Serena Williams on the Right Track to Defend Madrid Open Title
Serena Williams breezed through Maria Kirilenko in the third round of the 2013 Madrid Open on Thursday, setting the stage for a second consecutive title at the tournament.
In the 6-3, 6-1 victory, Williams won a ridiculous 100 percent of first-serve points (19-of-19), as well as 87 percent of second-serve points (13-of-15), according to WTATennis.com.
After Thursday's victory, Williams has gone 28-2 this season, capturing three singles titles in the process. She entered the Madrid Open having won 11 straight matches, including titles at the Sony Open and in Charleston. She defeated top-five players Maria Sharapova, Agnieszka Radwanska and Li Na along the way.
Since a life-threatening injury in 2010, the 31-year-old has gone 108-9 with 12 singles titles. That includes winning Wimbledon and the U.S. Open last year. That's frankly amazing, and it speaks to Williams' tremendous heart.
To be able to bounce back from such a scary injury is impressive enough. To put up those kind of numbers, even in a watered-down women's field, is incredible. This is why she's a 15-time Grand Slam singles champion.
Will Serena Williams win the 2013 Madrid Open?
Williams will face unseeded Anabel Medina Garrigues in the quarterfinals after disposing of Kirilenko. It's hard to imagine the veteran losing that match.
If Williams defeats Garrigues, she will likely face No. 7 seed Sara Errani in the semifinals. Williams has won all four of her career matches against Errani, losing just one set in the process. That includes a straight-set victory over Errani in the semifinals of the U.S. Open last year.
If Williams defeats Errani, she would likely face No. 2 seed Maria Sharapova in the final. Williams is 12-2 lifetime against Sharapova. She's won the last 11 head-to-head matchups, including a quarterfinals clash at the Madrid Open last year.
Not only is Williams rolling in 2013, history suggests she will defend her Madrid Open title this year.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?