2014 IW 4R - Simona Halep vs. Genie Bouchard

Who's going to take it?

  • Total voters
    32
Marius_Hancu

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
Halep breaks back immediately against some aces from B: 4-4
great fight back
just as she did with Safarova

5-4 Halep
 
Last edited:
A

Artanis

Semi-Pro
Very nice match! Speed versus power.
Wish good luck to Simona further!

As an aside, on court coaching never helps...
 
Smasher08

Smasher08

Legend
Holee cr*p, hats off to Simona! Won't be long before Genie joins her in the top 10.

And a top 4 ranking for Simona appears to be well deserved!
 
Ironwood

Ironwood

Professional
Did that ever fall apart for Bouchard at the end. The seeding played out as it should. Bouchard is coming along, and come along she will!
 
Marius_Hancu

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
Halep wins 6-4 based on toughness and experience
but great match for Bouchard in the last two sets, she's getting better and better.

She needs to move better, make those damn split steps higher and more aggressively :) and learn to keep the ball longer in play with tough players. But the serving and drives are great. 7 aces -- nothing to sneeze at.
 
Last edited:
glovesaves35

glovesaves35

Rookie
Geez, Genie needs to learn how to hit a normal volley. Those swinging volleys are painful to watch. So many points she could how won easily by simply coming forward and putting away a volley. It would also do her some good to learn to put some air under the ball when she is defending. She puts everything back so low and hard she doesnt give herself any time to recover. Still a good match for her, nice comeback. Another year of seasoning and I think the rest of the tour is in deep trouble.
 
A

Artanis

Semi-Pro
Simona with her feet on the ground.
My prediction went right for this match, and why not, a bright future ahead for her...
 
R

Recoveringhobo

Rookie
At this point in time she is the brightest prospect of the younger female players. She may be a bit older than Stephens, Bouchard, etc but her career took a dip after surgery, though it has bounced back now.

Her speed and ferocity reminds me so much of Henin.
 
A

Amelie Mauresmo

Banned
Recoveringhobo said:
At this point in time she is the brightest prospect of the younger female players. She may be a bit older than Stephens, Bouchard, etc but her career took a dip after surgery, though it has bounced back now.

Her speed and ferocity reminds me so much of Henin.
Click to expand...
I think Halep is consistent than the other young players BUT she still has not had a breakthrough at a big WTA event. Halep has won a bunch of smaller events but until she proves she can win on the big stage the press ignores her.

Halep needs to do better at the grand slams she did reach the AO quarterfinal but Sloane and Eugenie are younger they already got to a slam semifinal. Simona is certainly more consistent than Eugenie and Sloane at the regular WTA events. Simona just needs to do better at the bigger WTA events like she did in The Middle East.
 
DarthMaul

DarthMaul

Professional
This match proved that quality tennis can be played without grunting :)
Congratulations to Simona! Hats off to Eugenie too! I enjoyed the match!
 
Vanhool

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
When I saw Halep beat Bartoli and Stosur at Cincy, I thought holy **** who is she!!! Wow! Then Serena destroyed her. I don't think she yet has the weapons to take out the top level power players and not sure if she ever can UNLESS they make lots of errors. Luckily for her, this can happen. Can it happen enough times to pull off a slam win? Maybe so with her improved ranking/seeding. I'm a fan
 
Marius_Hancu

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
Halep is not in top form in this tourney yet. The fact that she's won tough matches is an affirmation of her mental toughness.

Lucky draw now: Dellacqua next. Tomorrow, finally on center court for her. Good break.
 
ScentOfDefeat

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Amelie Mauresmo said:
I think Halep is consistent than the other young players BUT she still has not had a breakthrough at a big WTA event. Halep has won a bunch of smaller events but until she proves she can win on the big stage the press ignores her.

Halep needs to do better at the grand slams she did reach the AO quarterfinal but Sloane and Eugenie are younger they already got to a slam semifinal. Simona is certainly more consistent than Eugenie and Sloane at the regular WTA events. Simona just needs to do better at the bigger WTA events like she did in The Middle East.
Click to expand...

If we take into account the fact that Halep has actually won a few tournaments and the other two haven't, the fact that the other two have reached Slam semis should be irrelevant. I mean, women play best of three in all tournaments. Bartoli's Wimbledon win was about as impressive as Halep's triumph in Qatar.
 
A

Amelie Mauresmo

Banned
ScentOfDefeat said:
If we take into account the fact that Halep has actually won a few tournaments and the other two haven't, the fact that the other two have reached Slam semis should be irrelevant. I mean, women play best of three in all tournaments. Bartoli's Wimbledon win was about as impressive as Halep's triumph in Qatar.
Click to expand...

