The real Tennis thread.

[movingtarget]

Women’s tennis has been in decline for years now. Barty has the variety that not too many players have these days, but even she’s had plenty of early round exists. As I said yesterday, the fact that a player like Danielle Collins made it to a GS final is telling.

I think it's safe to say that the top 10 of women's tennis changes regularly much more so than the men, even the number one ranking was always shifting until Barty found some consistency. The women's side never had a big three either not for many years anyway and never to the extent of the men's big three. That said, barring injuries I think Barty's future looks bright at the moment.

 

[gregrowlerson]

I think it's safe to say that the top 10 of women's tennis changes regularly much more so than the men, even the number one ranking was always shifting until Barty found some consistency. The women's side never had a big three either not for many years anyway and never to the extent of the men's big three. That said, barring injuries I think Barty's future looks bright at the moment.

I've never thought this was a relevant argument in relation to the strength of a section of sport. For example, when Graf and Seles dominated, I saw this as partly due to a lack of depth in other quality players. However, the same argument can then be made about the big 3's recent dominance (with Stan and Andy taking almost the rest of the success). So it depends how you want to look at it. Did Federer dominate more than any other man from 04-07 (in the open era) because he was the GOAT? Or was it because he didn't have worthy adversaries (apart from Nadel on clay)? The latter argument always provides a strong case for Djokovic because when he started dominating he was up against prime (on all surfaces) Nadel, and at least close to prime Federer.

There is the argument that you can only beat who is there though.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Barty is an interesting character - Shows grace and humility in all circumstances - She has a limited social media presence and limits her commercial arrangements - Finally, she has a beautiful game.

Yes she does, but come on, let's be open and honest here: women are more addicted to attention than men, and that attention is more easy to satisfy if they are physically alluring. I'm not totally excusing the apparent low attention span of someone like Gene Bouchard here, but some people face far greater temptations than others, and this should always be taken into account.

Do you think that Ash Barty had greater focus on her tennis career than arguably Anna Kournikova, compared to focus on commercial success, solely by choice? Opportunity needs to be taken into consideration here.

In these regards it will be interesting to see how Radacanu copes in the coming years.

 

[BullsFan22]

Yes she does, but come on, let's be open and honest here: women are more addicted to attention than men, and that attention is more easy to satisfy if they are physically alluring. I'm not totally excusing the apparent low attention span of someone like Gene Bouchard here, but some people face far greater temptations than others, and this should always be taken into account.

Do you think that Ash Barty had greater focus on her tennis career than arguably Anna Kournikova, compared to focus on commercial success, solely by choice? Opportunity needs to be taken into consideration here.

In these regards it will be interesting to see how Radacanu copes in the coming years.

Agree, except for Nick Kyrgios, he’s an anomaly, in more ways than one. He’s definitely more addicted to attention than even some of the most attention seeking women’s tour players, and that’s saying a lot.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Agree, except for Nick Kyrgios, he’s an anomaly, in more ways than one. He’s definitely more addicted to attention than even some of the most attention seeking women’s tour players, and that’s saying a lot.

Pretty accurate.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Am I reading it right Barty had no top 10 opponents in her 3 Slam wins?

Zverev in shambles.

Forget Nibali. Just realised that we need to talk more about the Barty voodoo.

 

[movingtarget]

Yes she does, but come on, let's be open and honest here: women are more addicted to attention than men, and that attention is more easy to satisfy if they are physically alluring. I'm not totally excusing the apparent low attention span of someone like Gene Bouchard here, but some people face far greater temptations than others, and this should always be taken into account.

Do you think that Ash Barty had greater focus on her tennis career than arguably Anna Kournikova, compared to focus on commercial success, solely by choice? Opportunity needs to be taken into consideration here.

In these regards it will be interesting to see how Radacanu copes in the coming years.

