US Open 2018

Chivito550

Chivito550 wrote: »

The obsession with slam numbers now is funny, as Connors was saying on Prime the other day that in his era nobody ever thought like that. He said the next match was always the biggest match. They seemed to take all events as seriously as each other to an extent. They wanted to beat their rivals, no matter where it was, and didn't tailor their season around 8 weeks of the year.

Most of the top names never went to the Australian Open from around 1972 to 1983 or so, and the Australian Open only became a really big deal in 1988 when it moved to Flinders Park (now Melbourne Park).

It's a bit harsh on the greats of the past that they are now judged based on modern standards.

the huge money in sponsorship and endorsements largely revolves around grand slam numbers.
plus it is the great test - outside the grand slams there are very few tournaments where all the top players are all at the same tournament. not sure if that was the case back in 70's.
Add to that (for men) the great battles over 5 sets that we have seen that can only happen in grand slams.
it is the ultimate benchmark by which the modern players compare each other - what ex-players from 40 years ago say is largely irrelevant to the modern situation.

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

the huge money in sponsorship and endorsements largely revolves around grand slam numbers.
plus it is the great test - outside the grand slams there are very few tournaments where all the top players are all at the same tournament. not sure if that was the case back in 70's.
Add to that (for men) the great battles over 5 sets that we have seen that can only happen in grand slams.
it is the ultimate benchmark by which the modern players compare each other - what ex-players from 40 years ago say is largely irrelevant to the modern situation.

Oh absolutely. It’s very relevant today. But comparing the slam numbers of Borg, McEnroe, Connors etc to today’s crop is a bit pointless. They didn’t count slams back in those days. Borg retired at 26, only went to Australia once, at the start of his career, and even chose World Team Tennis over Roland Garros one year.

He was just one off Emerson’s record of 12 when he retired, but it obviously wasn’t seen as important then.

Chivito550

Chivito550 wrote: »

Oh absolutely. It’s very relevant today. But comparing the slam numbers of Borg, McEnroe, Connors etc to today’s crop is a bit pointless. They didn’t count slams back in those days. Borg retired at 26, only went to Australia once, at the start of his career, and even chose World Team Tennis over Roland Garros one year.

He was just one odd Emerson’s record of 12 when he retired, but it obviously wasn’t seen as important then.

they don't really compare the numbers anymore (last few years) because the modern players numbers are so far ahead.

at the moment you have 3 active players with the top 3 GS numbers (Djokovic on a tie with Sampras with 14)

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

they don't really compare the numbers anymore (last few years) because the modern players numbers are so far ahead.

at the moment you have 3 active players with the top 3 GS numbers (Djokovic on a tie with Sampras with 14)

Yes, but part of the reason they are so far ahead is because Slam counting didn’t become a thing until Sampras.

And it is reasonable to think Laver would be up there is the high teens if he hadn’t lost 6 years.

walshb

Slam counting has always bee there, at least in the sense that it was the slams that they top players wanted to win. So it was always important, at least since I have been following the sport. The top players in the 80s and 90s always played the slams...that to me says they were "counting." Before Sampras started to really collect them.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Slam counting has always bee there, at least in the sense that it was the slams that they top players wanted to win. So it was always important, at least since I have been following the sport. The top players in the 80s and 90s always played the slams...that to me says they were "counting." Before Sampras started to really collect them.

Many of the top players didn’t bother going to Australia. Borg, McEnroe, Connors rarely travelled. It wasn’t seen as a big event. Agassi didn’t even go until 1995. Edberg won twice but said his first Wimbledon title was his first real slam. He also expressed regret that he didn’t win the Australian Open after it became important in 1988.

In fact many would go to a tournament held in Sydney in October so it wasn’t the distance that was the issue, it was the fact it was held at Christmas time and the poor prize money. The old Kooyong venue was a bit craggy island like too. The tournament only really gained prestige from 1988 when it moved to its current venue.

So we only had 3 slams that were a big deal, and at times the French struggled, with players opting to chase the cash with World Team Tennis (WTT) instead of going to RG.

If slam counting was a thing back then, they’d have all gone to Australia, would have prioritized RG over WTT, and Borg certainly wouldn’t have retired at 26, just one shy of the slam record at the time.

And if slam counting was a thing, more players would have stayed amateur in the 60s.

EDIT: Discussion about it here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/would-borg-have-been-motivated-to-play-on-if-he-had-fedal-to-catch-up-to.618887/

Plenty more threads easily found on a Google search. Tennis has changed a lot since then. Back then the idea of winning "The Grand Slam" was a big thing, with players often only opting to go to Australia if they won the first three before then, but the idea of total slam count was not a thing.