I disagree, Halep had a real chance to reach the US Open semifinals last year yet lost to Penetta in the fourth rounf. Halep was the higher ranked player at the AO had a chance to reach the semifinals BUT got upset by Cibulkova. The pressure is highest at the slams and so far Simona Halep has not achieved what Stephens and Bouchard have attained. Winning minor WTA events do not mean much if a player cannot produce at the slams. Nobody cares that Caroline Wozniacki has 17 WTA titles what matters is she has NOT won a slam. Even though Wozniacki has reached number one she is criticized for doing poorly at the slams. Wozniacki has not reached a slam semifinal in three years. Slam results MATTER a lot they separate the girls from the women.
 
A

Artanis

Semi-Pro
Slam titles may count, and maybe let's say reaching a final. But a semifinal appearance is far less important than winning any WTA title, imho.

In the meantime, Simona wins easily against DellAcqua :)
 
Vanhool

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Artanis said:
Slam titles may count, and maybe let's say reaching a final. But a semifinal appearance is far less important than winning any WTA title, imho.

In the meantime, Simona wins easily against DellAcqua :)
Click to expand...

I agree with this. A semi finalist is still a loser. A winner is a champion. Obviously a slam winner>premier winner> international winner. I might venture a slam semi finalist>international winner, but not premier. Someone said Bartoli winning Wimbledon is equal to Halep winning a premier because it's best of three either way. That's just wrong. First, there are more rounds to get through. Second, all the best players are there, no one skips unless they're in a cast (and Serena would probably anyway). Third, everyone plays their absolute best, where at some of the lead up tournaments people are conserving energy. Fourth, extra pressure.
 
Marius_Hancu

Marius_Hancu

Talk Tennis Guru
Vanhool said:
Someone said Bartoli winning Wimbledon is equal to Halep winning a premier because it's best of three either way. That's just wrong.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Slams are slams.
And Halep knows that better than anyone.
She will need to improve her game even more: slices, volleys, dropshots, 2nd serves.
 
Last edited:
ScentOfDefeat

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Marius_Hancu said:
Interview trascripts:

Halep
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=96845

Bouchard
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=96844

Halep indicates she's been indeed a bit tired lately. Two very difficult matches await her. Was very complimentary of Bouchard.

Bouchard: she truly does not look at the draw. That is impressive.
Click to expand...

What impressed me in Halep's interview is something she repeats quite often: the idea that she'll do everything in her power to win. That's very impressive.
 
TheMusicLover

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
ScentOfDefeat said:
What impressed me in Halep's interview is something she repeats quite often: the idea that she'll do everything in her power to win. That's very impressive.
Click to expand...

She already proved that in the near past... don't have to tell you by which action precisely, I presume.

Go Simona!
 
ScentOfDefeat

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Vanhool said:
Someone said Bartoli winning Wimbledon is equal to Halep winning a premier because it's best of three either way. That's just wrong. First, there are more rounds to get through. Second, all the best players are there, no one skips unless they're in a cast (and Serena would probably anyway). Third, everyone plays their absolute best, where at some of the lead up tournaments people are conserving energy. Fourth, extra pressure.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree that there's extra pressure in Slams, that there are more rounds to get through and that the best players are (mostly) there. I know you're probably thinking of Serena in this case but the fact that she doesn't play Indian Wells is accidental, not an inherent flaw in Premier events compared to Slams. She plays the other Premiers. All the best players want to win Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, etc. They're very prestigious tournaments.

Also, when I compared Bartoli's Wimbledon win to Halep's Premier win I was also thinking of a comparison between the women's and the men's game. It's obvious that the difference between playing a Slam and any other tournament is more considerable on the men's side than it is in the WTA. Not only do all the elements you mentioned about the women's majors apply, but they also have to play 5 sets. The gap between a Slam and a Premier is much finer on the women's tour.

And finally, you have to add other elements such as the unpredictability of the game, the draw opening up for a specific player, seeds tumbling, etc. It's not obvious at all that "everyone plays at their best" in Slams because it's impossible to compare levels of play at different moments in time. In tennis you only compare to what your opponent's doing at a specific moment in time. Who is to know that such and such player was playing at a superior level when she won a major than when she won a Premier event? It's impossible to know.

And surprises can happen in any tournament: Bartoli's draw opened up very nicely, she never had to play Serena and beat a nervous first time finalist who didn't even give herself a chance because she was overwhelmed by the occasion. I can imagine a tougher road to win any Premier event and so can anyone else, even considering that they're less prestigious and don't involve the amount of pressure felt in a Slam.

