Weeks 22 & 23 - French Open (Roland-Garros) - Paris, France (clay) - main draw

indiana · Tennis legend

Weeks 22 & 23 - French Open (Roland-Garros) - Paris, France (clay) - main draw

HarryGem · Club Coach

Andy Parker wrote:
Krejcikova through 7-6 6-3 - sad for Gauff, but she deserves credit for a good fightback at the end.

Looking at who is left, I feel it is Swiatek's to lose now - she really should win from here. Another upset in Swiatek's match though and we are likely to have the unlikeliest of Grand Slam finals, maybe ever.

As a rider to my comments earlier which HarryGem agreed with, I get very annoyed with John Inverdale asking 'what does is say about the state of the women's game', when there are upsets and big name players have gone out - it is really obvious he is mainly into men's tennis much more than women's (I was going to say something stronger), but the assumption that something is up when it is so competitive, verges on sexism and simply shows his bias that he suggests it as a sign of weakness in the women's game, rather than see how strong in depth it is.

The top 100 now would have beaten all but the very best in every other era, and for me the women's game has improved hugely and led to how ridiculously competitive it is, not least in how the players are so much stronger, more powerful and fitter than in other eras.

-- Edited by Andy Parker on Wednesday 9th of June 2021 11:08:05 AM

100% agree with all of this. I started watching women's tennis from 1973 onwards. I was young then but some of the level of play in the 1970s and 1980s was, shall we say, not very good.

I don't agree at all with people saying this open is a mess. It simply is what it is. Serena had a decent shot but frankly played brainless ball bashing tennis against Rybakina where her only strategy seemed to be to grunt more loudly and hit the ball even harder. Other top players were just beaten on the day because their opponents played better tennis than them.

People need to accept that the old top players have been found out a bit and other players have raised their standards and the older top players take a lot of credit for that in that they themselves raised the standard of the game. The level of fitness now is generally far far higher than it was even ten years ago. Nutrition is better, conditioning is better, more women can compete physically with the stronger players and for me this makes the game more interesting rather than just seeing the likes of Serena win 6-0, 6-1 without breaking sweat.

Just seems to me that people don't like the fact that the old favourites are now vulnerable and a top 100 player can beat a top 10 player on their day. That's fine and I understand the point of view. Personally I prefer the unpredictability and new names emerging.

Probably the best match I saw was Bogdan against Badosa. A match played with great intensity at an extraordinary high level. Neither player is top 10 so shows how strong the whole field is in my opinion.

PaulM · Tennis legend

The reality is that there being no challenge at the top of the men's game for years on end = amazing consistency, best era ever.

No challenge at the top of the women's game = boring, domination, lower ranked players are terrible.

Upsets in the men's game = so exciting to see new talent challenging old guard.

Upsets in the women's game = top women are weak and not very good.

That's how it's always been. It's a double standard in reporting that feeds through everywhere. I don't mind people having one view or the other, but it's the inconsistency of liking one thing in the men's game and hating it when it happens in the women's.

I like the additional unpredictability of the women's game. I like seeing the top players playing beautifully and sometimes winning quickly, but I also like that there's always a chance something crazy might happen and momentum can shift. I like that it's much harder to just serve your way out of trouble and there's greater expectation on returners to make something happen from the first shot.

Especially with the best of 5 format, there's such a huge inevitably in the men's game. I mean even at two sets down did anyone really think Djokovic would lose?

junior · Intermediate Club Player

'old top players' who's left? Serena and Azarenka (sometimes).

Fitness isn't generally better now in the womans game or Serena wouldn't of been able to terrorize tennis for the last 20 years, as immobile as she has been most of her career. In mens tennis fitness is better considering Isner/Karlovic haven't been able to make such great results and comparing that 20 years ago they both would of had several grand slams to their name at least.

In womens tennis the issue is not that anyone can beat anyone and thats what makes it unpredictable and fun. It's that not one single lady can string more than 2 decent weeks together per year (or even for their whole carrer, ostapenko etc), this isn't depth or excitement it's low level consistency, concentration and just focus. I'm sure someone might of watched swartzman vs struff and come to the opinion it was an excellent match, the truth was struff choked really badly against a guy who's somehow skated into the top 10 mens and can't hold his own

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
junior wrote:
Would chose a different word than "wonderfully" unpredictable myself. Maybe "predictably" unpredictable, with the only predictable player For the last 10+ years as Serena. Chance is up for grabs and most of the remaining players will fall apart, I'm imagining a Thiem/Zverev type repeat final between two younger players Coco/Badosa?
You're going to have stop putting the mockers on these players, junior
Or at least charge for your hex powers.
First Serena, then Azarenka (the only two with sufficient mental powers supposedly).
And now Badosa collapses and loses, with an amazingly tenacious performance from Zidansek (with wobbles but that's what makes it tenacious)
HarryGems's original pick of Coco looks better and better. With Iga as an obvious other favourite, and her match with Coco is going to be a real highlight.
It wasn't a pretty QF but it was certainly tense.