Mousewar

mickmackey1 wrote: »

If Djokovic finishes on 17/18 majors than his trip to the loony bin over the last two years will have cost him the all-time record.

Fed looks in significant decline alright, would be ironic if the serve was the first part of his game to irretrievably break down. He might consider playing a few smaller tournaments to get closer to that silly Connors 'record'.

When Delpo hits 30 in a few weeks then we have no Slam champion in their 20s, hard to think of a more bizarre stat in all of sports.

Actually it'll be a few days later when Cilic turns 30 but yes, that's a remarkable stat.

sligeach

I don't know if people here visit the BBC website, they're extremely biased towards Serena over there. They wouldn't allow a HYS(Have Your Say) section for any of the stories to do with the women's tennis, then after the mens final, the story had a comments section. People used it to express their disgust at Serena and how the BBC reports on her. Over 95% of the comments were against her, the moderators tried to delete all the comments, it turned so much into a tsunami that I see they removed the comment section completely.

anthonyjmaher

I'm pretty shocked at the coverage of the Serena Williams meltdown in the mainstream media, and a lot of famous people with a lot of influence indulging her bad behaviour. "this is racism, this is sexism etc etc". It's none of those things, it's simply bad behaviour on Serena's part.

My thoughts are that Serena Williams knew that she was on a loser, and decided that she needed an excuse so that she wouldn't have to face the fact that the other girl was simply better than her. So in the same way that she spoiled Kim Klijsters win in 2009, she decided to spoil the victory for Osaka. And the fact that Serena now puts this loss down to -isms is shameful. Serena, you lost, you were simply not good enough on the day. You've won so much and you still begrudge Osaka her deserved win.

KaiserGunner

https://twitter.com/andrewcastle63/status/1038917044274700291?s=21

I wouldn’t be a big Andrew Castle fan, but I did enjoy this tweet.

Pero_Bueno

Chivito550 wrote: »

Bit of a boo there when they announce the size of the winners cheque. Is there any need to tell people how much money they win? Seems unnecessary.

Americans obsessed with money, it's part of the attraction.
But I agree with you.

Pero_Bueno

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

THought it a gasp more than a boo, But nothing surprises me with flushing meadows fans, especially after the women's presentation. They're utter scum, only closely matched by US Ryder Cup Fans




Agreed, Assuming he will wish to maximise his earning potential while his body still allows him to play.
He can still go out and challenge on the tour, and earn a **** ton of cash.

True, I can't speak for Ryder cup fans but US Open American fans aren't real tennis fans, they are there for the show, I have been to the US Open when williams sisters play and they don't have a clue, low class people just cheering on athletes based on nationality or skin colour.

Pero_Bueno

Great to see Novak back, he's #1 again, don't care what the ATP rankings say, you win 2 slams back to back you are #1.

Itssoeasy

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/opinion/martina-navratilova-serena-williams-us-open.html

Matina Navratilova didn't seem to the message and isn't fawning over serena and her behaviour at the US open. It's a very balanced article and I like the way she lists the things serena did and what the rule was.

splinter65

Over on the Irish Independents Facebook page article about the Williams incident all the feminist tennis aficionados are complaining about how Jimmy McEnroe and Johnny Connors were smashing their bats in a match last year and the referee person never said a word....

Pero_Bueno

splinter65 wrote: »

Over on the Irish Independents Facebook page article about the Williams incident all the feminist tennis aficionados are complaining about how Jimmy McEnroe and Johnny Connors were smashing their bats in a match last year and the referee person never said a word....

ah good old Jimmy Connors , he was a great lad

splinter65

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

ah good old Jimmy Connors , he was a great lad

J S Connors

Niles Crane

I love this idea that defenders of Williams have tried to put out there that nobody ever criticized John McEnroe for his behavior on court and that he was universally popular in spite of his behavior, forgetting of course that McEnroe was sometimes fined and suspended for his behavior and was not very popular outside of the US during his playing career.

Joe_ Public

Niles Crane wrote: »

I love this idea that defenders of Williams have tried to put out there that nobody ever criticized John McEnroe for his behavior on court and that he was universally popular in spite of his behavior, forgetting of course that McEnroe was sometimes fined and suspended for his behavior and was not very popular outside of the US during his playing career.

Yes that’s true but am curious about that popularity thing. I know as a kid he was one of my first sporting idols anyway. I loved him and can recall the rapturous reception he got when he came to Ireland to play Davis Cup. I’m sure there were those who disliked him, just my memory (not always infallible it must be said) is that he was popular despite his boorish antics.

Niles Crane

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes that’s true but am curious about that popularity thing. I know as a kid he was one of my first sporting idols anyway. I loved him and can recall the rapturous reception he got when he came to Ireland to play Davis Cup. I’m sure there were those who disliked him, just my memory (not always infallible it must be said) is that he was popular despite his boorish antics.

