Sharapova played three tournaments. She lost to Myskina in the quarterfinals of the Tier I tournament in San Diego. She lost to Vera Zvonareva in the third round of the Tier I tournament in Montreal. And she lost in the second round of the tournament in New Haven.

At the U.S. Open, Sharapova lost to French player and two-time Grand Slam champion Mary Pierce in the third round 4-6, 6-2, 6-3. During the tournament, Sharapova and several other Russian women tennis players wore a black ribbon in observance of the tragedy after the Beslan school hostage crisis, which took place only a few days before.

Sharapova then played three tournaments in Asia. She lost to Svetlana Kuznetsova in the semifinals of the China Open in Beijing. During the next two weeks, Sharapova won the Tier IV tournament in Seoul, South Korea and successfully defended her Tokyo title.

Before returning to the United States, Sharapova reached her first Tier I final in Zurich, losing to Alicia Molik. At the Tier II tournament in Philadelphia, Sharapova reached the semifinals before defaulting her match to Amelie Mauresmo. Sharapova then ended the year by winning the WTA Tour Championships. She defeated an injured Serena Williams in the final after being down 4-0 in the final set. After losing to Sharapova in a semifinal of this event, Myskina said: "He [Sharapova's father] was just yelling and screaming instructions to her and I thought he just might jump right on the court at one point in the match."

Sharapova finished 2004 ranked World No. 4 and was the second-ranked Russian (behind Myskina). She won five titles during the year, trailing only Davenport's seven and equaling Justine Henin's total. Sharapova also topped the prize winnings list for the year.

Tennis expert (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Wins information

I think that the table should say how old she was when she won her grand slams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.16.116 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Length of Article

It is my opinion that the article even in as it is is already too long, let alone adding additional material. As she is only 20, Sharapova presumably has many years of her career left, yet already, the article is very long (one of the longest articles I visit regularly) so God knows how long it will be a few years down the line. An article of this length is simply not appealing to people, and a lot of the information is in truth unnecessary. It also means that no context is provided to spectacular successes; the way all results are included makes a third round loss at a tournament in (for example) Moscow look as significant as winning Wimbledon. My proposal is that we retain 2003-2005 as it is, and move 2006/2007/2008 more towards the format for Roger Federer's page; a more "compact" version, stating Grand Slam results, other tournament wins, and any other results that are truly significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover565 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of doing a drive-by revert multiple times, why don't you EDIT the article to delete the exact information that you believe is unnecessary. By the way, this article is well-within Wikipedia article length guidelines and it is no where near one of the longest articles on Wikipedia. But if length becomes a problem in the future, we can deal with it appropriately at that time. Tennis expert (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have actually consulted other editors of the page before pressing ahead with your overhaul of the article. You may consider what I'm doing vandalism; I personally consider it unreasonable for you to completely rewrite the article without consulting the other regular editors of the page, and truth be told, rather ill-mannered to completely disregard the hard work that other people (myself included) have put in, without even pointing out valid flaws (feel free to point out how you think it is flawed at this time, because I see no flaws). You may consider the length of your proposed edit reasonable, but I do not, and neither of our opinions take precedence over the other. Therefore, I suggest we wait for others' opinions on the best course of action, and in the meantime, maintain the article which most of the regular editors have agreed is suitable for many months now, in line with common etiquette. Musiclover565 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither you nor I own the article, so I don't understand the "etiquette" or "ill-mannered" arguments. Have you actually looked at my edits? Far from being "suitable" (your words), the article was full of problems. I've deleted the huge amounts of unsourced opinion and match commentary that previous editors, perhaps including yourself, inserted and that caused the "magazine-style" tag to be attached to the article. I made numerous factual corrections to the article. For example, look at the 2001 information and compare it to the previous erroneous assertion that Sharapova turned professional in 2002. I balanced the article with representative results from throughout each year. It should not be your objective to just highlight her "spectacular successes" (your words). If you want context, add it. If you want to delete material, delete it. But your reversions are throwing out the huge amounts of good that my edits have done. By the way, I gave advance warning of those edits on this very discussion page. Sorry you apparently missed it. Have you actually calculated how much longer my edits made the article? On balance, the additional length is hardly significant (less than 5 percent). Finally, have a look at WP:BOLD. Tennis expert (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC), updated by Tennis expert (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC), updated again by Tennis expert (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If neither you or I own the article, then how can you object to me reverting your edits? I am merely what you did when you rewrote such a huge part of the article, so how you can find fault in my actions bewilders me. You are also yet to point out a substantial amount of flaws in the article. You say there is unsourced opinion and match commentary - show me some? You say there are numerous factual errors - where? The error re: when she turned professional has now been corrected, so please, correct any other errors you see, but please do not do such a complete overhaul until others have agreed.