And it's four our of four, junior biggrin

indiana · Tennis legend

Not just week to week but very often match to match. However excellent the Bogdan vs Badosa match may have been it seems Badosa then imploded vs Zidansek. And I had hoped to see her do much better.

junior · Intermediate Club Player

I was talking more about a two week period to win a gs, although these two weeks it's not going to be who 'won', as much as who 'didn't lose'.

I'll give Coco a pass, she's young and its a new situation for her I'm sure she'll grow and do better, I thought she was gonna come back at 0-5 second set, the other seemed to want her to aswell

Sam Smith on commentary is nothing but professional and fair, but can see even she is finding it difficult to talk around some of the events and results in a correct manner. Inverdale is just Inverdale

-- Edited by junior on Wednesday 9th of June 2021 12:05:01 PM

Andy Parker · Strong Club Player

PaulM wrote:
The reality is that there being no challenge at the top of the men's game for years on end = amazing consistency, best era ever.

No challenge at the top of the women's game = boring, domination, lower ranked players are terrible.

Upsets in the men's game = so exciting to see new talent challenging old guard.

Upsets in the women's game = top women are weak and not very good.

That's how it's always been. It's a double standard in reporting that feeds through everywhere. I don't mind people having one view or the other, but it's the inconsistency of liking one thing in the men's game and hating it when it happens in the women's.

I like the additional unpredictability of the women's game. I like seeing the top players playing beautifully and sometimes winning quickly, but I also like that there's always a chance something crazy might happen and momentum can shift. I like that it's much harder to just serve your way out of trouble and there's greater expectation on returners to make something happen from the first shot.

Especially with the best of 5 format, there's such a huge inevitably in the men's game. I mean even at two sets down did anyone really think Djokovic would lose?

Paul, you put that beautifully - it is the double standards and sexist assumptions that upset me the most.

This isn't a personal attack on anyone posting on here, but when I have been watching all the major Grand Slams lately I have been amazed when I see players who are not supposed to be contenders, producing great tennis and looking way better than their ranking would suggest. Examples of this would be Zidansek, Pegula and Muchova; all players who you would think would be no hopers but have put out top names and had great runs, and others coming through and improving like Gauff, Brady, Swiatek and Badosa mean that for me, women's tennis is in a really healthy place.

I see Osaka, Halep, Swiatek and possibly Barty as probably the most likely players to win Grand Slams right now, but then if you add in established players like Azarenka, Kvitova, Murguruza, Pliskova and Mertens, then I think that women's tennis is brilliantly and excitingly competitive.

-- Edited by Andy Parker on Wednesday 9th of June 2021 12:05:22 PM

Ace Ventura · Tennis legend

I obviously much prefer the women's game, and watch loads of WTA matches throughout the year, but I'm struggling to see positives here. I mean, is Van Uytvanck going to suddenly start treeing for two weeks at Wimbledon, make the final out of nowhere, and then all of this 'she's a capable player' 'made Ilkley final in 2017' 'everyone can beat everyone' etc.

There's definitely a happy medium, and of course the BO5 does help restore a bit more order on the men's side, and while it's good to see some first time QFists, and I think some of those who made it this week could be good for the tour going forward, but 6 of 8 is absolutely crazy. Zidansek is 23 and a half, so not exactly a total youngster, has sifted from like 60-100 for years, had never made it past a slam R2, was 3-8 is slam main draws coming into this week, one of the lowest profiles you'll see, but now probably has an almost 50/50 chance of making a final.

I'm not going to lie, I do like a bit of profile, a bit of drama, a bit of star quality, a bit of marketability, and want to see some genuine big names emerge or establish themselves, like a group of 6 or 7 players at least making the L16, or QF of the biggest events, and if they went out early, it would be a genuine surprise, but having 70 or so players who could do well at any time, or equally bomb out at the first hurdle the next slam isn't ideal IMO, especially if there is little commercial value to them.

A potential Krejcikova vs Zidansek final would do absolutely nothing for me, and I probably would even prioritise Nottingham over it. I don't think I can think of a lower profile potential final in a long, long time, and the general viewing figures would surely be extremely low, relatively.

indiana · Tennis legend

Andy Parker wrote:
PaulM wrote:
The reality is that there being no challenge at the top of the men's game for years on end = amazing consistency, best era ever.

