2021 French Open - Ladies Discussion

Who will win the 2021 French Open?

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
D-Lite said:
I think for the WTA's health Osaka could do with marching on and picking up more slams even if they're only on hard. Li Na was a big loss to the WTA. A play from China who can draw big viewership deep in a slam would be welcomed, but we were blessed to have Li - China hasn't produced any notable male players.
Barty and Swiatek will rise again, I really do believe, and not being a reigning slam champ could help their chances now, as Barty seems comfortable bearing the #1 title.
I don't like to bring up this point, but Sharapova and Ivanovic were stunning. They could have easily been celebrities in other fields due to this if they pursued that. Obviously Sharapova was much more consistent and won 5 slams. I won't get into the doping talk here as it's frankly tiring no matter the opinion I have on it. I wonder how much this adds to the WTAs image and perception? Personally I love the tour as it is and I don't need people to present as runway models, male or female, to have an interest in this amazing sport, but I wonder how much casual viewership that draws for big matches? Again, don't like bringing that up but personally for me on the men's side there are some guys I definitely watch cause they're super handsome like Basilashvili, Ruud, Fucsovics (just my taste - don't diss!).

I'm from the UK and it seems Evans and Norrie will carry men's tennis for a while, and perhaps Murray will step back up for a little while even if he only returns to the top 30-50, who knows. The women's game is lacking hugely and you're right, the media are dying for Boulter to step up and take the spot of Robson who was so plagued by injuries it appears she is going to take a greater pundit role in the future. People have been comparing Badosa to Sharapova, so Boulter will get similar comparisons if her form returns post-injury and she can rise to the top 50 at least. I don't know what it is here, we have so many good facilities and many tournaments to award WCs for but so often we lose any major threat in the men's or women's game (beside Murray's consistency, and some regular top doubles players).
Click to expand...
It's just true: a perceived very attractive person will have much more sponsorship/media opportunities than someone of the same nationality/level deemed less attractive.
The obvious example is Kournikova (you may recall Tauziet, in her book, exposing the massive disparity of 'appearance' endorsements that Anna was offered compared to the rest of the field even whilst not ranked in the Top Twenty.
Sharapova was at one time, as mentioned by @Aussie Darcy, the highest paid female athlete on the planet, the bulk being endorsements.
If Katie Boulter came close to say Jo Konta's accomplishments, she'd be worth millions in endorsements alone. And on the front page of papers/magazines regularly, regardless of tennis.
Navratilova earned more on court than Evert, but probably a tenth of what Evert earned off court.
Not saying it's right, but it's, in my opinion, true. Beauty plays a huge part in sponsorship.
 
Last edited:
I became a Sakkari fan when I saw her incredible match against Pegula at Miami earlier this year. I love her attitude and intensity, plus the way she has transformed her style from a more defensive game to a more attacking one over the years.

It was a shame that she couldn’t reach the final and narrowly missed out (when it got down to the QF stage I wanted a Sakkari-Badosa final). But still she has made good progress here to beat 3 higher seeded / ranked players in succession and reach the business end (that counts as the QF stage onwards IMO) at a major for the first time in her career.
 
Last edited:
Krecjikova is on fire. Looks like she'll be in the doubles and singles final.

Happy for either storyline.
Pavs finally gets her slam after battling out her entire career or Krejcikova wins both singles and doubles and continues her win streak.
 
PDJ said:
It's just true: a perceived very attractive person will have much more sponsorship/media opportunities than someone of the same nationality/level deemed less attractive.
The obvious example is Kournikova (you may recall Tauziet, in her book, exposing the massive disparity of 'appearance' endorsements that Anna was offered compared to the rest of the field even whilst not ranked in the Top Twenty.
Sharapova was at one time, as mentioned by @Aussie Darcy, the highest paid female on the planet, the bulk being endorsements.
If Katie Boulter came close to say Jo Konta's accomplishments, she'd be worth millions in endorsements alone.
Navratilova earned more on court than Evert, but probably a tenth of what Evert earned off court.
Not saying it's right, but it's, in my opinion, true. Beauty plays a huge part in sponsorship.
Click to expand...
I mean look at Bouchard who continued to dominate the sponsorship lists despite her incredible failings on court. Let's not pretend looks aren't a factor or THE factor.
 