You say you gave advance warning. I check this page fairly regularly, and I had not seen your proposed edits until they actually appeared on the page. And indeed, by the look of it, no-one else had green-lighted your proposed edits before you pressed ahead with them. I'm guessing you gave warning of about a few hours at most? Which simply isn't enough time.

The fact your edits only add 5% to the article is not the point. I believe it to already be too long, and therefore, I believe 2006/2007 should be downsized, let alone adding more material. I'll repeat what I said before: neither of our opinions take precedence over the other, and therefore, we should wait for others' opinions. Musiclover565 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts; Yes the article is too long, so Musiclover565 has a point. We don't need a complete break-down of every tournament and every result, there are tables on the page that show that information, if necessary, far more concisely than prose. However, I personally prefer Tennis expert text, as it's cleaner and more encyclopaedic. This is probably as much because it's a re-write and hasn't been mucked about by multiple editors as the existing text. So, what I'm saying your are both right. So please come to a compromise. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, guys, please stop reverting each other's edits. Musiclover565 has already violated the 3RR rule. Just keep it on the talk page please. BanRay 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving this article because there apparently is overwhelming consensus to keep the article as it was before I revised it. I can't keep reverting it by myself to counteract the excessive reversions by Musiclover565 and by, I assume, his anonymous IP account. But just for the sake of argument, let's count the unsourced POV in this version of the article: (1) "excellent double-handed backhand" (2) "good forehand" (3) "excels on the fast-playing grass and hard courts" (4) "among the strongest of defensive players" (5) "not a natural volleyer" (6) "powerful 'swinging' volley" (7) "very difficult for her opponents" (8) "incredible strain on her shoulder" (9) "one of the most accurate double-handed backhand shots" (10) "She finished a very successful first full year" (11) "Williams the runaway favorite" (12) "one of the biggest upsets in Wimbledon history" (13) "Sharapova continued her successful season" (14) "success in Doha" (15) "well beaten by a rejuvenated Venus Williams" (16) "Sharapova welcomed the onset of the grass season" (17) "many believe that this win was the turnaround for this season" (18) "Favored to reach the final" (19) "struggled past Tatiana Golovin" (20) "overpowered an injured Sharapova" (21) "Sharapova then achieved disappointing results" (22) "decimated the effectiveness of her serve" (23) "she was crushed by Serena Williams for the second successive time with a lopsided scoreline" (24) "up-and-comer Ana Ivanović" (25) "progressed to the final relatively easily" (26) "more favorable bottom half of the draw" (27) "was tipped to at least reach the final" (28) "raced through her first two matches" (29) "poor serving and a host of unforced errors" (30) "Her performance at the tournament was considered an excellent end to a modest season overall" (31) "as one of the favourites to take the title after her strong end-of-season showing." Aside from the POV, there is a ton of unencylopedic, awkward, and inconsistent wording in the article. I worked hard to make this article deserving of Wikipedia, to no avail - see this version. Tennis expert (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no, your version is much better and everyone seems to agree on that. I might also request an IP check on Musiclover. Please restore your version, but don't forget to include all the constructive edits made sinceyour last revision. Meanwhile I will try to get the page protected. BanRay 10:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I've said before, I believe the article should be shorter, and therefore, I've "compacted" all the sections. Of course, as common manners dictates, I would've ordinarily put my proposed edits on the discussion page for approval first, but if the common policy on here is just to rewrite without consulting everyone else, then...