Don't think he was well liked inititally by the British , nicknamed Super Brat by the tabloids over there and that famous Sketch on Not The Nine O'Clock News.

Maybe He was a bit more well liked than I always thought but it wasn't like he got away with his antics which of course is what people defending Serena Williams have tried to claim.

Joe_ Public

Niles Crane wrote: »

Don't think he was well liked inititally by the British , nicknamed Super Brat by the tabloids over there and that famous Sketch on Not The Nine O'Clock News.

Maybe He was a bit more well liked than I always thought but it wasn't like he got away with his antics which of course is what people defending Serena Williams have tried to claim.

I’m not sure tbh. I think younger people were more inclined to like him, less likely to be outraged by his behavior and more impressed by his two fingered approach to authority. The tabs just loved to hate him, he was the gift that never stopped giving in terms of column inches.

It’s hard to compare eras because different moral standards can often apply, but I’m pretty sure if McEnroe was playing today and attempted the same cr@p he wouldn’t last long in the game. I also think it’s very regrettable what happened with Kyrgios, that umpire should be facing a very severe penalty for his actions but seems nothing is going to happen.

Niles Crane

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I’m not sure tbh. I think younger people were more inclined to like him, less likely to be outraged by his behavior and more impressed by his two fingered approach to authority. The tabs just loved to hate him, he was the gift that never stopped giving in terms of column inches.

It’s hard to compare eras because different moral standards can often apply, but I’m pretty sure if McEnroe was playing today and attempted the same cr@p he wouldn’t last long in the game. I also think it’s very regrettable what happened with Kyrgios, that umpire should be facing a very severe penalty for his actions but seems nothing is going to happen.

The Kyrgios thing was mad alright and that umpire really should be done umpiring at top level events for a good while if not forever, seems that because of the Kyrgios incident the umpires were instructed that going forward in the tournament there was to be no talking to the players and they had to stick to the letter of the law.

lostcat

Niles Crane wrote: »

..... seems that because of the Kyrgios incident the umpires were instructed that going forward in the tournament there was to be no talking to the players and they had to stick to the letter of the law.

If this is true, then I assume the players and their teams were advised of this at the time, which makes the first warning which Serena got for coaching more understandable (i thought it was a bit OTT at the time).

walshb

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes that’s true but am curious about that popularity thing. I know as a kid he was one of my first sporting idols anyway. I loved him and can recall the rapturous reception he got when he came to Ireland to play Davis Cup. I’m sure there were those who disliked him, just my memory (not always infallible it must be said) is that he was popular despite his boorish antics.

I always rooted for Mac. He was my favorite tennis player through the 80s and early 90s. But what a bad sport.

An yes, he was very much liked and followed, and kind of revered. His very unique style of play making this....

sligeach

I see this cartoon image is getting some coverage.

https://twitter.com/damonheraldsun/status/1039312474942492672

Serena Williams: Cartoonist denies US Open depiction is racist

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45479954

I don't think it's racist, it's an accurate summation in image form.

walshb

Hardly racist......

How else was she meant to look as a cartoon figure? It's a cartoon...

The cartoon is depicting her poor sports'man'like behavior.....I know, gender issue here with that phrase!

Chivito550

Sexism is right....

https://twitter.com/boxerdave/status/1039443452302381059?s=21

splinter65

Chivito550 wrote: »

Sexism is right....

https://twitter.com/boxerdave/status/1039443452302381059?s=21

Gender pay gap right there folks

dominatinMC

Chivito550 wrote: »

Sexism is right....

https://twitter.com/boxerdave/status/1039443452302381059?s=21

I would rather that there be sexism, than the mens game going to Bo3. That clown Ben Rothenberg is constantly championing his Bo3 agenda on Twitter, looking for equality in both codes. Rather than paying the men more/forcing the women to play Bo5, he reckons the mens game should revert to Bo3. That is despite all the epic matches we have gotten down through the years (and especially in this era).

Joe_ Public

dominatinMC wrote: »

I would rather that there be sexism, than the mens game going to Bo3. That clown Ben Rothenberg is constantly championing his Bo3 agenda on Twitter, looking for equality in both codes. Rather than paying the men more/forcing the women to play Bo5, he reckons the mens game should revert to Bo3. That is despite all the epic matches we have gotten down through the years (and especially in this era).

In fairness I’ve heard more people than Rothenberg argue that over the years, though doubt there is widespread support for it. Nor do I believe it’s a case of women being forced into anything as Serena and others, including the WTA itself, are long on record indicating their willingness to play bo5. It’s the GS organizers who stand against it.