Not sure if people have followed this but Krejcikova was actually mentored and coached by Jana Novotna. Jana tragically passed away in 2017. Krejcikova credited her doubles slams with Siniakova to Novotna.

Barbora Krejcikova and Katerina Siniakova dominated the junior doubles circuit together five years ago and now they've done the same on the senior circuit. The two 22-year-olds, who became the first team to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back this summer since Kim Clijsters and Ai Sugiyama in 2003, are the first team to qualify for the 2018 BNP Paribas WTA Finals Singapore presented by SC Global.

It is yet another fitting tribute to Krejcikova's former coach and WTA Legend Jana Novotna. The pair dedicated both their major titles to the Czech icon, who died of ovarian cancer last fall. Novotna won her sole major singles title at Wimbledon 20 years ago.

"She really deserves to think about her, like, in really good spirit, in really good way," Krejcikova said after winning Wimbledon in July. Krejcikova, who hails from Novotna's hometown of Brno, was coached by Novotna from 2014 to 2016. "I think it's really good that it was mentioned at Wimbledon, that she won the title here 20 years ago. It was her biggest title. She really wanted to win it, as I know from the stories she told me.

"All those emotions she was going through during her career to win the Grand Slam. I mean, right here, right now, like 20 years after her winning Grand Slam. It's only doubles, but still, it's perfect.

"I'm really happy that I could meet her, that she won the Wimbledon title back in 1998. I'm really, really proud. I think she would be really proud, too."

"The last time I saw her, she told me 'Go win a Slam.'" Krejcikova and Siniakova did one better. They went out and won two.
Click to expand...
www.wtatennis.com

From Braces to Aces: Krejcikova and Siniakova's 'tribute' season earns a Singapore spot

Playing in memory of Czech legend Jana Novotna, Barbora Krejcikova and Katerina Siniakova are the 1st team to qualify for the BNP Paribas WTA Finals Singapore presented by SC Global.
www.wtatennis.com www.wtatennis.com

I can't help but feel the final words of "go win a slam" wasn't just about the doubles and would be amazing if she won a singles slam and credited Novotna.
 
Matmac said:
Just a heads up since I don't think many of you are watching women's doubles. Shocking piece od unfair play from Krejcikova combined with umpire's mistake thar dwarfs the one in yesterday's semifinal. On a game point the ball is clearly in, not even close to the line, bouncing next to Siniakova's shoe. Krejcikova, who saw everything clearly, proceeds to point to a mark nearly half a meter away from the correct one, way behind the baseline. The umpire awards the Czech ladies the point without getting off her chair. Disgrace
Click to expand...

Disgrace! These people (Including Sakkari in Rome couple of years ago) need to learn integrity.
 
Aussie Darcy said:
How do you not understand that not having a proper face of the sort impacts the marketing and viewership of the sport. You think the Pavlyuchenkova v Zidansek SF will be watched by ANYWHERE near what Nadal v Djokovic SF will be? You think that’s good for the sport Shen one is watched by 20 million and one is only watched by Slovenians and the most devout WTA fans? Having a consistent top player who people recognise is so important so that this sport doesn’t drop off once Serena goes. It’s not about attacking the women, good on them from accomplishing what they’ve done but you think anyone on the street knows Krejcikova or Zidansek? Sharapova was the most famous female athlete in the world and brought millions to the sport. Tennis needs someone to take over Sharapova and Serena and having random slam champions who then do nothing like Sloane and Ostapenko does nothing good for the sport.
Click to expand...

By invoking Sharapova, you're arguing marketing, which is not the ingredient needed for a sport to survive, as its effects are fleeting a best, which we have seen with stunts like playing music during changeovers (which the players resented), or hyping the next bleached "it girl" to a part of tennis viewership that's never there for the long haul in the first place. This was also an issue in the pre-majors titles period for Agassi, where he was hyper-marketed with the "Image is Everything" campaigns (and others similar to it), yet he was not holding up his end in his profession at the time. I can tell you, as a person who comes from a long line of tennis fans among family and friends, we were not following the sport because of Agassi being hyped by the tennis and talent agency PTB.

Further, no sport has longevity as part of its plan if it relies on so-called "proper" faces aging and either becoming has-beens who will never reach their career highs again, or--as on the men's side--you have aging name players who preside over two generations of losers, so there's no competition, no hope to invest in someone who is going to rise to the top (and most importantly, be the future of the sport), thus the majors are as predictable and competitive as the staged Harlem Globetrotters games versus clay pigeon opposing "teams".

