Tennis

[Facecloth]

[kingfox]

Barty

 

Such a boring final though, Barty had it so comfortable, shame Vondrousova never turned up, too nervous and negative.

 

Not a good advertisement for Women's tennis; however there's so many players between 17-23 that have so much potential, when these youngsters gain more experience things will get better.

[Facecloth]

Probably one for the "What grinds my gears" thread, but I hate it when pundits talk up a player as soon as they've won something, having never talked them up previously. I like Barty, she does look a decent player, but the moment she won the title, the pundits where laying it on thick with praise for every aspect of her game. I've never heard her talked about so glowingly before. She's reached one slam final and won one slam final at 23, if she was that amazing she'd have more. They did it with Ostapenko a couple of years back, and she's fell of the face of the earth. I remember Judd Trump reaching the World Snooker final back in 2011, where we were told he'd definitely win numerous Worlds over the next few years, when in reality O'Sullivan and Selby dominated and he didn't get near again for 7 years.

 

Don't get me wrong I think Barty is a very good tennis player, I think Trump is a very talented snooker player, but the pundits don't half go over the top. No doubt win or lose, we'll be hearing how Thiem is set to dominate men's tennis over the next few years, just like they told us Dimitrov would when he started going deep into Slams, and Zverev would, and I could go on and on. Pundits just need to chiil out a bit and stop making outlandish claims because nine times out of ten they end up with egg on their faces.

Edited 8 June 2019 by Facecloth

[kingfox]

23 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Probably one for the "What grinds my gears" thread, but I hate it whay pundits talk up a player as soon as they've won something, having never talked them up previously. I like Barty, she does look a decent player, but the moment she won the title, the pundits where laying it on thick with praise for every aspect of her game. I've never heard her talked about so glowingly before. She's reached one slam final and won one slam final at 23, if she was that amazing she'd have more. They did it with Ostapenko a couple of years back, and she's fell of the face of the earth. I remember Judd Trump reaching the World Snooker final back in 2011, where we were told he'd definitely win numerous Worlds over the next few years, when in reality O'Sullivan and Selby dominated and he didn't get near again for 7 years.

 

Don't get me wrong I think Barty is a very good tennis player, I think Trump is a very talented snooker player, but the pundits don't half go over the top. No doubt win or lose, we'll be hearing how Thiem is set to dominate men's tennis over the next few years, just like they told us Dimitrov would when he started going deep into Slams, and Zverev would, and I could go on and on. Pundits just need to chiil out a bit and stop making outlandish claims because nine times out of ten they end up with egg on their faces.

In Barty's case though many pundits(especially the Australians) have known about her potential for years, pundits have talked her up recently because she thoroughly deserves the recognition. Her game style is something you don't see very often nowadays, she's in a different class.

 

Barty has had a terrific season, now number 2 in the World, has one of the best win/loss records this season, Miami Open champion, has beaten the likes of Halep, Kvitova, Bertens and Pliskova over the past few months.

 

This is a girl who dropped off the tour to play Cricket, she decided to return, three years later she's a Grand Slam champion. Her progress has been a steady rise but many have known about her capabilities, it's not like she came out of nowhere like Jelena Ostapenko.

 

She has the game to be an elite player for the next 5-10 years, now she's a slam champion, it's all down to her mentality now.

[Facecloth]

4 minutes ago, kingfox said:

In Barty's case though many pundits(especially the Australians) have known about her potential for years, pundits have talked her up recently because she thoroughly deserves the recognition. Her game style is something you don't see very often nowadays, she's in a different class.

 

Barty has had a terrific season, now number 2 in the World, has one of the best win/loss records this season, Miami Open champion, has beaten the likes of Halep, Kvitova, Bertens and Pliskova over the past few months.

 

This is a girl who dropped off the tour to play Cricket, she decided to return, three years later she's a Grand Slam champion. Her progress has been a steady rise but many have known about her capabilities, it's not like she came out of nowhere like Jelena Ostapenko.

 

She has the game to be an elite player for the next 5-10 years, now she's a slam champion, it's all down to her mentality now.

You kind of missing the point concentrating solely on Barty. I'm not saying she won't do all the things you said, it's just the sudden switch to OTT praise as soon as major title is in hand. I guess this is the one time it sparked me to comment, so I put it here. But as I said see numerous tennis players having a good run being declared the next big thing. See McIlroy, Speith in golf amongst others. Anyone who has a run of form or picks up one major and they can't help themselves telling everyone they'll be unstoppable for the next decade. Rashford, Verstappen. It's an endless list of these sportspeople who are going to dominate who in the end have limited or no success at all. It's just annoying to hear it every time. Eventually one will be the best, maybe that'll be Barty, but the pundits lose all credablity when they say it every single bloody time. If you say it enough you're bound to be right once, but doesn't change the fact you're also wrong the other 100 times.

