Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open, Women's Main Draw - Melbourne, Australia - Hard

flamingowings · All-time great

RE: Weeks 3-4 - Australian Open, Women's Main Draw - Melbourne, Australia - Hard

ROSAMUND · Futures level

flamingowings wrote:
Last 16:

[1] Barty vs. [19] Riske
[7] Kvitova vs. [22] Sakkari
[14] Kenin vs. Gauff
[27] Wang Q. vs. Jabeur
[4] Halep vs. [16] Mertens
[28] Kontaveit vs. Swiatek
[9] Bertens vs. Muguruza
[17] Kerber vs. [30] Pavlyuchenkova

5 previous grand slam winners including one previous Aussie Open winner in Kerber. There is sill the potential for a non seeded semi finalist as has happened every year since 2015.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

flamingowings wrote:
Last 16:

[1] Barty vs. [19] Riske
[7] Kvitova vs. [22] Sakkari
[14] Kenin vs. Gauff
[27] Wang Q. vs. Jabeur
[4] Halep vs. [16] Mertens
[28] Kontaveit vs. Swiatek
[9] Bertens vs. Muguruza
[17] Kerber vs. [30] Pavlyuchenkova

Tx for this, Flamingowings.

I like the L16 for stats, I think it gives the best reflection.

In terms of geography, this group is less Euro-centric than some, and very varied overall:

There are:

3 USA

1 Australia

1 Tunisia

1 China

1 Greece

1 Poland

1 Czech Rep.

1 Spain

1 Estonia

1 Belgium

1 Romania

1 Holland

1 Germany

1 Russia

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

flamingowings wrote:
Last 16:

[1] Barty vs. [19] Riske
[7] Kvitova vs. [22] Sakkari
[14] Kenin vs. Gauff
[27] Wang Q. vs. Jabeur
[4] Halep vs. [16] Mertens
[28] Kontaveit vs. Swiatek
[9] Bertens vs. Muguruza
[17] Kerber vs. [30] Pavlyuchenkova

In terms of age, we've shifted down the age curve slightly, but with a very strong consolidation round the middle, with only one player over 30 (Angie, age 32), only two teenagers (Coco, 15, and Iga, 18) and a 50:50 split, with half of them age 25 or under, and half age over 25.

The average age is pretty much exactly 25, which is a full year younger than most years.

In terms of height, it's also far more 'standard' with no players over 6 foot (although three claim to be 6 ft exactly), Ash as the shortest, at 5ft 5. And the average is 5 ft 8 1/2.

ROSAMUND · Futures level

Coup Droit wrote:
flamingowings wrote:
Last 16:

[1] Barty vs. [19] Riske
[7] Kvitova vs. [22] Sakkari
[14] Kenin vs. Gauff
[27] Wang Q. vs. Jabeur
[4] Halep vs. [16] Mertens
[28] Kontaveit vs. Swiatek
[9] Bertens vs. Muguruza
[17] Kerber vs. [30] Pavlyuchenkova
Tx for this, Flamingowings.
I like the L16 for stats, I think it gives the best reflection.
In terms of geography, this group is less Euro-centric than some, and very varied overall:
There are:
3 USA
1 Australia
1 Tunisia
1 China
1 Greece
1 Poland
1 Czech Rep.
1 Spain
1 Estonia
1 Belgium
1 Romania
1 Holland
1 Germany
1 Russia

The spread of countries shows what a global sport tennis is these days.Even with their highly ranked players only one Czech player gets through to the last 16.I think there were 22 US players in the singles draw and wonder if we could have predicted which 3 would reach the last 16

ROSAMUND · Futures level

Jo was obviously short of match practice and form when she played Ons Jabeur but I notice that it doesn't look so bad now because Jabeur has made a real breakthrough reaching the quarter finals. Not only that but she has beaten quality players on the way.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

ROSAMUND wrote:
Jo was obviously short of match practice and form when she played Ons Jabeur but I notice that it doesn't look so bad now because Jabeur has made a real breakthrough reaching the quarter finals. Not only that but she has beaten quality players on the way.

Indeed, great result for her and for womens sport in north Africa, a real breakthrough. Plays Kenin next, big opportunity for both. Kvitova also through.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

JonH comes home wrote:
ROSAMUND wrote:
Jo was obviously short of match practice and form when she played Ons Jabeur but I notice that it doesn't look so bad now because Jabeur has made a real breakthrough reaching the quarter finals. Not only that but she has beaten quality players on the way.
Indeed, great result for her and for womens sport in north Africa, a real breakthrough. Plays Kenin next, big opportunity for both. Kvitova also through.