Tennis expert - please do not mindlessly revert my edits. I suggest you take your own advice, and edit certain parts which you feel need editing, but don't revert the whole thing. Musiclover565 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just things for the record; Ban Ray - how does "everyone seem to agree" Tennis expert's version is better? The only person to have given their opinion is Escape Orbit, who was pretty neutral overall.

Tennis expert - re: the number of POV comments you cited from the Playing style section - a section on Playing style is invariably going to be an analytical piece, containing widely agreed opinions (it would be different to say "Sharapova has the best serve in the history of tennis"; to say her best surfaces are hard and grass is fine because the results clearly show this). If you think you can write a 100% neutral Playing style section, feel free, because I'd imagine it would be incredibly difficult.

Furthermore, the majority of the other "POV comments" you cited, are NOT POV. To say she was widely tipped to reach the final isn't POV if she was. Neither is it POV to say she won her first two matches easily, if the scorelines were 6-0 6-1. It might be a different story if I wrote for, say, the Radwankska loss, "Sharapova lost because she was playing poorly. It is widely agreed that if Sharapova was playing her best, she would have won easily." Musiclover565 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still don't seem to understand the problem with your text, Musiclover565. Please let me spell it out (I'm not trying to insult you here, I just want to make it clear). It is POV to say "she was widely tipped to reach the final" if you can not or do not provide a reputable cite that says exactly this. Why? Because all we have is your word on it. It could just as easily be your opinion and not fact at all. How is the reader to know? Maybe only a few people thought she would reach the final. Maybe those people were highly biased or unqualified to have any opinion worth reporting. Who knows? We have no reputable cite to guide us. It doesn't matter if you are 100% right, and it doesn't matter if everyone here agrees with you; it is an opinion that hints vaguely about being supported by a wider authority, but can't produce it. The reader deserves better than this.

You can also take all of the above as an argument about what's wrong with an analysis of playing style "containing widely agreed opinions". Agreed by who? Again we have a mass of experts whose views you claim to be representing, but are unreferenced and unnamed. Perhaps they don't exist? Who knows? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but my opinion and analysis is as irrelevant as yours without cites.

It is also POV to say "she won her first two matches easily" without a reputable cite. No matter what the score. Maybe she scrapped through every match after a dozen dueces. Maybe she should have won far more easily. Maybe it was a stroll in the park for her. We don't know, and it's not for you to say. Without a full match report by a qualified person to cite, you are far better to report the score and let the facts speak for themselves.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, have you seen the new edits I was putting in today (which BanRay has been reverting, because apparently, I should wait for others' approval before doing so... despite Tennis expert not asking for others' opinions before going ahead with his more radical edits a few weeks ago... figure that one out)? Even though I disagree with things like "widely agreed to reach the final" being POV, I've largely removed most of those in line with others' concensus. I just looked again, and the only one left I can really see is one about the 2007 US Open, which I would remove if BanRay agrees to permit my edits.

Like I said earlier, I kind of agree that Playing style is pretty POV, but again, there's not really any way you can make that type of section unanalytical (it's probably more balanced than most other similar sections on other tennis articles). 92.3.230.33 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (Musiclover565) - (my computer keeps logging me out for some reason)

the otehr version is so much cleaner and more relevant - who cares about a 3rd round result in rome in 2004 ffs?! i suppose banray will accuse me of being musickliover565 aswell?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.236.104 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If one doesn't care about accuracy, clear and encyclopedic writing, impartiality, and grammar, then, yeah, the "otehr" version is better. Who cares about a 3rd round result in "rome" in 2004 or that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia instead of a sports magazine when what's really important is making the article flashy and hip? Ugh. Tennis expert (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:BanRay's reason for reverting an earlier edit by someone else - it's not Wikipedia policy to wait for concenusus, and I'm pretty sure you know it. And if it is, then I think Tennis expert broke it several weeks ago by rewriting the Career section, no?

