2017 Wimbledon WTA

Who will win the 3rd slam of 2017?


  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

GhostDog

Hall of Fame
Thank god that Venus slayed the dragon. I can't stand the hype over a fake Brit. Konta's exagerrated ball bounce and goofy celebrations annoy me to no end.

Her ball bounce is annoying lol. She's got some Bartoli-ism's.

Congrats to Venus. Pretty amazing if she wins her 6th Wimbledon since '09 when it looked like she was done not too long ago. It should be a great a match with the form Mugu is in.
 

Devil_dog

Hall of Fame
Go Venus! I figured she would win vs. Jojo but that was a very convincing victory. I still think Venus will win SW19 vs. Gabby.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Tell me this, does the U.K. Media acknowledge that Konta is Australian and only been with the U.K. As of recently? I feel if people knew that, she wouldn't be as well received.

It's like the equivalent of Tsonga switching allegiance to Switzerland.
I think we want a champion so badly, it's irrelevant what the backstory is. If Heather Watson or Laura Robson did as well as Jo, Jo would be third in the line of favourites. Ask Rusedski whose mother is British but father is German/Polish. He was born and brought up in Canada before electing to come here and take up his British Citizenship. It's almost as if they have to keep reminding themselves that Rusedski is British and that he made the SF at the USO; so often they would say, Henman was the only British male player to make a GS SF in how many years before Murray, completely forgetting about Rusedski. Had there been no Henman at that time, Rusedski would have been the man. Bedene is suffering the same ignominy because they've got Edmund and,of course, Murray.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Well she reached the semis at last year's AO without huge crowd support so it's not like what she achieved at Wimbledon was a fluke. Maybe she's just a good player with a game good enough to get to the latter stages of a major? Just a thought. :)
Joke WTA era. There will be so many "champions" in the upcoming years and I bet that a good chunk of them wouldn't be good enough to be tier 2 in an era like 1999-2007.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Different surface but Mugu gave her a beatdown in Rome earlier this year. Minor slipup dropping a set, but Mugu dominated 90% of the rallies.

How is a 3 set win a beatdown? Also, clay is Muguruza's best surface and Venus' worst. This will be a different type of match.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
I think we want a champion so badly, it's irrelevant what the backstory is. If Heather Watson or Laura Watson did as well as Jo, Jo would be third in the line of favourites. Ask Rusedski whose mother is British but father is German/Polish. He was born and brought up in Canada before electing to come here and take up his British Citizenship. It's almost as if they have to keep reminding themselves that Rusedski is British and that he made the SF at the USO; so often they would say, Henman was the only British male player to make a GS SF in how many years before Murray, completely forgetting about Rusedski. Had there been no Henman at that time, Rusedski would have been the man. Bedene is suffering the same ignominy because they've got Edmund and,of course, Murray.

Yeah, Rusedski was always the black sheep. He made the US Open final, took Rafter to 4 sets in that match.
I think Rusedski's peak was higher than Henman's, if there's such a thing as a peak. And yet he was treated like a fraud by the British media and establishment.
If the problem was having a foreign parent, then what about Konta whose parents are both Hungarian?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Joke WTA era. There will be so many "champions" in the upcoming years and I bet that a good chunk of them wouldn't be good enough to be tier 2 in an era like 1999-2007.
So any woman that wins a slam in the next few years deserves no credit for it just because it's won't be as strong an era as others we've seen in more recent times? Seems a bit harsh to me. :oops:
 

Duncan Donuts

Professional
Yeah, Rusedski was always the black sheep. He made the US Open final, took Rafter to 4 sets in that match.
I think Rusedski's peak was higher than Henman's, if there's such a thing as a peak. And yet he was treated like a fraud by the British media and establishment.
If the problem was having a foreign parent, then what about Konta whose parents are both Hungarian?

That's what I'm saying. Konta should then be getting the same treatment as Rusedski.

But WTA tennis in the U.K. Is so dire they will latch onto anything at this point.

This is a problem at the AO as well.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
Joke WTA era. There will be so many "champions" in the upcoming years and I bet that a good chunk of them wouldn't be good enough to be tier 2 in an era like 1999-2007.
Like the joke ATP era.

At least the WTA has young slam champions. The ATP celebrates a new gen winning a Masters title, Zverev, the "one Masters wonder".

You have to go back to 2010 to find anyone outside the top 4 who won a Masters, except for Cilic (edit: Stan and Jo). Ljubicic and Soderling won 2 of the 8 masters that year. Don't know what "gen" they belong to.

