*Official* Tennis Thread

[Niall]

why not? they are all contenders to ultimately face and lose a match against djokovic...federer did better than i thought he would...however he has to serve way better than he has so far to remain competitive next week...

Novak still has to handle clay courter extraordinare Garin and the red hot Rublev before a semi final, still a lot of work for him to do to get to a final.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This year is the last time all Last 16 matches will be on the same day on Monday. Usually it's a 4/2 split of Mens/Ladies matches on the two main courts, but this year it's 3/3.

 

[Shady Slim]

Balance/Parity is the politically correct word for mediocrity…for mine, I am looking for a few dominant champions to emerge from this jumbled mess to elevate the sport just like in the men’s game…my hopes are on a revitalized Osaka, Swiatek and Gauff…

au contraire to me it makes the sport a lot more watchable than the men’s game

it means that the first four rounds in a major aren’t just grist for the mill when it comes to the big three like they are in the men’s game - i’d hate to see the women’s game develop such a dominant big three like the men’s game has, it sucks the life out of competition! inevitability is the worst thing for a sport, it’s why i hate watching steve smith bat on australian soil against sri lanka. he’s going to score 100, you know that he’s going to score 100, nobody’s going to stop him - there is no thrill, avarice, fun, when watching the unfolding of a mere inevitability

 

[Anil]

Novak still has to handle clay courter extraordinare Garin and the red hot Rublev before a semi final, still a lot of work for him to do to get to a final.

of course i wasn't suggesting he would be getting 4 walkovers to the title...he will have to beat 4 more opponents, it's just inevitable that he will...

 

[Anil]

au contraire to me it makes the sport a lot more watchable than the men’s game

it means that the first four rounds in a major aren’t just grist for the mill when it comes to the big three like they are in the men’s game - i’d hate to see the women’s game develop such a dominant big three like the men’s game has, it sucks the life out of competition! inevitability is the worst thing for a sport, it’s why i hate watching steve smith bat on australian soil against sri lanka. he’s going to score 100, you know that he’s going to score 100, nobody’s going to stop him - there is no thrill, avarice, fun, when watching the unfolding of a mere inevitability

the thrill is in watching a great exponent demonstrate his/her sublime skill, whether in a grand duel with a worthy rival or crushing an inferior opponent, not a bunch of mediocrities engaging in error-ridden scraps which are supposedly worth watching for the "drama" and the "suspense"...

 

[Shady Slim]

the thrill is in watching a great exponent demonstrate his/her sublime skill, whether in a grand duel with a worthy rival or crushing an inferior opponent, not a bunch of mediocrities engaging in error-ridden scraps which are supposedly worth watching for the "drama" and the "suspense"...

suppose it comes down to personal preference but i don't find that at all tbh - even in the most brilliant of rivalries, when it's the same three blokes involved in the rivalry for a decade it becomes tiresome (as to your first remark), and i don't find thrashings all that fun at all tbh (as to the second); again, while it's all personal preference surely you can't tell me the 27th death march of nadal to the final in france is as fulfilling as aslan karatsev's buzzsaw run a couple of months back?

would argue as well it's a bit rich to call the women's finals error ridden scraps of a bunch of mediocrities given they are still the cream of the tour hehe

 

[Anil]

suppose it comes down to personal preference but i don't find that at all tbh - even in the most brilliant of rivalries, when it's the same three blokes involved in the rivalry for a decade it becomes tiresome (as to your first remark), and i don't find thrashings all that fun at all tbh (as to the second); again, while it's all personal preference surely you can't tell me the 27th death march of nadal to the final in france is as fulfilling as aslan karatsev's buzzsaw run a couple of months back?

would argue as well it's a bit rich to call the women's finals error ridden scraps of a bunch of mediocrities given they are still the cream of the tour hehe

hey i am all for the next gen like karatsev to step up and claim the spotlight but the fact that they haven't been good enough just illustrates how great those three are...karatsev's "buzzsaw run" hasn't translated into anything significant at the big tournaments, has it?

also if you are calling krejcikova and pavlyuchenkova the cream of the tour (thankfully they are not), then the women's tour automatically has a serious problem...

 

[grecian]

hey i am all for the next gen like karatsev to step up and claim the spotlight but the fact that they haven't been good enough just illustrates how great those three are...karatsev's "buzzsaw run" hasn't translated into anything significant at the big tournaments, has it?

also if you are calling krejcikova and pavlyuchenkova the cream of the tour (thankfully they are not), then the women's tour automatically has a serious problem...

Or it highlights that Karetsev and their ilk aren't very good. Look in this Tournament we're not looking at big 3, we're looking at an odds on fave from the start winning, at the French admittedly the semi was good, other than that it's just a procession.

Pavlyuchenko is one of the most talented players on tour, multiple title winner, great striker of the ball. Krejcikova, was a shock admittedly and do fear she'll be a one-slam wonder at 25, still 2 years younger than Thiem who has really backed up that asterisked win at the USOpen hasn't he? and of course 7 years younger than the next youngest Male slam winner, so she has scope to improve.

Anyway this is why the WTA rocks

 

[Anil]

Or it highlights that Karetsev and their ilk aren't very good. Look in this Tournament we're not looking at big 3, we're looking at an odds on fave from the start winning, at the French admittedly the semi was good, other than that it's just a procession.

agreed with that...so why would you want a whole bunch of not so good players vying for the biggest titles in the game in the name of "balance" when there are better, in this case significantly better players around?