[reynard]

2 hours ago, kingfox said:

Barty

 

Such a boring final though, Barty had it so comfortable, shame Vondrousova never turned up, too nervous and negative.

 

Not a good advertisement for Women's tennis; however there's so many players between 17-23 that have so much potential, when these youngsters gain more experience things will get better.

She wasn't helped by not being allowed to play a competitive match on that court before. The 17-23 crowd in women's tennis looks very healthy for the game. Just where are the British women?

Barty is top notch. Really good to see someone win a major without trying to demolish the ball every time they hit it!

[Facecloth]

C'mon Dominic!

[Kendal Fox]

Maybe I'm late to the party but nobody seems to be talking about Osaka anymore. Up until her early exit from the French, she won 2 slams in a row and to me, at 5' 11" or 6', has the physical stature to go with the best of them.

 

As well as tennis fans, even the pundits haven't mentioned her when talking recently about who is going to go on and be the next elite star in the womens draw.

 

What am I missing here? Is the general consensus that she overachieved at the US and Australian and will drop off into mediocrity?

Edited 9 June 2019 by Kendal Fox

[kingfox]

11 minutes ago, Kendal Fox said:

Maybe I'm late to the party but nobody seems to be talking about Osaka anymore. Up until her early exit from the French, she won 2 slams in a row and to me, at 5' 11" or 6', has the physical stature to go with the best of them.

 

As well as tennis fans, even the pundits haven't mentioned her when talking recently about who is going to go on and be the next elite star in the womens draw.

 

What am I missing here? Is the general consensus that she overachieved at the US and Australian and will drop off into mediocrity?

Well she's still World number 1  

 

I think after getting rid of her coach Sascha Bajin, many thought she'd have a possible drop off.

 

She slumped through the Indian Wells/Miami period, nobody expected much from her on clay.

 

Moving onto the grass now will tell us where she's at, of course she'll be one of the favourites for Wimbledon but I'd put a few players ahead of her as a possible winner.

[StanSP]

Really good match so far between Thiem & Nadal, especially physically. 

 

Not as one-sided yet as some, including me, would have expected.

[Facecloth]

Enjoyed the tennis on ITV 4 over the last fortnight, but I do know the Peloton advert word for word. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Enjoyed the tennis on ITV 4 over the last fortnight, but I do know the Peloton advert word for word. 

"WELL DONE PELOTON, YOU SMASHED IT!"

 

Now mop up the puddle of sweat on your living room floor.

Edited 9 June 2019 by SouthStandUpperTier

[Kendal Fox]

21 minutes ago, kingfox said:

Well she's still World number 1  

 

I think after getting rid of her coach Sascha Bajin, many thought she'd have a possible drop off.

 

She slumped through the Indian Wells/Miami period, nobody expected much from her on clay.

 

Moving onto the grass now will tell us where she's at, of course she'll be one of the favourites for Wimbledon but I'd put a few players ahead of her as a possible winner.

That's my point. She won 2 slams in a row and is number 1, yet the pundits haven't mentioned her since her exit at the French. Of course Barty deserves the plaudits at the moment. But it's as though Osaka just isn't fashionable for whatever reason.

 

As you say, we'll see how she does at Wimbledon and of course she's going to be competing with the likes of Barty who looks very impressive. Still, there always should be at least 2 great players who develop a rivalry in every era. Maybe it's those 2. We'll see I guess.

Edited 9 June 2019 by Kendal Fox

[kingfox]

1 hour ago, Kendal Fox said:

That's my point. She won 2 slams in a row and is number 1, yet the pundits haven't mentioned her since her exit at the French. Of course Barty deserves the plaudits at the moment. But it's as though Osaka just isn't fashionable for whatever reason.

 

As you say, we'll see how she does at Wimbledon and of course she's going to be competing with the likes of Barty who looks very impressive. Still, there always should be at least 2 great players who develop a rivalry in every era. Maybe it's those 2. We'll see I guess.

Just think expectancy levels for her were low during the clay period, she's gone through some changes with her coaching team plus clay is her weakest surface.

 

She needs to pick up form during the grass period though, Barty is a whisker away from number 1 spot, Kvitova and Bertens not far behind too. 