The ATP has two joke era's running right now, lost gen and next gen.
Once these 30 somethings slow or retire the ATP is going to have a lot of "champions" who wouldn't be good enough to be tier 2 in any era. They're going to be slam winners through attrition, not by stepping up and taking it.
 
Last edited:

underground

G.O.A.T.
Like the joke ATP era.

At least the WTA has young slam champions. The ATP celebrates a new gen winning a Masters title, Zverev, the "one Masters wonder".

You have to go back to 2010 to find anyone outside the top 4 who won a Masters, except for Cilic. Ljubicic and Soderling won 2 of the 8 masters that year. Don't know what "gen" they belong to.

The ATP has two joke era's running right now, lost gen and next gen.
Once these 30 somethings slow or retire the ATP is going to have a lot of "champions" who wouldn't be good enough to be tier 2 in any era. They're going to be slam winners through attrition, not by stepping up and taking it.

Just to point out, Stan and Tsonga won masters in 2014.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Like the joke ATP era.

At least the WTA has young slam champions. The ATP celebrates a new gen winning a Masters title, Zverev, the "one Masters wonder".

You have to go back to 2010 to find anyone outside the top 4 who won a Masters, except for Cilic. Ljubicic and Soderling won 2 of the 8 masters that year. Don't know what "gen" they belong to.

The ATP has two joke era's running right now, lost gen and next gen.
Once these 30 somethings slow or retire the ATP is going to have a lot of "champions" who wouldn't be good enough to be tier 2 in any era. They're going to be slam winners through attrition, not by stepping up and taking it.
The ATP will be a similar mess in a couple of years too once the big 4 is done. Federer and Nadal are saving the tour at the moment, though.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
So any woman that wins a slam in the next few years deserves no credit for it just because it's won't be as strong an era as others we've seen in more recent times? Seems a bit harsh to me. :oops:
Probably, I wanna see their level first but I'm having a hard time believing they will be as good as someone Venus, Henin, Clijsters or someone like Pierce, even.

I have high hopes for Ostapenko but other than that it's a wave of jokes.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Probably, I wanna see their level first but I'm having a hard time believing they will be as good as someone Venus, Henin, Clijsters or someone like Pierce, even.

I have high hopes for Ostapenko but other than that it's a wave of jokes.
I really don't see why any player wouldn't be a deserving GS champion just because her top level isn't good enough to beat ATGs of yesteryear. Sorry t_p but it just doesn't make sense to me.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
Probably, I wanna see their level first but I'm having a hard time believing they will be as good as someone Venus, Henin, Clijsters or someone like Pierce, even.

I have high hopes for Ostapenko but other than that it's a wave of jokes.
You have a hard time "believing" yet have no qualms calling it a wave of jokes. Based on what? Your "belief"? Pretty harsh words for young players.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
I really don't see why any player wouldn't be a deserving GS champion just because her top level isn't good enough to beat ATGs of yesteryear. Sorry t_p but it just doesn't make sense to me.
If the entire ATP top 1000 died in a car crash and someone who yesterday wasn't even ranked wins the US Open would you feel the winner (maybe even some 15-year old future Becker) would be as deserving as someone like Del Potro?
 

fundrazer

G.O.A.T.
How is a 3 set win a beatdown? Also, clay is Muguruza's best surface and Venus' worst. This will be a different type of match.
Cause I ****ing watched the match you knucklehead. It was one hiccup in 2nd set, but muguruza dominated most of the rallies. Go watch the frickin highlights.

Are you that guy that doesn't understand what neutralizing means? I guess you won't understand anyway.
 

reaper

Legend
Like the joke ATP era.

At least the WTA has young slam champions. The ATP celebrates a new gen winning a Masters title, Zverev, the "one Masters wonder".

You have to go back to 2010 to find anyone outside the top 4 who won a Masters, except for Cilic (edit: Stan and Jo). Ljubicic and Soderling won 2 of the 8 masters that year. Don't know what "gen" they belong to.

The ATP has two joke era's running right now, lost gen and next gen.
Once these 30 somethings slow or retire the ATP is going to have a lot of "champions" who wouldn't be good enough to be tier 2 in any era. They're going to be slam winners through attrition, not by stepping up and taking it.