And Barty joins them.

ROSAMUND · Futures level

Comments are being made about the Eastern European countries producing top players that we can't produce and what radical changes are needed. However as a general comment tennis is the best paid sport for female athletes and also the one where they can make themselves a household name if successful. I'm sure that Johanna Konta is better known in Britain and better paid than any of our female golfers or swimmers. Of the present day in athletics I think Dina Asher-Smith is probably well known. It does beg the question for a well rewarded sport why we have not had better players? Comparing us with France they may have won the Fed Cup but in terms of performances in Grand Slams Jo's record of 3 semi finals and 3 quarter finals is far better than 1 quarter final for Garcia, 2 for Mladenovic and none for Cornet. The only record that Cornet has amongst active players is playing in a record number of Grand Slams i.e. 56 without reaching a quarter final.

emmsie69 · Top national player

Its only well rewarded at the very top, anything below 100 and you're barely making a living. In a 1st world country like ours its simply not worth the risk of losing those years in a career that over time is going to generate more income. Then there is the actual lifestyle which I'd say below top 40 is pretty ****e so overall its not worth the trouble. I certainly wouldn't advise any daughter to risk it when there are so many opportunities out there for women.

Barefoot · Lower Club Player

Totally agree with Emmsie, theres many more stable opportunities in the UK. You need to either be really passionate or really confident in your skills early to make it work. And its expensive. Theres a reason many of our higher ranked women come from well off families with financial support behind them to give them insurance if it doesnt work.

Status Quo · Intermediate Club Player

ROSAMUND wrote:
Comments are being made about the Eastern European countries producing top players that we can't produce and what radical changes are needed. However as a general comment tennis is the best paid sport for female athletes and also the one where they can make themselves a household name if successful. I'm sure that Johanna Konta is better known in Britain and better paid than any of our female golfers or swimmers. Of the present day in athletics I think Dina Asher-Smith is probably well known. It does beg the question for a well rewarded sport why we have not had better players? Comparing us with France they may have won the Fed Cup but in terms of performances in Grand Slams Jo's record of 3 semi finals and 3 quarter finals is far better than 1 quarter final for Garcia, 2 for Mladenovic and none for Cornet. The only record that Cornet has amongst active players is playing in a record number of Grand Slams i.e. 56 without reaching a quarter final.

Jo is clearly the outlier; a massive outlier. You don't judge the quality of the data population by the outliers.

What France, and other ostensible peer countries, have is a continuous interests generated week-in, week-out, by multiple competitive players. Most weeks. someone will be likely to have some sort of run in a WTA level event - the business end that gets interest from the respective national medias.

Over time, that feedback loop builds a critical mass of interest that adds value to the sport, which in turn generates interest and participation.

The greater the participation, generally, the higher the quality of competition becomes.

Again, over time, this improves the level of players throughout the sport in the country, as the level of competition increases, more knowledge and skill permeates the player base, and filters through to new players.

This is then reflected at the top level: your group of best players generally produce a better average quality and success.

The relationship is not uniformly linear or permanent, but, over time the trend moves towards better players and more success when players from that system try their trade on the world tours.

We do not have this feedback loop. Despite Anne, Elena, Heather, Laura, Naomi, Anna, and especially Johanna's strides forward, we still just seem to hope for something new to come along once every decade or so by chance or probability.

A Raducanu like standout. If we get one of those a generation, that seems to be the sum total of the national ambition and aspiration towards tennis. Our appetite is sated.

If that talent is then unable to fulfill their promise, for whatever reason (as with Laura, or Eleanor Dean), what we're actually left with is a void.

The void exists because we don't have that wide funnel feeding into our system. Also, because of the other point I have wondered about, as to why our excellent young professionals like Dart, Swan etc haven't been able to match the likes of Fiona Ferro (JCH 27) or even, and she played a full Junior career, Kerber (JCH 37)?

Why do we never get one of those? Why do our talented juniors not match or exceed their peers in the Pro game?

ROSAMUND · Futures level

emmsie69 wrote:
Its only well rewarded at the very top, anything below 100 and you're barely making a living. In a 1st world country like ours its simply not worth the risk of losing those years in a career that over time is going to generate more income. Then there is the actual lifestyle which I'd say below top 40 is pretty ****e so overall its not worth the trouble. I certainly wouldn't advise any daughter to risk it when there are so many opportunities out there for women.