 

As I've said a few times recently though, there's many players on the WTA tour with tremendous potential right now, Osaka and Barty the two who are leading that charge. What I find though is some of these youngsters are right drama queens, once they get experience and their mentality right then we'll be seeing a lot more of them.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 hours ago, kingfox said:

Well she's still World number 1  

 

I think after getting rid of her coach Sascha Bajin, many thought she'd have a possible drop off.

 

She slumped through the Indian Wells/Miami period, nobody expected much from her on clay.

 

Moving onto the grass now will tell us where she's at, of course she'll be one of the favourites for Wimbledon but I'd put a few players ahead of her as a possible winner.

 

Indeed she’s garbage on clay so not a surprise she’s disappeared during the clay court season.

[Tuna]

2 hours ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

"WELL DONE PELOTON, YOU SMASHED IT!"

 

Now mop up the puddle of sweat on your living room floor.

"YOU ARE STRONGER THAN YOU KNOW!"

[Manwell Pablo]

Fcking Clay monkey ?

[Kendal Fox]

Have to hand it to Rafa, a record 12 slams at the French.

 

I know he gets heat for winning so many on clay, but in comaprison, almost half of Djokovic's majors have been at the Australian and 8 of Fed's have been at Wimbledon. Whose to say Novak won't win another 2 or 3 at the Australian and Fed won't win a 9th Wimbledon. Is it really that different from those 2?

 

My point is that everyone has a favourite surface and shouldn't be criticised if they exploit it as much as possible, particularly if it helps to make up for the time and form they've lost on other surfaces due to constant injuries.

Edited 9 June 2019 by Kendal Fox

[StanSP]

Love Rafa and obviosuly delighted he won his 12th but gotta give credit to Thiem for giving him a good test for 3/4 of that match. The 3rd set just killed him and it was as if it was payback from Rafa for daring to wina set against him. Rafa just upped the gears but Thiem still did really well to match him physically for a lot of the match. Thiem is definitely winning this tournament one day. Could see shades of early Rafa on this surface today.

[Kendal Fox]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Love Rafa and obviosuly delighted he won his 12th but gotta give credit to Thiem for giving him a good test for 3/4 of that match. The 3rd set just killed him and it was as if it was payback from Rafa for daring to wina set against him. Rafa just upped the gears but Thiem still did really well to match him physically for a lot of the match. Thiem is definitely winning this tournament one day. Could see shades of early Rafa on this surface today.

Thiem is a talent that's for sure and has the athleticism to match his skills. It reminded me a little of Federer vs Nadal at Wimbledon back in the day. Their first final, Nadal, after playing back to back matches, lost in 4. Their second, he lost in 5 again after playing catch up due to rain. Their 3rd, he won an epic in 5..

So perhaps Dominic will be 3rd time lucky in 2020!

[Kendal Fox]

1 hour ago, kingfox said:

Just think expectancy levels for her were low during the clay period, she's gone through some changes with her coaching team plus clay is her weakest surface.

 

She needs to pick up form during the grass period though, Barty is a whisker away from number 1 spot, Kvitova and Bertens not far behind too. 

 

As I've said a few times recently though, there's many players on the WTA tour with tremendous potential right now, Osaka and Barty the two who are leading that charge. What I find though is some of these youngsters are right drama queens, once they get experience and their mentality right then we'll be seeing a lot more of them.

I should have mentioned that I meant that they (the pundits) were speaking about who is going to be the next superstar going forward/in general, not just on clay.

 

And they didn't mention Osaka, who has proven she can win slams on more than one surface. Just surprised me.

[Facecloth]

36 minutes ago, Kendal Fox said:

Have to hand it to Rafa, a record 12 slams at the French.

 

I know he gets heat for winning so many on clay, but in comaprison, almost half of Djokovic's majors have been at the Australian and 8 of Fed's have been at Wimbledon. Whose to say Novak won't win another 2 or 3 at the Australian. Is it really that different from those 2?

 

My point is that everyone has a favourite surface and shouldn't be criticised if they exploit it as much as possible, particularly if it helps to make up for the time and form they've lost on other surfaces due to constant injuries.

