The 2013 In Between Grand Slam Thread

yerwanthere123

KINGVictor wrote: »

Just like any other player, there is a possibility that he might not get to the Semis but winning two back to back Hard court 1000 Masters that all the top 4 played in is enough evidence that he could be considered the actual favourite for the USO.

What Rafa says before Slams is different from what he does on the court; before Montreal, he said the same things but he went there and beat Novak and won it. You are right that the best of 5 at the slams could have a physical effect on him but that is what it is.

Personally I think it is Rafa---Novak---Murray.

Yeah that's where I was coming from. I referred to him being favourite as a "bold prediction", but it's not that bold either is it :pac:

flazio

woopah92 wrote: »

Where would the grass courts go though? Europe might not be suitable with the climate and the possibility of the grass not be ready. The heat in South America would kill the grass. Anyway in 2015 the grass court season will be longer and there'll be an extra week or possibly 2 weeks of tournaments.

Perhaps it's time somewhere in Africa got a look in?

yerwanthere123

Just to let ye know, I'm after starting the US Open thread

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

woopah92 wrote: »

Where would the grass courts go though? Europe might not be suitable with the climate and the possibility of the grass not be ready. The heat in South America would kill the grass. Anyway in 2015 the grass court season will be longer and there'll be an extra week or possibly 2 weeks of tournaments.

There's plenty of grass courts in Australia. Obviously they're not going to change the Aus Open back after all the development of the tennis centre in Melbourne but given then current grass court season is only about 2-3 weeks long surely they could fit another one in after the Aus Open. There's bugger all in February.

Obviously they're never going to do it though. We'll have to be happy with what we get.

Johnmb

I'd even be happy if they'd just do something with the existing grass court tournaments to make them better for volleyers than for baseliners!

woopah92

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There's plenty of grass courts in Australia. Obviously they're not going to change the Aus Open back after all the development of the tennis centre in Melbourne but given then current grass court season is only about 2-3 weeks long surely they could fit another one in after the Aus Open. There's bugger all in February.

Obviously they're never going to do it though. We'll have to be happy with what we get.

Hard to grass to hard? And possibly hard to grass to clay(SA claycourt swing) to hard? The top players would never go for it. They wouldn't have enough time to adjust and without any top players, the ticket sales would fall even further. And you have to factor in Davis Cup and Fed Cup, some of the earlier rounds are played in February.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ I'm not that bothered about the top players to be honest. I just like to watch tennis on grass. Most of the "top" players only play Wimbledon as it is. I know it's not as easy as just saying we're going to have more grass now but I can dream.

yerwanthere123

Sharapova rumoured to be out for 4 months

flazio

I'm going to ask this in this thread so as not to de rail the US open thread.

Is it time for Venus Williams to hang up her touring racquet?

yerwanthere123

I think so. The last time she made it deep into a slam was this time three years ago. She's had a full two seasons back since being diagnosed with Sjogren's syndrome and has made zero progress. Also, it's not as if she struggling against just the top players, she can't beat the likes of Flipkens, Zheng and Urszula Radwanska. Add all this to the fact she's 33... I think she's pretty much done.

I originally thought she'd have one last glorious run (to perhaps a Wimbledon semi-final) before it's all over, but now it's highly unlikely she'll even get that. Time to go I'd say.

John.Icy

Venus hammered Flipkens

Honestly, if Venus could string together a few performances akin to her demolition of Flipkens this week, she could easily make it deep into a GS. But sadly I don't think she can hold it together for more than one match blast from the past streaks.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I think she's done with Slams. Unless she got some sort of cushy draw, a walkover or a retirement, or both, she's not making it to the second week anymore. Her condition just doesn't allow for three or four tough matches so close together.
If she's still enjoying the challenge though, and still happy to be putting herself through it then she should keep going. She's still a better player than quite a few.

yerwanthere123

John.Icy wrote: »

Venus hammered Flipkens

Honestly, if Venus could string together a few performances akin to her demolition of Flipkens this week, she could easily make it deep into a GS. But sadly I don't think she can hold it together for more than one match blast from the past streaks.

I was thinking about Cincinnati a couple of weeks back when she lost

woopah92

Definitely not time for Venus to hang up the racket. She can still win another few doubles slams for sure. It's not as if Venus played awful against Zheng either. Just remember Zheng pushed Serena to a 9-7 third set in Wimbledon last year so it's not like she's some push over.

yerwanthere123

No surprises here, Bernard Tomic's father found guilty of assault:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23986389

WaterLily.