The big 4 aren't going to retire while they're still winning and Federer and the Williams sisters have shown mid 30's is no great barrier to success. On the men's side there's probably 5 years before mediocre young players get a look in, leaving time for a generation of unheard of players to emerge.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
If the entire ATP top 1000 died in a car crash and someone who yesterday wasn't even ranked wins the US Open would you feel the winner (maybe even some 15-year old future Becker) would be as deserving as someone like Del Potro?
Are we to take that scenario seriously?
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
The big 4 aren't going to retire while they're still winning and Federer and the Williams sisters have shown mid 30's is no great barrier to success. On the men's side there's probably 5 years before mediocre young players get a look in, leaving time for a generation of unheard of players to emerge.
So is that the next next gen then? :D
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Are we to take that scenario seriously?
This is how I feel, not to a degree that 5 years from now the best WTA player won't be as good as the top 1000 from 1999-2007 obviously but still. You don't have to agree. There will be players winning 3-4 Slams in their careers soon but their level will be a lot lower compared to a 4 time Slam winner like Clijsters, f.e.

I will call it the "default Slam" era.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
If the entire ATP top 1000 died in a car crash and someone who yesterday wasn't even ranked wins the US Open would you feel the winner (maybe even some 15-year old future Becker) would be as deserving as someone like Del Potro?
That hypothetical scenario is just way too extreme to even contemplate. I'm pretty sure there are better examples you can think of. ;)
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Cause I ****ing watched the match you knucklehead. It was one hiccup in 2nd set, but muguruza dominated most of the rallies. Go watch the frickin highlights.

Are you that guy that doesn't understand what neutralizing means? I guess you won't understand anyway.

LOL. I just asked a question, which was a valid one, and you went off the deep end. Why are you so upset? A beat down is a 6-2 6-1 type of match or a 6-2 6-2 match, not a match that goes 3 sets.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
I don't beat around the bush. As I said the ATP will go through a similar faze, just later.
Ok, so this "joke" is based on you having no idea how the young women are going to perform over the next 6 to 8 years of their career, it's all based on your "belief". That right?
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
That's what I'm saying. Konta should then be getting the same treatment as Rusedski.

But WTA tennis in the U.K. Is so dire they will latch onto anything at this point.

This is a problem at the AO as well.

Rusedski also won the Paris indoor Masters (or Super 9 as it was called then) beating Sampras - probably the greatest carpet/indoor player of all time - when he was playing at the peak of his powers.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Ok, so this "joke" is based on you having no idea how the young women are going to perform over the next 6 to 8 years of their career, it's all based on your "belief". That right?
We'll see but I'm not very optimistic. Great players usually show signs of greatness early in their careers, that's the reason I have hopes for Ostapenko. Now we have Halep, Konta or Pliskova topping the rankings, players who haven't done squat and are all in their mid 20s. If you look further you see Kerber who is almost 30 and hasn't won anything outside of one season, Svitolina at no 5 (I haven't even heard of her before this season, thought she was some player in the top 30 or top 40 even), Wozniacki. Hell, even Radwanska who has had a disaster of a season and is basically and the end of her career (she's been talking a lot about having a family and a kid in recent times) is still in the top 10.

Show me the really good promising players at the age of 17-20 (other than Ostapenko) who have the potential to win multiple Slams in the future. I'll tell you more:
There is only 1 player aged 22 or yougner who is in the top 20 at the moment - you guessed it, it's Ostapenko. Then there's Konjuh ranked 22nd and the rest is outside the top 30. I'm also NOT being harsh with the "age limit" because women STILL mature younger than men. A 20-year old girl is on average as mature as a 22-23 year old male player.
 
Last edited:

skyline

Legend
Lol BBC blaming the pressure. IMO she just got outplayed by an all time great, a woman that only goes under the radar a little because her little sister is the GOAT and she's THIRTY-SEVEN!!!
Amen. If she was such a headcase she would not have made it this far. The woman got through several tight matches on her way to semis, she is a lot stronger than people give her credit for.

She played a fine match, but grass isn't yet her surface the way HC is.
 

skyline

Legend
We'll see but I'm not very optimistic. Great players usually show signs of greatness early in their careers, that's the reason I have hopes for Ostapenko. Now we have Halep, Konta or Pliskova topping the rankings, players who haven't done squat and are all in their mid 20s. If you look further you see Kerber who is almost 30 and hasn't won anything outside of one season, Svitolina at no 5 (I haven't even heard of her before this season, thought she was some player in the top 30 or top 40 even), Wozniacki. Hell, even Radwanska who has had a disaster of a season and is basically and the end of her career (she's been talking a lot about having a family and a kid in recent times) is still in the top 10.
Svitolina is only 23 and has gone a level up this year. She can win French next year if she keeps developing like she has been.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
You have a hard time "believing" yet have no qualms calling it a wave of jokes. Based on what? Your "belief"? Pretty harsh words for young players.

