Week 21 - French Open (Roland-Garros) - Paris, France (clay) - women's qualifying

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Week 21 - French Open (Roland-Garros) - Paris, France (clay) - women's qualifying

PaulM · Tennis legend

Harriet basically needs every remaining seed to win their final round, she can afford one other to lose and still be in the 4 put into the draw. But gosh, she shouldn't really have needed it.

Andy Parker · Club Coach

Sorry to see Harriet go out, but the positive is that she made the 3rd qualifying round on clay.

She must have a chance of going through as a Lucky Loser if any from the main draw pull out, as she will be one of the highest seeds to fall in the final qualifying round. If my memory serves me correctly, the 4 highest ranked losers in the final qualifying round go into a draw where one is selected, if there are any withdrawals, and if there are 2 withdrawals, then 2 of the 4 go through, and if 4 then all go through.

Anwyay I am pleased that even if it wasn't her day today, that she won 2 matches and got valuable ranking points and prize money.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Moving pictures from the RG twitter:

Keep dreaming, keep working

At 29-years-old, it's a first Grand Slam main draw for Ekaterine Gorgodze

twitter.com/rolandgarros/status/1397886462998290432/photo/1

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

Prize money maybe, but ranking points wise, a whole additional 10 from her 2020 RG Q2 showing isn't exactly going to sky rocket her back up the rankings.

She has matched her seeding by reaching the FQR, but it does feel like a big opportunity (probably) missed.

dodrade · Futures qualifying

PaulM wrote:
That was a terrible performance having played some good tennis in the previous rounds. Very frustrating, a huge opportunity to qualify for the French (which is a big deal) and points and prize money.

Well done to Liang but Harriet made it pretty easy. There was absolutely none of the controlled aggression I've enjoyed watching so much in her last two matches. Just as others said patted down the middle and then watch the ball zoom past her.

After the first two wins I thought she was sure to go through but there never seems to be any consistency to her form.

christ · Futures level

indiana wrote:
christ wrote:
indiana wrote:
Bagel wrote:
christ wrote:
I've never understood why post-match interviews with sportspeople are provided, let alone required.

"how does it feel to win"? "good"

"how does it feel to lose"? "bad"
Yes I quite agree with this and with Naomi's decision. Why should losing players who are tired and fed up have to answer inane questions?
Because they have chosen to be professional sports people?
Exactly, not professional presenters & interviewees. If they want to go on Parkinson then that is different to entering Wimbledon.
But I can't understand the audience's appetite for listening to some inarticulate sportsman being asked inane questions by press people that want scandal or meltdown to sell themselves on the media. I have the same response to those people that shove a microphone under the noses of the family of murder victims: "how does it feel"? "please tell our viewers what it is like". Bah humbug.
Ridiculous analogy IMO

Wasn't an analogy.

wales1994 · County player

This was a shocking loss for Harriet, of all her matches I actually was pretty confident she'd come through this comfortably. Her opponent hasn't been in the best form, don't think she's won a clay court match this year and benefitted from McNally retiring in QR1. Did someone watch?

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
indiana wrote:
christ wrote:
indiana wrote:
Bagel wrote:
christ wrote:
I've never understood why post-match interviews with sportspeople are provided, let alone required.

"how does it feel to win"? "good"

"how does it feel to lose"? "bad"
Yes I quite agree with this and with Naomi's decision. Why should losing players who are tired and fed up have to answer inane questions?
Because they have chosen to be professional sports people?
Exactly, not professional presenters & interviewees. If they want to go on Parkinson then that is different to entering Wimbledon.
But I can't understand the audience's appetite for listening to some inarticulate sportsman being asked inane questions by press people that want scandal or meltdown to sell themselves on the media. I have the same response to those people that shove a microphone under the noses of the family of murder victims: "how does it feel"? "please tell our viewers what it is like". Bah humbug.
Ridiculous analogy IMO
Wasn't an analogy.

Then, comparison.

My problem, chris, is that they HAVE chosen to be professional interviewees - that's the deal, that's the rules, and it's been like that for a long time now, i.e. since way before someone of the age of Osaka turned pro.

So if Naomi (or whoever) didn't like the WTA interview rule, then don't be a WTA tennis player. You could argue that the WTA have got it wrong in insisting on interviews (and I wouldn't agree but that's fine). But, given it IS the rule, Osaka can't suddenly say 'I don't like that bit (but I like all the other stuff)'.

christ · Futures level

Avoiding the vortex, I'll start again.

I don't disagree. They chose the job, this comes with the job. My point is I don't understand why this comes with the job; it didn't come with the job back in my youth, when the world was black and white and dinosaurs roamed the earth.

I wrote (and I quote)

I've never understood why post-match interviews with sportspeople are provided, let alone required.

"how does it feel to win"? "good"

"how does it feel to lose"? "bad"

Rarely is a post-match interview of any interest: sometimes they are a train wreck: tears/ meltdown/ shouting/ gloating - comments about other players girlfriends/ hairstyles, more often they are anodyne answers to ridiculously trite questions. Very, very rarely is anything of interest to be gleaned (noting the difference between "public interest" and "interesting the public": obviously there is a section of the public that will tune in for the potential train wreck)

seagull · Hall of fame

Konta draws Cirstea. Watson v Diyas

-- Edited by seagull on Thursday 27th of May 2021 02:57:44 PM

PaulM · Tennis legend

Well, at least both should have plenty time to prepare for Nottingham...

-- Edited by PaulM on Thursday 27th of May 2021 02:57:57 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

Harriet so far should be down a net 8 ranking points for 14/06 ( up 10 for RG 2021 vs 2020 but dropping a net 18 for Nottingham 2019 at the moment but with Nottingham 2021 still to add hopefully over her lowest counter of 12.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 27th of May 2021 07:16:11 PM

telstar · Strong Club Player

Coup Droit wrote:
christ wrote:
indiana wrote:
christ wrote:
indiana wrote:
Bagel wrote:
christ wrote:
I've never understood why post-match interviews with sportspeople are provided, let alone required.

"how does it feel to win"? "good"

"how does it feel to lose"? "bad"
Yes I quite agree with this and with Naomi's decision. Why should losing players who are tired and fed up have to answer inane questions?
Because they have chosen to be professional sports people?
Exactly, not professional presenters & interviewees. If they want to go on Parkinson then that is different to entering Wimbledon.
But I can't understand the audience's appetite for listening to some inarticulate sportsman being asked inane questions by press people that want scandal or meltdown to sell themselves on the media. I have the same response to those people that shove a microphone under the noses of the family of murder victims: "how does it feel"? "please tell our viewers what it is like". Bah humbug.
Ridiculous analogy IMO
Wasn't an analogy.
Then, comparison.
My problem, chris, is that they HAVE chosen to be professional interviewees - that's the deal, that's the rules, and it's been like that for a long time now, i.e. since way before someone of the age of Osaka turned pro.
So if Naomi (or whoever) didn't like the WTA interview rule, then don't be a WTA tennis player. You could argue that the WTA have got it wrong in insisting on interviews (and I wouldn't agree but that's fine). But, given it IS the rule, Osaka can't suddenly say 'I don't like that bit (but I like all the other stuff)'.

Naomi is a tennis player. That is what she is good at doing. She (and all other players) shouldn't be expected to have to demonstrate whether they are good or not at answering questions after what is often a physically and emotionally draining match. OK it's a rule that players have to do so but imho it's an extremely silly rule!

indiana · Tennis legend

This is looking very much like two fairly entrenched sides who may just have to agree to disagree.