That situation is such a mess. Bernard has such potential but given everything I doubt we are ever going to see much of it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

WaterLily. wrote: »

That situation is such a mess. Bernard has such potential but given everything I doubt we are ever going to see much of it.

The last few months he's been saying a lot of the right things, and it sounds like he's waking up but it could just be words. You never know with him. Probably a discussion for the other thread though.

Rjd2

Getting whipped by Daniel evans and not exactly going down all guns blazing doesn't inspire, looking at his year decent start but after that sweet **** all.


http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Bernard-Tomic.aspx?t=pa

Gerry91

He'd a good Wimbledon in fairness. Beat Gasquet gave Berdych a decent match.

He's better than that Dimitrov that's for sure

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

When he plays well he's really good. His point construction is fantastic. The problem is that he seems to only keep it up for one set. If he could even manage two sets he'd do well in the non Slam events.

Henry9

Gerry91 wrote: »

..The wta is weak now make no questions about it.
...It's all about power now and serena just simply overpowers everyone

True, physically and more importantly mentally she's just more powerful.

I've never understood why so many female players just fall apart so easily.
If that were to happen in the men's game they'd be slaughtered for it.
The WTA has always been weak by the way.

yerwanthere123

Henry9 wrote: »

True, physically and more importantly mentally she's just more powerful.

I've never understood why so many female players just fall apart so easily.
If that were to happen in the men's game they'd be slaughtered for it.
The WTA has always been weak by the way.

In what respect?

Henry9

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

In what respect?

There's never been any depth in it.

yerwanthere123

Henry9 wrote: »

There's never been any depth in it.

Margaret Court? Billie-Jean King? Evonne Goolagong? Martina Navratilova? Chris Evert? Steffi Graf? Monica Seles? Justine Henin? Venus Williams?

Those names ringing any bells?

Henry9

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Margaret Court? Billie-Jean King? Evonne Goolagong? Martina Navratilova? Chris Evert? Steffi Graf? Monica Seles? Justine Henin? Venus Williams?

Those names ringing any bells?

You know what depth means right?

KINGVictor

Henry9 wrote: »

You know what depth means right?

You don't have to be rude. I think his point makes sense

yerwanthere123

Henry9 wrote: »

You know what depth means right?

Yeah! Do you?

It is utterly nonsensical to suggest that there's never been any depth to the WTA. Why don't you try and explain how there hasn't, oh wise one?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

Did Nadal drop serve yesterday?

He can become first ever to win a slam not dropping serve I believe

He did drop it when Richie broke back in the 2nd set.

You can accuse women's tennis of having no depth if you like but I can't see how men's in any better? Apart from Delpo winning the US Open in 2010 you have to go back to 2005 to find someone other than the "top 4" winning one. No depth there at all. Federer won the French once and other than that Nadal has steamrolled everyone. Federer won the US Open 5 years in a row. You have to go back 10 years at Wimbledon to find someone other than the "top 4" winning it. I see no depth there.

Yes Serena is in a class of her own at the moment but so was Roger Federer for a very long time. I see no difference between his reign at the top and Serena's.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

He did drop it when Richie broke back in the 2nd set.

You can accuse women's tennis of having no depth if you like but I can't see how men's in any better? Apart from Delpo winning the US Open in 2010 you have to go back to 2005 to find someone other than the "top 4" winning one. No depth there at all. Federer won the French once and other than that Nadal has steamrolled everyone. Federer won the US Open 5 years in a row. You have to go back 10 years at Wimbledon to find someone other than the "top 4" winning it. I see no depth there.

Yes Serena is in a class of her own at the moment but so was Roger Federer for a very long time. I see no difference between his reign at the top and Serena's.

Mens is relatively so much stronger

Djok, Nadal, Federer and now Murray are supreme athletes who are just top of the scale in terms of physical ability, fitness, endurance, and of course ability

Because they're better than everyone else doesn't mean ATP is weak.

The women's is so inconsistent and just terrible IMO nearly every match is an error fest.

When a player loses a slam semi 6-0 6-1 or whatever it is you know some thing is wrong (errani French)

Look at flipkins making a slam semi

Wimbledon champion looks out of shape

Can't watch wta myself mens is million miles better

Maybe not a discussion for this thread though..