As usual, tennis_pro does a very bad job of expressing himself but he has a point. I don't find the new players on either tour to be very well rounded, with perhaps the exception of Muguruza. And I have no idea why she went into this slump but hopefully she is back on track now. Say with Konta, you can see once she gets a lot of heat from the other side, her forehand side starts to break down. For not being the biggest hitter on the tour, she overhits way too much. Ostapenko could turn out to be a great player if she improves her serve. But that is a big if. Ivanovic never fixed her serve, for instance. OK, forget Venus or Henin, none of the new players have the range of an Azarenka. Another player who I thought would win many more slams than she ultimately has, at least to date. And remember, all this is with Serena in absentia. It's going to be a huge problem to fill the void when she leaves and of course an even bigger problem for ATP since they have four huge stars with Wawrinka as a bonus attraction. Tennis is in for a slump in the future unless there are indeed some upcoming players who have so far flown completely under the radar and will take over from these great players when they are done.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
We'll see but I'm not very optimistic. Great players usually show signs of greatness early in their careers, that's the reason I have hopes for Ostapenko. Now we have Halep, Konta or Pliskova (who are all in their mid 20s).
Then you must have zero hope for the ATP. It's filled with mid 20's who've done nothing.

I happen to believe that both tours are getting bigger and stronger and I think the same applies to both, the game is moving toward mid/late 20's peak.
I don't think we'll see many young men winning slams for awhile. Ostapenko and Muguruza are big strong girls and that's allowed them to win younger. I also think there are more young girls showing promise than guys at this point.

Basically I don't like this WTA bashing while the same criteria is never applied to the men's game. The WTA is sitting better right now in my book. You don't have to agree ('cause I certainly don't agree with you!), but I'll take the WTA for now.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
This is how I feel, not to a degree that 5 years from now the best WTA player won't be as good as the top 1000 from 1999-2007 obviously but still. You don't have to agree. There will be players winning 3-4 Slams in their careers soon but their level will be a lot lower compared to a 4 time Slam winner like Clijsters, f.e.

I will call it the "default Slam" era.

Come now, this is simply unjustifiable. Top 1000 would include utter scrubs whom I am sure at least an Ostapenko or a Konta or a Halep would be better than. How many players ranked 500 or below would take 4 games in a set off Venus at Wimbledon?
 

skyline

Legend
So any woman that wins a slam in the next few years deserves no credit for it just because it's won't be as strong an era as others we've seen in more recent times? Seems a bit harsh to me. :oops:
In 2006, people were yelling about weak era too. And in 2007, and in 2008, and in 2009..... :)

Konta is getting way too much grief. She played a good tourney. I dunno about W, but I think she can def win AO sometime.
 

pame

Hall of Fame
Justice is done that the two British hopefuls are gone. As a Brit, I am ashamed at the way the foreign players were ignored in all the media and newspaper coverage. My ears are ringing with Andy Murray and Jo Konta being talked about day in day out as if no one else was taking part. And that was only after Watson and Edmund went out. As for their preferential treatment in the scheduling, that's so pathetic. You don't invite someone to your house then eat all the best bits and give them the scraps. Wimbledon has gone down in my estimation.
That is a truly rubbishy analogy. The tournament is an international one, that happens in the case of the 3rd of slams, to be hosted in Gt. Britain. No tournament, slam or regular tour, is under any obligation other than it sees fit, to assign any court to any player. Pffffft
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Increase the number of games per set in the women's game, please.
Stop it already. This is not the norm. Plenty of these matches have normal length sets. We had a 4:45 minute 3 setter before (Kuzzy v Schiavone). Plenty of 3+ hour 3 setters. Do we really want someone like Cornet playing 3 8 game sets? Should be either 3 sets or 5, no need to make weird rules because of one blow out.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
As usual, tennis_pro does a very bad job of expressing himself but he has a point. I don't find the new players on either tour to be very well rounded, with perhaps the exception of Muguruza. And I have no idea why she went into this slump but hopefully she is back on track now. Say with Konta, you can see once she gets a lot of heat from the other side, her forehand side starts to break down. For not being the biggest hitter on the tour, she overhits way too much. Ostapenko could turn out to be a great player if she improves her serve. But that is a big if. Ivanovic never fixed her serve, for instance. OK, forget Venus or Henin, none of the new players have the range of an Azarenka. Another player who I thought would win many more slams than she ultimately has, at least to date. And remember, all this is with Serena in absentia. It's going to be a huge problem to fill the void when she leaves and of course an even bigger problem for ATP since they have four huge stars with Wawrinka as a bonus attraction. Tennis is in for a slump in the future unless there are indeed some upcoming players who have so far flown completely under the radar and will take over from these great players when they are done.