Lifestyle not worth it? Have you ever spoken to someone like Heather Watson or Anne Keothavong to see if that's the way they feel? As for opportunities for women are we talking about sport or careers outside sport? I hope we're not talking about the lady in the betting industry who's made a fortune. In 2019, Johanna Konta made over $1million dollars in three clay court tournaments. In what legimate career was she likely to make such a big sum in such a short time. As for rewards in tennis, players can also do well out of sponsorship.

ROSAMUND · Futures level

Barefoot wrote:
Totally agree with Emmsie, theres many more stable opportunities in the UK. You need to either be really passionate or really confident in your skills early to make it work. And its expensive. Theres a reason many of our higher ranked women come from well off families with financial support behind them to give them insurance if it doesnt work.

I don't know about financial support given to women from well off families but Jack Draper(Roger Draper's) son seems to have got from sponsorship from Amazon when maybe some less off young male player could have done with it.

ROSAMUND · Futures level

Status Quo wrote:
ROSAMUND wrote:
Comments are being made about the Eastern European countries producing top players that we can't produce and what radical changes are needed. However as a general comment tennis is the best paid sport for female athletes and also the one where they can make themselves a household name if successful. I'm sure that Johanna Konta is better known in Britain and better paid than any of our female golfers or swimmers. Of the present day in athletics I think Dina Asher-Smith is probably well known. It does beg the question for a well rewarded sport why we have not had better players? Comparing us with France they may have won the Fed Cup but in terms of performances in Grand Slams Jo's record of 3 semi finals and 3 quarter finals is far better than 1 quarter final for Garcia, 2 for Mladenovic and none for Cornet. The only record that Cornet has amongst active players is playing in a record number of Grand Slams i.e. 56 without reaching a quarter final.
Jo is clearly the outlier; a massive outlier. You don't judge the quality of the data population by the outliers.
What France, and other ostensible peer countries, have is a continuous interests generated week-in, week-out, by multiple competitive players. Most weeks. someone will be likely to have some sort of run in a WTA level event - the business end that gets interest from the respective national medias.
Over time, that feedback loop builds a critical mass of interest that adds value to the sport, which in turn generates interest and participation.
The greater the participation, generally, the higher the quality of competition becomes.
Again, over time, this improves the level of players throughout the sport in the country, as the level of competition increases, more knowledge and skill permeates the player base, and filters through to new players.
This is then reflected at the top level: your group of best players generally produce a better average quality and success.
The relationship is not uniformly linear or permanent, but, over time the trend moves towards better players and more success when players from that system try their trade on the world tours.
We do not have this feedback loop. Despite Anne, Elena, Heather, Laura, Naomi, Anna, and especially Johanna's strides forward, we still just seem to hope for something new to come along once every decade or so by chance or probability.
A Raducanu like standout. If we get one of those a generation, that seems to be the sum total of the national ambition and aspiration towards tennis. Our appetite is sated.
If that talent is then unable to fulfill their promise, for whatever reason (as with Laura, or Eleanor Dean), what we're actually left with is a void.
The void exists because we don't have that wide funnel feeding into our system. Also, because of the other point I have wondered about, as to why our excellent young professionals like Dart, Swan etc haven't been able to match the likes of Fiona Ferro (JCH 27) or even, and she played a full Junior career, Kerber (JCH 37)?
Why do we never get one of those? Why do our talented juniors not match or exceed their peers in the Pro game?
France may have a structure but apart from the Fed Cup which has a restricted entry they have the same top players as they had 10 years ago. Since Bartoli what have their players achieved in Grand Slams? What has Ferro achieved? The same with the men. They had a lot of players in the top 100 but no Andy Murray equivalent who was going to win a Grand Slam. I've heard Bartoli say the French system could not have produced a Vondrousova like the Czech's produced.
As for Jo, the outlier comment is probably correct. She played her junior tennis in the same era as Laura Robson and Tara Moore. She had reached the age of 24 having achieved little and not being able to pay for her coaches. She was then giving tennis her last shot. Then she made her breakthrough starting at Eastbourne 2015(it's probably coincidental that this was the 1st time I ever watched her play) and made the grade so to speak. We have these tennis academies or ex players such as Julie Salmon teaching at schools. Judy Murray does alot of teaching and Jo Durie seems to do some coaching. In the past we've had umpteen initiatives or people in charge of womens tennis such as Sue Mappin and Janet Newberry.
Tennis is still the best paid sport for female athletes whether we can produce the players or not.