Pavlyuchenko is one of the most talented players on tour, multiple title winner, great striker of the ball. Krejcikova, was a shock admittedly and do fear she'll be a one-slam wonder at 25, still 2 years younger than Thiem who has really backed up that asterisked win at the USOpen hasn't he? and of course 7 years younger than the next youngest Male slam winner, so she has scope to improve.

i know anastasia was considered a rising star when she initially started on the tour but she clearly didn't get to where people predicted she would and at this point she is well past her best...

regarding thiem, yes he hasn't backed up that u.s open win and until djokovic and/or nadal retire, it is very unlikely that he will...and this "balance" that shady loves where any random mary, elizabeth or victoria can win a major on any given fortnight...as i mentioned in the earlier post, it makes for "drama" and "suspense" but not quality, greatness, taking the sport to a level not seen before etc...i just don't think that's good for the game...

Anyway this is why the WTA rocks

agreed, that was awesome...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I read an article this morning by Sue Barker where she predicts that Coco Gauff will break Margaret Court's record of 24 Grand Slams. It's highly improbable, but it suddenly occurred to me that if she does Sue Barker, or I, might not live long enough to see it.

 

[wpdavid]

I read an article this morning by Sue Barker where she predicts that Coco Gauff will break Margaret Court's record of 24 Grand Slams. It's highly improbable, but it suddenly occurred to me that if she does Sue Barker, or I, might not live long enough to see it.

Now there's a depressing thought for you and me both. I think it's unlikely though. If players as dominant as Navratilova, Graff and Williams couldn't overtake Court, then it's going to take one heck of a player to do that. Maybe it depends on whether they play doubles and mixed doubles if those are included in the grand slams.

 

[StephenZA]

Now there's a depressing thought for you and me both. I think it's unlikely though. If players as dominant as Navratilova, Graff and Williams couldn't overtake Court, then it's going to take one heck of a player to do that. Maybe it depends on whether they play doubles and mixed doubles if those are included in the grand slams.

Court has 24 singles titles and another 40 mixed and doubles titles!

 

[wpdavid]

Court has 24 singles titles and another 40 mixed and doubles titles!

That's extraordinary, especially when you consider that she was competing with Billie-Jean King in the latter part of her career. My only memory of Court was her losing the Wimbledon final to Goolagong in 1971, and I'm not sure that she came back to SW19 after that. I suppose Navratilova was better placed than most to overtake Court's record of 24 grand slam single titles, whereas Graff, iirc, called it a day to get married and have kids.

 

[StephenZA]

That's extraordinary, especially when you consider that she was competing with Billie-Jean King in the latter part of her career. My only memory of Court was her losing the Wimbledon final to Goolagong in 1971, and I'm not sure that she came back to SW19 after that. I suppose Navratilova was better placed than most to overtake Court's record of 24 grand slam single titles, whereas Graff, iirc, called it a day to get married and have kids.

It an unbelievable number. I doubt it will ever be beaten in the woman's game.

 

[Shady Slim]

in spite of everything i said about balance earlier i'd love to see court's record broken because though i hate competitive imbalance if there's one thing that i hate more it's bigots tbqh

can't say enough about how good an athlete she was of course, bradmanesque numbers for the era but jeeeeez there are few more hateful people

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Navratilova was never likely to beat Court's record. 11 of Court's 24 were in Australia where not all the top players played, and three of the four Grand Slams were on grass. Half of Navratilova's 18 were at Wimbledon on the then fast grass. Her record on clay is quite modest and she wasn't that dominant on hard courts either. Serena has had the best chance, but well beaten in Finals by Kerber and Haleb at Wimbledon. I'd be surprised if she makes another final of a Grand Slam.

 

[wpdavid]

in spite of everything i said about balance earlier i'd love to see court's record broken because though i hate competitive imbalance if there's one thing that i hate more it's bigots tbqh

can't say enough about how good an athlete she was of course, bradmanesque numbers for the era but jeeeeez there are few more hateful people

Yes, it would have been nice to see Navratilova beat her record for that very reason. I just checked her figures on Wiki. Eleven titles in Australia is ridiculous, isn't it.

 

[wpdavid]

Navratilova was never likely to beat Court's record. 11 of Court's 24 were in Australia where not all the top players played, and three of the four Grand Slams were on grass. Half of Navratilova's 18 were at Wimbledon on the then fast grass. Her record on clay is quite modest and she wasn't that dominant on hard courts either. Serena has had the best chance, but well beaten in Finals by Kerber and Haleb at Wimbledon. I'd be surprised if she makes another final of a Grand Slam.

Interesting stuff. Do you know why some of the top players didn't compete in the Australian Open? It's not as if they had to take a boat there in the 1960s.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Interesting stuff. Do you know why some of the top players didn't compete in the Australian Open? It's not as if they had to take a boat there in the 1960s.

It was still a very long trip out of season, especially for amateurs. A lot of the top male players were still not going there until the 80's. Borg didn't bother with it, Connors won it in his early 20's and didn't bother much after. McEnroe didn't bother either. They decided to do something about it after consecutive finals between Johan Kriek and Steve Denton. They built a whole new hard court venue. It was really starting during the Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Becker era that the field included all the top players.

 

[grecian]

It was still a very long trip out of season, especially for amateurs. A lot of the top male players were still not going there until the 80's. Borg didn't bother with it, Connors won it in his early 20's and didn't bother much after. McEnroe didn't bother either. They decided to do something about it after consecutive finals between Johan Kriek and Steve Denton. They built a whole new hard court venue. It was really starting during the Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Becker era that the field included all the top players.

Yes some of the winners on the woman side weren't brilliant either after Court, TBH, not just because she's an appalling person, I tend to disregard Courts records. Think Serena, Nike and mouldyglue made too much of beating it, Serena is already the greatest, and the Graf record of the Open era was the important one IMHO.

It wasn't just the Oz open had weakened fields, it cost money time and effort to travel continents back then.