Gerry91

About ten years ago women's tennis was better than mens IMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

Mens is relatively so much stronger

Djok, Nadal, Federer and now Murray are supreme athletes who are just top of the scale in terms of physical ability, fitness, endurance, and of course ability

Because they're better than everyone else doesn't mean ATP is weak.

The women's is so inconsistent and just terrible IMO nearly every match is an error fest.

When a player loses a slam semi 6-0 6-1 or whatever it is you know some thing is wrong (errani French)

Look at flipkins making a slam semi

Wimbledon champion looks out of shape

Can't watch wta myself mens is million miles better

Maybe not a discussion for this thread though..

Ferrer (seeded 4, only one below Nadal at the time) lost the French Open final 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. Not much difference there to Errani (then 21 seed) losing to Sharapova (no 2 seed) so easily.

As for Wimbledon this year, you can't judge anything by that. Azarenka was badly injured early on. Lisicki beat Serena fair and square and the rest of the draw fell apart in that really weird R2. It was a fluke tournament. Don't think you can judge anything by it.

yerwanthere123

Gerry91 wrote: »

Mens is relatively so much stronger

Djok, Nadal, Federer and now Murray are supreme athletes who are just top of the scale in terms of physical ability, fitness, endurance, and of course ability

Because they're better than everyone else doesn't mean ATP is weak.

The women's is so inconsistent and just terrible IMO nearly every match is an error fest.

When a player loses a slam semi 6-0 6-1 or whatever it is you know some thing is wrong (errani French)

Look at flipkins making a slam semi

Wimbledon champion looks out of shape

Can't watch wta myself mens is million miles better

Maybe not a discussion for this thread though..

I think there's a lot of cherry-picking there, a lot of which could also be applied to the ATP.

Also, I don't think anyone is trying to deny that this isn't exactly a golden era for the WTA. However, a poster a couple of pages back tried to suggest that there's never been any depth to the WTA, which is of course nonsense.

Gerry91

Wimbledon was strange in fairness

Bartoli nearly won by default there were a good few better players than her in the tournament but you can only beat what's on front of you I guess

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

Wimbledon was strange in fairness

Bartoli nearly won by default there were a good few better players than her in the tournament but you can only beat what's on front of you I guess

Lisicki did all the hard work at Wimbledon. She was the one clearing all the big names out of the way but then she bricked it in the final. Bartoli took advantage of the early carnage and won.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Lisicki did all the hard work at Wimbledon. She was the one clearing all the big names out of the way but then she bricked it in the final. Bartoli took advantage of the early carnage and won.

You got it in one right there

Tox56

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Ferrer (seeded 4, only one below Nadal at the time) lost the French Open final 6-3, 6-2, 6-3. Not much difference there to Errani (then 21 seed) losing to Sharapova (no 2 seed) so easily.

As for Wimbledon this year, you can't judge anything by that. Azarenka was badly injured early on. Lisicki beat Serena fair and square and the rest of the draw fell apart in that really weird R2. It was a fluke tournament. Don't think you can judge anything by it.

In terms of the top 3/4 players the last few years have unquestionably been a 'golden' era. You seem to be implying that because those 4 players have been dominant (won almost every slam) there is no depth behind them, which I'd say is flawed logic. If you put the likes of Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Del Potro etc. on tour at the turn of the century (say, 2000-2003 ish) they would be Slam winners IMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Tox56 wrote: »

In terms of the top 3/4 players the last few years have unquestionably been a 'golden' era. You seem to be implying that because those 4 players have been dominant (won almost every slam) there is no depth behind them, which I'd say is flawed logic. If you put the likes of Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Del Potro etc. on tour at the turn of the century (say, 2000-2003 ish) they would be Slam winners IMO

They may well have won slams if they were playing in a different era, but the fact is they're not. They're in this era and they never really challenge the top 4. Yes the top 4 are/were miles better than everyone else but I don't think you can just excuse the lack of challenge from the rest of the top 10 just for that.

Using that logic I could say if Serena, Sharapova and Azarenka weren't playing now there'd be loads more Slam winners on the WTA.

There have been a lot of different Slam winners on the WTA over the last few years, but for some reason that's put down as being due to the WTA being crap. Why is it not depth? Then you have the same 4 players on the men's tour win everything and people argue there's more depth there. It doesn't make sense to me. Personally I think it comes down to personal preference, which is fine. If you enjoy one tour over the other that's down to you, but it's not a valid argument for one actually being better than the other.