Well, people will either have to learn to live 1) without this constant demand/obsession for records to be broken or 2) they'll be depressed and will stop watching tennis.
But I'm sure once the nostalgic among us begin to disappear, tennis will live on.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Then you must have zero hope for the ATP. It's filled with mid 20's who've done nothing.
Of course, I have even less hope for the ATP tour. Zverev is the only player who you can really predict with a straight face that he's gonna achieve something.

I happen to believe that both tours are getting bigger and stronger and I think the same applies to both, the game is moving toward mid/late 20's peak.
On par with the current world - quantity over quality. A lot more decent players but nobody who really stands out from the crowd. I don't see as many passionate players as I've seen before. Tomic is obviously an extreme example but I feel a lot of young players just play for the money. You won't achieve greatness with such attitude because unless you're greedy as hell sooner or later you'll achieve a level of satisfaction. Doing what the great players are doing requires determination and dedication and they're never really satisfied with what they achieved. Federer has done it all and believe me, 99,999% of people in his situation would've retired a long time ago but he keeps on playing.

I don't think we'll see many young men winning slams for awhile. Ostapenko and Muguruza are big strong girls and that's allowed them to win younger. I also think there are more young girls showing promise than guys at this point.
Because the WTA isn't nearly as top heavy as the ATP tour. But as I said, it's only a matter of time before it's equal ground - Djokovic/Murray have health issues, Federer/Nadal don't have more than 2 years at the very top.
Basically I don't like this WTA bashing while the same criteria is never applied to the men's game. The WTA is sitting better right now in my book. You don't have to agree ('cause I certainly don't agree with you!), but I'll take the WTA for now.
We'll see, I'm not bashing WTA players just to bash them, btw. I bashed male players maybe even more than women.
 
Last edited:

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Stop it already. This is not the norm. Plenty of these matches have normal length sets. We had a 4:45 minute 3 setter before (Kuzzy v Schiavone). Plenty of 3+ hour 3 setters. Do we really want someone like Cornet playing 3 8 game sets? Should be either 3 sets or 5, no need to make weird rules because of one blow out.

What's so bad about having 8-6 sets instead of 6-4? The more tennis, the better.
I tend to be conservative when it comes to the internal structure of games (the "ad", etc), but changing the length of a set doesn't bother me at all.
It would be a good compromise, since scheduling becomes impossible if the men and the women start playing best of 5. The other solution would be best of 3 for both tours until the semis, and then best of 5. I'd be happy with that.
I'm surprised you reacted so negatively.
And what does Cornet have to do with this?
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Come now, this is simply unjustifiable. Top 1000 would include utter scrubs whom I am sure at least an Ostapenko or a Konta or a Halep would be better than. How many players ranked 500 or below would take 4 games in a set off Venus at Wimbledon?
I never said anything about mixing the tours in any sort of way, read my posts again, please.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Well, people will either have to learn to live 1) without this constant demand( obsession for records to be broken or 2) they'll be depressed and will stop watching tennis.
But I'm sure once the nostalgic among us begin to disappear, tennis will live on.

The game will live on but maybe not in the same way as before. It's already happening. There is no coverage of Wimbledon on standard telecast, only HD, here because the broadcaster perhaps guesses that the reach is not great and they might as well make more money off tennis fans by forcing them to subscribe to HD. We have to separate sport here as an athletic, competitive pursuit from sport as an entertainment business. It is the latter which pays tennis players to pursue the former, so the show biz is important. And for that, you need stars and rivalries. WTA did try with Bouchard but ah, she has been a crushing disappointment. As for records, the media themselves promoted this arms race to get more people interested. Glory hunting is what gets the largest number of fans interested, only a minority are actually interested in the nuances of the game. But with Big Four and Serena, maybe it's got to a point where the pursuit is too arduous for young players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RSH
Top