So I'll give you the fact that they play more rounds, that there's more prestige and therefore more pressure to win, that it's a more significant achievement than any other in tennis. But I don't agree with the abstract assertion that you necessarily require "more" to win a major than a Premier tournament. Or that you've necessarily "played better". I'm not even sure Bartoli played better than when she lost in her first final and she still won the tournament.
 
Last edited:
Vanhool

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
ScentOfDefeat said:
Well, I agree that there's extra pressure in Slams, that there are more rounds to get through and that the best players are (mostly) there. I know you're probably thinking of Serena in this case but the fact that she doesn't play Indian Wells is accidental, not an inherent flaw in Premier events compared to Slams. She plays the other Premiers. All the best players want to win Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, etc. They're very prestigious tournaments.

Also, when I compared Bartoli's Wimbledon win to Halep's Premier win I was also thinking of a comparison between the women's and the men's game. It's obvious that the difference between playing a Slam and any other tournament is more considerable on the men's side than it is in the WTA. Not only do all the elements you mentioned about the women's majors apply, but they also have to play 5 sets. The gap between a Slam and a Premier is much finer on the women's tour.

And finally, you have to add other elements such as the unpredictability of the game, the draw opening up for a specific player, seeds tumbling, etc. It's not obvious at all that "everyone plays at their best" in Slams because it's impossible to compare levels of play at different moments in time. In tennis you only compare to what your opponent's doing at a specific moment in time. Who is to know that such and such player was playing at a superior level when she won a major than when she won a Premier event? It's impossible to know.

And surprises can happen in any tournament: Bartoli's draw opened up very nicely, she never had to play Serena and beat a nervous first time finalist who didn't even give herself a chance because she was overwhelmed by the occasion. I can imagine a tougher road to win any Premier event and so can anyone else, even considering that they're less prestigious and don't involve the amount of pressure felt in a Slam.

So I'll give you the fact that they play more rounds, that there's more prestige and therefore more pressure to win, that it's a more significant achievement than any other in tennis. But I don't agree with the abstract assertion that you necessarily require "more" to win a major than a Premier tournament. Or that you've necessarily "played better". I'm not even sure Bartoli played better than when she lost in her first final and she still won the tournament.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean Serena specifically. Lots of premier events will have a top player(s) skip (depending on how many points and where they are in the calendar). You're right that they aren't necessarily playing their best tennis at a slam, but they are giving everything they can on that day. I didn't feel like Vika, Serena, and a lot of the top players were playing at their best level at Cincy. It felt like they were saving themselves for USO. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe they were just tired. And of course I agree 5 sets makes it a bigger challenge on the men's side, so definitely a slam victory is a much bigger deal for the men. But still think wta slam victory is a significantly bigger deal than a premier. And some premiers are a bigger achievement than others.
 
ScentOfDefeat

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Vanhool said:
I didn't mean Serena specifically. Lots of premier events will have a top player(s) skip (depending on how many points and where they are in the calendar). You're right that they aren't necessarily playing their best tennis at a slam, but they are giving everything they can on that day. I didn't feel like Vika, Serena, and a lot of the top players were playing at their best level at Cincy. It felt like they were saving themselves for USO. Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe they were just tired. And of course I agree 5 sets makes it a bigger challenge on the men's side, so definitely a slam victory is a much bigger deal for the men. But still think wta slam victory is a significantly bigger deal than a premier. And some premiers are a bigger achievement than others.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with most of this. I would just add (because I'm a pain in the buttocks) that what makes a Premier a bigger achievement than another Premier is usually added symbolic value. Something that is given to it from the outside, that isn't intrinsic to the difficulty of actually playing it. And subjective value, the value it has for a player individually, doesn't always match what tennis experts or society in general think about the relative value of a given tournament. Similarly, what makes one Slam a bigger achievement than another is also pretty much symbolic. And a Slam win in the WTA is a significantly bigger achievement than a Premier mostly because of symbolic value (I'd say about 70%) and to a lesser extent a mix of other less significant factors (having to play an extra round, the added pressure and the fact that everyone is that much hungrier to win, which accounts for about 30%).
 
Vanhool

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
ScentOfDefeat said:
Yes, I agree with most of this. I would just add (because I'm a pain in the buttocks) that what makes a Premier a bigger achievement than another Premier is usually added symbolic value. Something that is given to it from the outside, that isn't intrinsic to the difficulty of actually playing it. And subjective value, the value it has for a player individually, doesn't always match what tennis experts or society in general think about the relative value of a given tournament. Similarly, what makes one Slam a bigger achievement than another is also pretty much symbolic. And a Slam win in the WTA is a significantly bigger achievement than a Premier mostly because of symbolic value (I'd say about 70%) and to a lesser extent a mix of other less significant factors (having to play an extra round, the added pressure and the fact that everyone is that much hungrier to win, which accounts for about 30%).
Click to expand...