Kyrgios has a future in doubles maybe..........Kournikova mentioned in relation to Barty is a tenuous comparison. She made the semi final of one grand slam singles in her entire career, Barty has three GS singles wins and hasn't even reached her peak yet. I think some of the men are just as interested in fame and self promotion as some of the women. I don't blame Kournikova for milking her image and chasing dollars but I don't think she was ever as talented as Barty either.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Kyrgios has a future in doubles maybe..........Kournikova mentioned in relation to Barty is a tenuous comparison. She made the semi final of one grand slam singles in her entire career, Barty has three GS singles wins and hasn't even reached her peak yet. I think some of the men are just as interested in fame and self promotion as some of the women. I don't blame Kournikova for milking her image and chasing dollars but I don't think she was ever as talented as Barty either.

No, I wasn't using Anna to compare to Ash in terms of tennis talent; they're not even close (look at their serves for starters). I'm just saying that most believe that Ash got more out of herself, but to me there are understandable outside influences that not everybody has to experience/come up against.

I suppose what I am saying is, for some sort of metaphor, the average person who hasn't gotten addicted to cocaine probably looks at some Hollywood stars and calls them idiots for becoming drug addicts, without even considering the additional temptations that they experience, just as a faithful average husband might curse the cheating rock star. Sure, some individuals are strong enough to resist certain temptations, but it's difficult to tell for sure without walking in another's shoes.

 

[tobydawq]

I've never thought this was a relevant argument in relation to the strength of a section of sport. For example, when Graf and Seles dominated, I saw this as partly due to a lack of depth in other quality players. However, the same argument can then be made about the big 3's recent dominance (with Stan and Andy taking almost the rest of the success). So it depends how you want to look at it. Did Federer dominate more than any other man from 04-07 (in the open era) because he was the GOAT? Or was it because he didn't have worthy adversaries (apart from Nadel on clay)? The latter argument always provides a strong case for Djokovic because when he started dominating he was up against prime (on all surfaces) Nadel, and at least close to prime Federer.

There is the argument that you can only beat who is there though.

Nadel??

 

[gregrowlerson]

Nadel??

Rafa wasn't that good on the other surfaces early on. Though by 07 he was very good on grass.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Not sure if this final is in Melbourne or Madrid!!

 

[tobydawq]

Rafa wasn't that good on the other surfaces early on. Though by 07 he was very good on grass.

But why are you spelling it like that?

 

[gregrowlerson]

But why are you spelling it like that?

I'm not talking about how good Nadel was in 1907.

 

[KZD]

Medvedev is being a shadow of the player he was against Djokovic in the US Open. His inability of breaking Nadal has been striking

 

[gregrowlerson]

Medvedev is being a shadow of the player he was against Djokovic in the US Open. His inability of breaking Nadal has been striking

More his inability to hold serve. There have been breaks galore in this final.

 

[Red Rick]

Guys I went to sleep at 2-0 in sets wtf just happened

 

[SHAD0W93]

Guys I went to sleep at 2-0 in sets wtf just happened

Never over till it’s over.

 

[gregrowlerson]

What. A. Win.

 

[tobydawq]

Nadal-Medvedev and a Grand Slam final is quite the cocktail.

Insane turn-around today.

 

[sir fly]

One just can't rely on Russians...

 

[Red Rick]

Script writers just recycling scripts from 5 years ago now smh.

 

[tobydawq]

I saw this was the first time in 15 years that Nadal came back from two sets to love!

 

[yaco]

A missed opportunity for Medvedev - Up to two sets to love and 3-2, and then having Nadal 0-40 on serve - Grand Slam's are hard to win.

 

[Red Rick]

Nadal hadn't won from 0-2 in sets since 2007. 15 years ago.

Amazing comeback from Nadal, but Medvedev should've never lost that.

 

[BullsFan22]

On one hand I think that Medvedev choked, couldn’t convert his chances midway through the third set, at 3-2 and three break points and also early in the 4th. On the other hand the crowds were once again awful. It just shows how clueless the tennis fans can be, showing no respect to Medvedev. Not even Đoković had to deal with that many boos. I hope Medvedev can recover from this mentally. He’s too good of a player to only have one GS title. He didn’t deserve to lose today.