Gerry91

Wozniacki, safina, ivanovic were number 1s.

Surely that's enough said?

ATP relatively so much stronger

Fair few top women's players look out of shape to me for top players

I know women generally carry a higher bodyfat percentage than men but still they're top professionals

Wta is impossible to watch the unforced errors are ridiculous

Tox56

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

They may well have won slams if they were playing in a different era, but the fact is they're not. They're in this era and they never really challenge the top 4. Yes the top 4 are/were miles better than everyone else but I don't think you can just excuse the lack of challenge from the rest of the top 10 just for that.

Using that logic I could say if Serena, Sharapova and Azarenka weren't playing now there'd be loads more Slam winners on the WTA.

But that would miss my point. By nobody's standards would those 3 be considered a golden era of top players.

Depth has to be considered relatively, just because they aren't as good as the Top 4 doesn't mean they aren't good. What you're suggesting is that the whole top 10 is on the same level (or close to it) as the top 3/4, which would just not be realistic in this era.

The biggest thing I suppose is how often do the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Del Potro either beat or seriously challenge the top 4? I can think of many classic games off the top of my head. That second tier of players, although not on the same level as the top 4, certainly played their part over the last few years. As a Murray fan games against Del Potro/Ferrer/Berdych are usually painful to watch..

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

Wozniacki, safina, ivanovic were number 1s.

Surely that's enough said?

ATP relatively so much stronger

Fair few top women's players look out of shape to me for top players

I know women generally carry a higher bodyfat percentage than men but still they're top professionals

Wta is impossible to watch the unforced errors are ridiculous

Ivanovic was number 1 after she won a Slam. I don't see any problem with that. I also don't see what one or two players carrying a bit of weight have to do with anything. The men's tennis has gone to a higher level the past few years, but really up until Djokovic got ridiculously fit the rest of them weren't anything above normal athletes.

As for the women, other than Bartoli and I suppose Kvitova has a belly, but who else of the top players isn't athletically fit? Serena has a big body shape but she's pure muscle. Azarenka also has a chunky frame, she's not fat or out of shape. Li Na, Sharapova, Radwanska, Wozniacki, Errani, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Stosur, they're all extremely fit and athletic looking.

Wawrinka, as good as he is, looks like he spends all day eating pies. Also, the idea that the men are better or fitter because they can last 5 sets is nonsense too. Most matches that go 5 sets are because neither one can close it out in 3. It's very rare that a 5 set match is of a high quality.

Gerry91

Eh?? Wawrinka's ripped to pieces

If you can be at the top of your game without being in great shape it doesn't say much for your game. I think it's a valid point

Every tio ATP player would be sub 10% bodyfat and have ridiculous training regimes to compete

Pavllachenko (can't spell it) looks out of shape, I'm not convinced Robson is in mighty condition, kvitova, Bartoli in fairness that's all I can think but my point stands they should all be in peak shape.

I don't know many wta players to see really

It's obvious mens is way better if quality was even remotely similar why does women's games get barely any audience or ratings compared to mens

yerwanthere123

Gerry91 wrote: »

Eh?? Wawrinka's ripped to pieces

If you can be at the top of your game without being in great shape it doesn't say much for your game. I think it's a valid point

Every tio ATP player would be sub 10% bodyfat and have ridiculous training regimes to compete

Pavllachenko (can't spell it) looks out of shape, I'm not convinced Robson is in mighty condition, kvitova, Bartoli in fairness that's all I can think but my point stands they should all be in peak shape.

I don't know many wta players to see really

It's obvious mens is way better if quality was even remotely similar why does women's games get barely any audience or ratings compared to mens

Don't know the facts and figuires, but doesn't the women's US Open final get more viewers than the men's sometimes? Depending on whether or not Serena is playing? Open to correction on that obviously.

And regardless of quality, women's tennis (or sport in general) is never going to get more viewers than men's tennis on a consistent basis. Women's sports is just not respected, end of. Women's tennis is very lucky is has the status it has currently.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

Pavllachenko (can't spell it) looks out of shape, I'm not convinced Robson is in mighty condition, kvitova, Bartoli in fairness that's all I can think but my point stands they should all be in peak shape.

Robson is 19. She's still developing, I wouldn't expect her to be in peak shape.