This is very reasonably argued and I've been up since 2:30 in the morning, so I will just agree with you :)
 
ttbrowne

ttbrowne

Hall of Fame
ScentOfDefeat said:
Well, I agree that there's extra pressure in Slams, that there are more rounds to get through and that the best players are (mostly) there. I know you're probably thinking of Serena in this case but the fact that she doesn't play Indian Wells is accidental, not an inherent flaw in Premier events compared to Slams. She plays the other Premiers. All the best players want to win Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, etc. They're very prestigious tournaments.

Also, when I compared Bartoli's Wimbledon win to Halep's Premier win I was also thinking of a comparison between the women's and the men's game. It's obvious that the difference between playing a Slam and any other tournament is more considerable on the men's side than it is in the WTA. Not only do all the elements you mentioned about the women's majors apply, but they also have to play 5 sets. The gap between a Slam and a Premier is much finer on the women's tour.

And finally, you have to add other elements such as the unpredictability of the game, the draw opening up for a specific player, seeds tumbling, etc. It's not obvious at all that "everyone plays at their best" in Slams because it's impossible to compare levels of play at different moments in time. In tennis you only compare to what your opponent's doing at a specific moment in time. Who is to know that such and such player was playing at a superior level when she won a major than when she won a Premier event? It's impossible to know.

And surprises can happen in any tournament: Bartoli's draw opened up very nicely, she never had to play Serena and beat a nervous first time finalist who didn't even give herself a chance because she was overwhelmed by the occasion. I can imagine a tougher road to win any Premier event and so can anyone else, even considering that they're less prestigious and don't involve the amount of pressure felt in a Slam.

So I'll give you the fact that they play more rounds, that there's more prestige and therefore more pressure to win, that it's a more significant achievement than any other in tennis. But I don't agree with the abstract assertion that you necessarily require "more" to win a major than a Premier tournament. Or that you've necessarily "played better". I'm not even sure Bartoli played better than when she lost in her first final and she still won the tournament.
Click to expand...

I think you're leaving out one thing. The sheer amount of press coverage and prestige of a Slam. Those things combined make it a whole different ballgame. Indian Wells is big but in the context of a major...not at all. Around the world even a non-tennis fan knows Wimbledon.
My point is that this puts an immense amount of pressure on players and that is what, IMO, makes a Slam event much more pressurized(?) even if you get a few breaks.
 
ScentOfDefeat

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
ttbrowne said:
I think you're leaving out one thing. The sheer amount of press coverage and prestige of a Slam. Those things combined make it a whole different ballgame. Indian Wells is big but in the context of a major...not at all. Around the world even a non-tennis fan knows Wimbledon.
My point is that this puts an immense amount of pressure on players and that is what, IMO, makes a Slam event much more pressurized(?) even if you get a few breaks.
Click to expand...

I thought I did mention that.
 
M

Marcel Granoller Bar

New User
Marcel Granoller Bar said:
Halep's defence is pathetic. That could prevent her from the Slams.
Infact GB is more dogged defensive, and can hit those awkward hacks.

Halep's offence is surprisingly gr8 for a smaller player.

GB has the obvious height and power, but her mental toughness is her best potential.
However on talent alone see greater promise from Halep, Murugutza & Tomiclaijivanovic.
Click to expand...

Haha wrote this in 2014, about unknown players Halep, Muguruza.

How true it turned out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marius_Hancu
  • Poll
Simona Halep v Eugenie Bouchard - Wimbledon 2014 SF
4 5 6
Replies
280
Views
15K
Marius_Hancu
Marius_Hancu
Marius_Hancu
  • Poll
2014 IV SF: Simona Halep vs Agnieszka Radwanska
2 3
Replies
108
Views
6K
Marius_Hancu
Marius_Hancu
Marius_Hancu
  • Poll
Serena Williams vs Simona Halep - 2015 IW SF
Replies
14
Views
1K
Bogdan_TT
B
AngieB
Article: "How Disastrous 2014 Wuhan Open Will Affect The WTA"
Replies
19
Views
3K
Marius_Hancu
Marius_Hancu
UnderratedSlam
  • Poll
Which WTA slam champs will win additional majors?
Replies
21
Views
584
UnderratedSlam
UnderratedSlam
Top