September 2021 Player of Month - Final

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

September 2021 Player of Month - Final

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Oops- forgot this and the vote is over!

So not surprised are we- apart from Liams mum- and Emma Raducanu is our player of the month for September , 3 on the trot!

Joe Salisbury takes second spot , and Liam 3rd

indiana · Tennis legend

Although Liam is a more direct singles comparison just anyone being PoM other than Emma I find very difficult to fathom.

But it was absolutely right to have a final poll and as has been said most of us have at least slightly different things we look for and credit to Jon for putting his hand up. Personally I get that 2 is greater than 1 and 2 in winning at the same Slam is rare though Krejcikova did it ( and a better double? ) at the French Open this year. But for me just about everything else pointed to Emma - the particular events and the huge difference in experience and prior big success plus lack of competition in the last year.

I don't think it is unreasonable or parochial to think that Emma was world player of the month. Some like chris earlier would extend that period.

Well done to all 3 of our finalists and thanks again to Jon for organising all of this.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Although Liam is a more direct singles comparison just anyone being PoM other than Emma I find very difficult to fathom.

But it was absolutely right to have a final poll and as has been said most of us have at least slightly different things we look for and credit to Jon for putting his hand up. Personally I get that 2 is greater than 1 and 2 in winning at the same Slam is rare though Krejcikova did it ( and a better double? ) at the French Open this year. But for me just about everything else pointed to Emma - the particular events and the huge difference in experience and prior big success plus lack of competition in the last year.

I don't think it is unreasonable or parochial to think that Emma was world player of the month. Some like chris earlier would extend that period.
Well done to all 3 of our finalists and thanks again to Jon for organising all of this.

No worries Indy. On balance, it was hard to vote against Emma, I tend to try and take a non emotional look at these things and have little tests I apply, and Joe got the nod. But suspect Emma was the right answer ultimately . Ha.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Personally, Jon, I think your 'non-emotional' matrix is well off kilter if it told you to vote for Joe.

I don't think Emma was a vote from the heart, but a completely dispassionate, logical vote.

Yes, Joe won two. But there are twice as many winners in doubles. By definition. So it's twice as easy. Or doubly hard for singles. Whichever way. A doubles can only be worth half a singles, if there's twice as many.

So Joe still is only a one-er direct against Emma's one-er.

AND then, on a logical basis, you can't count doubles quite the same, as there as less rounds, less entrants. And even less for mixed, of course.

So, it's an easier one-er than Emma's one-er.

And that's before moving on to other factors, like the potential to radically change tennis in the UK (which is not an emotional thing but very tangible). Which Emma wins hands down.

And all this is before the somewhat more emotional side of the fact she was so young, being the first to come through qualis and do it, won in such style without dropping a set, was so unexpected, made me feel so brilliant watching it.....

Each to their own but (apart from Liam's mum, and Joe's aunty) I don't understand how anyone could vote for anyone but Emma.

emmsie69 · Top national player

When I saw Joe had 4 votes my initial thought was wow more relatives on here than we knew

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
Personally, Jon, I think your 'non-emotional' matrix is well off kilter if it told you to vote for Joe.

I don't think Emma was a vote from the heart, but a completely dispassionate, logical vote.

Yes, Joe won two. But there are twice as many winners in doubles. By definition. So it's twice as easy. Or doubly hard for singles. Whichever way. A doubles can only be worth half a singles, if there's twice as many.

So Joe still is only a one-er direct against Emma's one-er.

AND then, on a logical basis, you can't count doubles quite the same, as there as less rounds, less entrants. And even less for mixed, of course.

So, it's an easier one-er than Emma's one-er.

And that's before moving on to other factors, like the potential to radically change tennis in the UK (which is not an emotional thing but very tangible). Which Emma wins hands down.

And all this is before the somewhat more emotional side of the fact she was so young, being the first to come through qualis and do it, won in such style without dropping a set, was so unexpected, made me feel so brilliant watching it.....

Each to their own but (apart from Liam's mum, and Joe's aunty) I don't understand how anyone could vote for anyone but Emma.

Thats the beauty of a scientific approach - it throws up unexpected results !

maybe a little devils advocate came into my thinking as well

but look I agree - emma is the winner and deservedly so!

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Plus being frank and thinking back - I dont think I have often voted for the actual winner, maybe theres a slight contrarian that comes out in me!

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I wasn't picking on your vote

Democracy and all that !

Just the 'science' behind it

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
I wasn't picking on your vote

Democracy and all that !

Just the 'science' behind it

Oh the science behind it is very sketchy !

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

I also personally think we as a group undervalue the doubles and wheelchair events so do tend to get drawn to championing our star performers in those, if Im honest

indiana · Tennis legend

JonH comes home wrote:
I also personally think we as a group undervalue the doubles and wheelchair events so do tend to get drawn to championing our star performers in those, if Im honest

Speaking personally :

Men's and women's doubles : I do value less than singles. Though particularly Slam success would normally have such a winner well in my thoughts, even allowing for the less rounds that CD refers to. I didn't take long though this month to instead go for the to me obvious alternative.

Mixed doubles : Pretty far down my value scale. However serious the winners are they will meet some who it is to some extent a bit of fun. They play best of 3 with the third a MTB. And I actually still sense some etiquette in how much some "go for" the woman.

Wheelchair tennis : I have great admiration for the competitors and some of the play is tremendous. But it is a pretty small band of players contesting events, notably at Slams where we are talking 8 competitors for the singles events and 4 pairs in doubles, most of whom will have been at previous Slams. I do read your wheelchair updates Jon but don't feel involved enough to comment.

Star performers? : I'd say it is singles performers many folk are more drawn to for some of the reasons I have personally given. I think Challenger, ITF and junior competitors are given a good look in, particularly if there is an additional story leading up to their success, such as Liam winning a challenger after so many finals over the years and Hannah Klugman's age ( and she was a PoM win this year as were such as Fran and Katie S who will probably not be generally seen as 'stars', and actually a doubles player in Neal ).