Quite a bit different actually. 40% of Federer's slams are from Wimbledon. 46% of Djokovic's are from Australia. 66% of Nadal's are from France. Both Federer and Djokovic have won more elsewhere combined than they have at their favourite slam, Nadal has won quite a lot more on clay than the other slams combined. All three are great players, but from those stats, Nadal only gets a seat at the same table due to his complete dominance of clay. Maybe it should be a point a praise for him because he's managed to make grounds on the other two at their slams, winning a couple of Wimbledons against Federer for example, and also that even though grass is clearly Federers favoured surface and the aussie hard court is Djokovics favoured, they are both beatable on them and not just by Nadal.

 

At the end of the day though, impressive or not, people generally get bored of dominance, the same winner every week or year. Be it Hamilton and the Mercs every week, or Man utd in the nineties winning the league etc. People, especially in this country, love an upset, they love seeing the underdog prevail. Its why our league win captured the heart so much, it was the ultimate example. What is it, 2 defeats in 14 attempts at Roland Garros. Only other years he's not won it he was injured. I think had he won say 9 of 14 people wouldn't be calling him the clay monkey, and getting fed up with him winning. Plus I think his overall clay record adds to it, he's gone years where he hasn't lost at all on the surface. Again you could say impressive, but ultimately its boring.

 

Fair play to Nadal for making the most of his clay domination, but I'd love to see him lose in the first round next year to some qualifying debutant who's barely played on clay in their life.

Edited 9 June 2019 by Facecloth

[Kendal Fox]

16 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Quite a bit different actually. 40% of Federer's slams are from Wimbledon. 46% of Djokovic's are from Australia. 66% of Nadal's are from France. Both Federer and Djokovic have won more elsewhere combined than they have at their favourite slam, Nadal has won quite a lot more on clay than the others combined. All three are great players, but from those stats, Nadal only gets a seat at the same table due to his complete dominance of clay. Maybe it should be a point a praise for him because he's managed to make grounds on the other two at their slams, winning a couple of Wimbledons against Federer for example, and also that even though grass is clearly Federers favoured surface and the aussie hard court is Djokovics favoured, they are both beatable on them and not just by Nadal.

 

At the end of the day though, impressive or not, people generally get bored of dominance, the same winner every week or year. Be it Hamilton and the Mercs every week, or Man utd in the nineties winning the league etc. People, especially in this country, love an upset, they love seeing the underdog prevail. Its why our league win captured the heart so much, it was the ultimate example. What is it, 2 defeats in 14 attempts at Roland Garros. Only other years has not won it he was injured. I think had he won say 9 of 14 people wouldn't be calling him the clay monkey, and getting fed up with him winning. Plus I think his overall clay record adds to it, he's gone years where he hasn't lost at all on the surface. Again you could say impressive, but ultimately its boring.

 

Fair play to Nadal for making the most of his clay domination, but I'd love to see him lose in the first round next year to some qualifying debutant who's barely played on clay in their life.

You make some good points but I still think it's fair to suggest had he not had so many injuries, he would have won more slams on the other surfaces. Whilst the other 2's fave surface slams are lower, they could easily both pick up a couple more, which would still push up their percentage to a major amount on one surface.

 

All of his shock early exits at Wimbledon were either shortly after rehabbing an injury, or just before a surgery. I also think, for whatever reason, Djokovic has a psychological hold over Rafa, much like he himself developed over Federer. Though he still leads Novak in head to heads in the grand slams and I think he would have prevailed anyway, even if Djokovic had faced him today, regardless of their recent matches.

 

I get your point about it being boring when someone dominates. But I've noticed it's always been fashionable to rip on Rafa more than his rivals. And when someone levels similar criticism of Fed or Novak, they are generally seen as being a "hater", "don't understand true talent", etc. Just an observation.

Edited 9 June 2019 by Kendal Fox

[Manwell Pablo]

It’s pretty simple really, it will be a travesty when he beats feds 20 slams having won 15 Roland-Garros titles.  Best clay court player of all time there’s no debate. The best player full stop he most definitely is not.

[Kendal Fox]

47 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

It’s pretty simple really, it will be a travesty when he beats feds 20 slams having won 15 Roland-Garros titles.  Best clay court player of all time there’s no debate. The best player full stop he most definitely is not.

Yes, but he's still one of the best of all time. He also beat Federer in his absolute prime at Wimbledon which can't be taken away, especially given it's clearly not clay and is Fed's favourite surface.

Apart from the fact he can't be banned from playing the French in order to protect Federer's legacy, he has won slams on all the other surfaces so there's still a good chance he picks up another win or 2 at Wimbledon or the US.

If not, he's still beaten the likes of Murray's slam total if you minus the 12 he's won at the French.

Edited 9 June 2019 by Kendal Fox