Tennis expert - please say WHY the current version is accurate/unencyclopaedic/etc. Just because it's not your work doesn't make it bad. Remember we're all just trying to improve the article. Masha4ever (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Quit trolling and being disruptive. This already has been discussed. You got banned earlier for these disruptive edits. Stop making them. Tennis expert (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has now been established that I did not deserve to be blocked, as the offence I was blocked for (reverting 64 edits) proved to be false. So in fact, it is you who is trolling, and I therefore propose you restore my constructive edit, unless you can give solid reasons for them not to take place. Masha4ever (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, established by whom? You were blocked for trolling, disruption and vandalism. Your edits and your WP:AN complaint have been reviewed by three administrators, apart from the blocking admin. It is wikipedia policy to wait for consensus in controversial cases, especially during an edit war, so please stop or otherwise you are well on your way to another block. BanRay 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the deal with the name

Vast majority of non-english namesget butchered to some degree in English, especially when we don't have a certain pronounciation in English(rolling "r" sound in spanish, for instance). Really is a trvial detail her name is mispronounced, so much so I doubt it needs included in her wiki at all, least of all in the intro section. Finally, the person whom a given name belongs to is the sole person who gets to decide on the exact pronounciation of their name, and she prefers the English-friendly version, making it the CORRECT version.66.190.29.150 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My original note was about the correct pronunciation. Somebody corrected, saying, it's "commonly" pronounced, I had to correct this. I still think it's worth mentioning the pronunciation but not the fact it's mispronounced. The way R's are trilled is a different matter, we are talking about syllable stress. For some reason commentators worry more about getting Spanish, French, Italian names right but not Russian --Atitarev (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think that Sharapova's wiki should be yourr, or anyone else's,for that matter, place to grind an axe that is not her own. She prefers the English-friendly version, that makes it the correct pronounciation regardless of how it is usually pronounced in Russia. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki is not yours either and it wasn't a friendly comment. The correct pronunciation is some respect to the person, it's not a trivial matter and I am not grinding any axes. The wording can be changed, no need to mention the incorrect accent. Those who respect Maria, might as well learn where to put the stress in her name, which happens with some commentators. --Atitarev (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The original statement was unsourced, when did Sharapova say this? I've removed this and said that it is simply the way it is pronounced in Russia, although that too needs a cite. Whether the English-speaker's pronunciation is "correct" or not is equally uncited, so looks like a point of view. I've removed this and just left the pronunciation as a statement of fact. The entire sentence can be removed if no-one comes up with decent cites, and it shouldn't be restored to its previous wording unless someone can produce a cite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See section "Pronunciation revisited". What kind of a source is required? The Russian page doesn't even show the pronunciation because no Russian would pronounce it different from Sharápova (Шара́пова). I also think that the demand for citations must be reasonable. I am a native speaker and I assure you Maria would agree with the accent. Having said this, I agree to your latest comment, let's wait for some citations. --Atitarev (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The older australian guy for the ESPN coverage team of the australian open said that last year shen he pronounced Sharapova's name the way it would be normally pronounced in Russia, that afterwards she told him that she now prefers the common versions that everyone knows her by today because it's easier for English speakers to say. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Prize Money

When wil someone change the prize money, it's been a week (today) that she has the extra 1.2(or 1.3) million dollars, from winning Australia and it's still at what it's been since WTA Tour Championships. Sharapova1 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So is it 1.2 or 1.3? Source please. BanRay 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rexona

Maria also stars inRexona advertisments and acts as this brand's face, pretty much like she does for SonyEricsson. Someone's got to reflect this. Netrat_msk (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sharapova Grunting at 101.2 decibels

Actually, I searched over internet and I found out all the news sites (like bbc and Reuters) news about maria sharapova's grunting at 101.2 decibels in Wimbledon 2005 relies on an unofficial "gruntometer" of London Daily mail which is a tabloid newspaper and looks like invalid. Hence, I found it more journalistic rather than scientific and I do believe it is not appropriate as a statement in an encyclopedia like wikipedia. Indeed, it is technically difficult to measure the sound power in an offline manner (after the game is done and through the recorded tape which depends on the amplification value of recording). Therefore, I deleted the corresponding sentence from the article. Blacksosis (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)