Shocking pink, but not a shocking win for Venus Williams

Venus Williams came dressed for a cocktail party Tuesday night, and a tennis match broke out.

What a fine match it was.

There was much drama and anticipation going into this one, a women’s singles quarterfinal of the U.S. Open. Williams is a longtime star, with seven Grand Slam titles, including two in New York. She hadn’t played since Wimbledon, but even having turned 30 in June, she had shown the same old championship skills in her first four victories here.

Her opponent was a fascination, adding to the moment. Francesca Schiavone of Italy had been around for years, had rankings that threatened year-end top-10 status, but never quite made it, and would be seen as just another journeyman until May. Then, like Williams about to turn 30 a month later, she stunned tennis by winning the French Open.

Williams refers to Schiavone as “feisty.” Schiavone says she doesn’t think Williams likes to play her because: “I play different ball. I push her in defense. I don’t give her the chance to play how she wants. … Every time, we have a big fight.”

Williams counters that she likes seeing her name opposite Schiavone’s in the draw, and points to her 7-0 record in head-to-heads.

Make that 8-0.

Williams, bigger and stronger and faster, prevailed in a high-quality match, 7-6 (5), 6-4.

The key moment occurred in the tiebreaker, as is often the case. At 5-5, Schiavone, who had battled back from 4-0 and had the crowd fired up with her fist-pumps and all-out dashes on every point, floated a backhand long, then missed a forehand on set point.

“She didn’t win the point,” Schiavone said. “I missed two balls. That’s tennis.”

There will be even more fascination Friday. Williams’ semifinal opponent will be defending champion Kim Clijsters, who beat her last year and then beat her sister, Serena, in the match with the controversial foot-fault ending.

Williams’ victory was certainly a tennis statement. She also is making quite a fashion statement, one that is difficult to ignore.

She wore a pink, stretchy dress. She has several versions of it and said earlier in the week that, while she didn’t design it, it was symbolic of playing here.

“This outfit is really about New York,” she said. “It’s like a burst of fireworks. It’s a celebration of me playing my best, obviously at home, and kind of doing what I love and being able to wear something fun while I do it.”

However, one might question the fun of having to tug the dress back down to a more appropriate place after almost every point, during which the pink netting rides up.

The jury is out -- probably will remain so -- on whether this dress is good, bad or ugly. Is it appropriate for playing tennis? Are people shocked, amused, inspired or indifferent. Is this good taste, bad taste, or the absence of any?

Will somebody from the U.S. Tennis Assn. step in and give Venus a dressing down? Or will they just skirt the issue?

So many questions, so little time.

And why single out Williams for scrutiny when top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki does her share of skirt-tugging too, and men’s No. 1 Rafael Nadal is constantly tugging on his shorts?

Can’t we all just get along?

A non-scientific, non-binding, non-meaningful poll taken Tuesday by a male who can’t get his socks to match brought the following results:

One “I hate it.” One “I love it.” One “It’s something to wear to a party, not to play tennis in.” These were all female responses. Male responses were either unintelligible or unprintable, except for Calvin Klein, who refused to comment.

One thing is clear. Venus Williams is happy with, and unencumbered by, her current fashion choice. Asked directly a few days ago if it wasn’t becoming a bother to have to tug her dress down into place after each point, she said, “The only thing that was bothering me was when I didn’t win the point. That was it.”

Take that, all you Mr. Blackwells.

A former player said that the dress wasn’t “her cup of tea,” but aptly and correctly pointed out that Williams was in the semifinals, which is all that matters.

There is more than a thread of truth in that.

bill.dwyre@latimes.com