It's obvious mens is way better if quality was even remotely similar why does women's games get barely any audience or ratings compared to mens

The amount of attention men's tennis gets has nothing to do with quality, in my opinion. Men's sports in general get more attention than women's due to this outdated idea that only men can play sports. Athletics and swimming are probably the only sports that get equal attention for both but even then, off the track or out of the pool the men are bigger brands. You can market men at male and female audiences. You can only use female athletes to marker certain things at men, and they usually have nothing to do with sports.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Don't know the facts and figuires, but doesn't the women's US Open final get more viewers than the men's sometimes? Depending on whether or not Serena is playing? Open to correction on that obviously.

Yes, it depends on who is playing. I doubt the casual US audience pays as much attention the men's final as they do to the women's when Serena is there. Here Sky obviously push the men's because Andy Murray is there. They do give slightly more attention to the women's if Robson is there but generally viewing figures are impacted by the nationality of the players.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Robson is 19. She's still developing, I wouldn't expect her to be in peak shape.

No excuse not to be in top shape check out Nadals first French open title and Murray when he came on the scene how in shape they were. They were only 18 about at the time

Robson's movement is horrendous gets away with it a lot though

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

No excuse not to be in top shape check out Nadals first French open title and Murray when he came on the scene how in shape they were. They were only 18 about at the time

Robson's movement is horrendous gets away with it a lot though

Men and women are completely different when it comes to that kind of development though.

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Men and women are completely different when it comes to that kind of development though.

Well Sharapova in 04, Serena 98, early Venus the list goes on.

If you think they're unfair examples take Watson she's not as talented but is fitter IMO

Stephens looks well cut too from what ive seen she'd be a decent comparison

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Gerry91 wrote: »

Well Sharapova in 04, Serena 98, early Venus the list goes on.

If you think they're unfair examples take Watson she's not as talented but is fitter IMO

Stephens looks well cut too from what ive seen she'd be a decent comparison

I'm not saying women can't be super fit at 18/19, I'm just saying that for a female player I wouldn't expect them to be at their peak fitness so young. I think the Williamseses are unfair examples as they were groomed from they were in the womb practically to be athletes. Also, I'd say the time when Sharapova first came on the scene was the end of that era of kids being allowed turn pro whenever they liked. They're much better handled these days and you're not likely to get a 15 or 16 year old at the same level as the older players.

Stephen's I'll give you. But you could argue she comes from a family of athletes so she was probably on the treadmill in her walker

Gerry91

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'm not saying women can't be super fit at 18/19, I'm just saying that for a female player I wouldn't expect them to be at their peak fitness so young. I think the Williamseses are unfair examples as they were groomed from they were in the womb practically to be athletes. Also, I'd say the time when Sharapova first came on the scene was the end of that era of kids being allowed turn pro whenever they liked. They're much better handled these days and you're not likely to get a 15 or 16 year old at the same level as the older players.

Stephen's I'll give you. But you could argue she comes from a family of athletes so she was probably on the treadmill in her walker

Yeah look Robson does have a bit of a stocky build to be fair

I guess it begs the question though can she perhaps work a bit harder? I'm a fan of Robson myself I think she has bags of potential and will be a contender for slams down the line

Her mental game is not good- that will improve. But her movement could be a lot better and her all round fitness IMO. Could she take a leaf out of her British counterpart's book maybe? Murray is arguably not in the top 4 in the world in terms of natural talent but he's worked bloody hard to get up there. Id like to see her undergoing a gruelling off season maybe and try and become one of the fittest players on tour. Control the controllables

What's your own opinion on her? I'd be interested to hear. Can she win slams? She's very inconsistent now she'll surely improve in that regard. She's not the most intelligent of players- think that will hold her back a bit myself. Poor decision maker/ shot selection

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

While I wouldn't expect Robson to be in peak condition now I do think that she'll need to start making moves in that direction now she's top 30. You can see there's a really big step up from the lower seeded players at Slams to the top seeds. What she definitely needs is a consistent coach. She chopped and changed a lot last year and she needs someone to work long term with her on various areas. Movement, as you said, her overall fitness can be improved but it needs to be as part of an overall development of her game. No point getting super fit if you don't improve anything else.

Can she win slams? Eeeeeeeeeehhhhhh... maybe, but I can't see it happening anytime over the next few years. Sky blow her up like they did Murray, like she's going to compete for every Slam she plays in. This can't help either. All in all I think there's a lot about Robson that could be improved but she has the foundations there to be a great player and if she doesn't achieve anything she'll be one of those players that was a waste of talent.