No challenge at the top of the women's game = boring, domination, lower ranked players are terrible.

Upsets in the men's game = so exciting to see new talent challenging old guard.

Upsets in the women's game = top women are weak and not very good.

That's how it's always been. It's a double standard in reporting that feeds through everywhere. I don't mind people having one view or the other, but it's the inconsistency of liking one thing in the men's game and hating it when it happens in the women's.

I like the additional unpredictability of the women's game. I like seeing the top players playing beautifully and sometimes winning quickly, but I also like that there's always a chance something crazy might happen and momentum can shift. I like that it's much harder to just serve your way out of trouble and there's greater expectation on returners to make something happen from the first shot.

Especially with the best of 5 format, there's such a huge inevitably in the men's game. I mean even at two sets down did anyone really think Djokovic would lose?
Paul, you put that beautifully - it is the double standards and sexist assumptions that upset me the most.
This isn't a personal attack on anyone posting on here, but when I have been watching all the major Grand Slams lately I have been amazed when I see players who are not supposed to be contenders, producing great tennis and looking way better than their ranking would suggest. Examples of this would be Zidansek, Pegula and Muchova; all players who you would think would be no hopers but have put out top names and had great runs, and others coming through and improving like Gauff, Brady, Swiatek and Badosa mean that for me, women's tennis is in a really healthy place.
I see Osaka, Halep, Swiatek and possibly Barty as probably the most likely players to win Grand Slams right now, but then if you add in established players like Azarenka, Kvitova, Murguruza, Pliskova and Mertens, then I think that women's tennis is brilliantly and excitingly competitive.

-- Edited by Andy Parker on Wednesday 9th of June 2021 12:05:22 PM

Andy Parker · Strong Club Player

Back to the tennis - Sakkari takes the first set. Another shock on the cards?

junior · Intermediate Club Player

Can't say I have many shocks left in me with this draw tbh, one thing that would shock me is if Serena walked back on court and inserted herself into the match and declares herself ultimate champion of the world and declared unfaltering love to the glorzo overlord

Andy Parker · Strong Club Player

junior wrote:
Can't say I have many shocks left in me with this draw tbh, one thing that would shock me is if Serena walked back on court and inserted herself into the match and declares herself ultimate champion of the world and declared unfaltering love to the glorzo overlord

That one did make me laugh - I am wondering whether things are coming out of the walls and putting mind altering drugs in my coffee.

junior · Intermediate Club Player

Not shocked by this injury time out either, she was fine 20 minutes ago at 2-0 up and 4-3 up

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

if you want a sport with predictable results go back to squash in the 70/80/90.

jahangir khan and jansher khan went years without being beaten. on the womens side it was heather mckay a few years earlier.

it was so predictable that it became about the draw and hoping against hope you would be in the opposite half to jahangir.

but it always raised the question for me - was he the best ever as everyone likes to suggest or was the opposition weaker than we might have thought...

in tennis, i have been reading Open Tennis by Richard Evans, which chronicles the period and the players, and events of open tennis from the late 60's to late 80's. The way he talks about the players in those eras make me think we miss a trick by thinking that todays players are necessarily miles better and , thus , makes us conclude that the big 3 are clearly the best ever, of all time, no doubt - they may have the most slams, does that make them the best ever. they have the best equipment, uniform court speeds largely, entourages to look after their needs, their travel, their fitness, can pick and choose their schedule. transplant mcenroe, laver, rosewall, borg, lendl, becker, ashe, and so on and so forth into today and how do we really know they wouldnt be as good and effective as the big 3 - i personally would put borg up against nadal, mcenroe up against djokovic and laver up against federer and reckon we would have a pretty close best of 3 now versus then match.

but the big thing that makes it for me is personality and storyline. tennis is a sport and it is entertainment. and the big 3 storyline has got predictable and stale, imo. the womens side is at another point where it needs some of the smorgasbord of talent to come through and become the personality and have a little dominance. a little dominance is a good thing; someone that wins 1 or 2 slams a year works, they get put up as the big name and the person to shoot at. 3 players winning all the slams year in year out is desparately boring after around 10-15 years of it...

the answer is for a happy medium. the men need one or two of the guys below the big 3 to come through now, it is vital. the women need perhaps a little more stability and maybe one or two of the big names to be just that little bit more dominant; the women has the potential personalities in osaka, barty etc, just need to dominate a little more.