Real fans of this sport want to see as many players as possible prove their worth and win the sport's biggest titles; that requires--demands that new blood rise to the challenge, which includes eliminating "name" players along the way, otherwise, you end up with "name" players simply snuffing out the field, leaving it stagnant, or the marketing of the sport almost exclusively focuses on players who--like it or not--are not the reason people honestly follow the sport.
 
PDJ said:
It's just true: a perceived very attractive person will have much more sponsorship/media opportunities than someone of the same nationality/level deemed less attractive.
The obvious example is Kournikova (you may recall Tauziet, in her book, exposing the massive disparity of 'appearance' endorsements that Anna was offered compared to the rest of the field even whilst not ranked in the Top Twenty.
Sharapova was at one time, as mentioned by @Aussie Darcy, the highest paid female athlete on the planet, the bulk being endorsements.
If Katie Boulter came close to say Jo Konta's accomplishments, she'd be worth millions in endorsements alone. And on the front page of papers/magazines regularly, regardless of tennis.
Navratilova earned more on court than Evert, but probably a tenth of what Evert earned off court.
Not saying it's right, but it's, in my opinion, true. Beauty plays a huge part in sponsorship.
Click to expand...

We're passed that. The future is caramel and queer. Any athlete that embody that and some success will get tons of coverage.


a3550ceec9a8b83acc4d57f8fe6ff441.gif
 
PDJ said:
I agree.
However, some of the names you listed are/were familiar to tennis fans or at least well known on a national level. But marquee names to the public at large?
Nope.
Click to expand...

Right, that's precisely my point. Of course anyone who is a devout tennis watcher will know the names of any grand slam tournament winner, but that in itself is insufficient to draw people who watch tennis sometimes but not regularly. Every time a "fluke" player wins is one less opportunity to make a "star" player that becomes a bigger draw.

I doubt the average person has even heard of Swiatek, the most touted player for this title.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's because she remains a 1-major winner. Had she won Roland Garros this year, she'd been 1-step closer to becoming well-known to the average person. If she fails to make a slam quarterfinal ever again, she would also become a fluke player. Eye-balling her talent, that of course, won't actually happen barring serious injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Aussie Darcy said:
Krecjikova the first player to make the singles and doubles final at the French Open since Safarova in 2015. First player to do it at a slam since Serena won both the singles and doubles titles at Wimbledon in 2016.
Click to expand...
This is extremely impressive full stop, but for her to win the Doubles today after playing a marathon 3 hour+ SF yesterday is even better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
ScentOfDefeat said:
Have to disagree with most posters here.
I don't watch the sport for the "star power" but mostly for the sport itself: I like watching tennis, whatever the narratives are.
And it's not like the WTA is at risk of disappearing just because there's no Sharapova (and Serena is still playing).
Heck, if cycling can survive its most famous ex-champion's doping scandal, I'm pretty sure women's tennis can survive a pretty standard period of decentralisation.
All of this just sounds excessively panicky to me.
Click to expand...

That's because you are misrepresenting the argument. It's a straw man to say "the WTA is at risk of disappearing" because those aren't the stakes and no one is arguing the WTA is about to go under for lack of famous players. The point being made is simply that the WTA will thrive more with big-name star players better than it will with a new major winner every slam and that the latter happening actively prevents the rise of big-name star players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
zvelf said:
Right, that's precisely my point. Of course anyone who is a devout tennis watcher will know the names of any grand slam tournament winner, but that in itself is insufficient to draw people who watch tennis sometimes but not regularly. Every time a "fluke" player wins is one less opportunity to make a "star" player that becomes a bigger draw.



Yes, and that's because she remains a 1-major winner. Had she won Roland Garros this year, she'd been 1-step closer to becoming well-known to the average person. If she fails to make a slam quarterfinal ever again, she would also become a fluke player. Eye-balling her talent, that of course, won't actually happen barring serious injury.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking about viewing figures for the men's semi-finals: you have 4 players of which 2 are global superstars, 2 others that I imagine are known beyond the tennis world, and all 4 sporting icons in their respective countries. That's massive in terms of audience/advertising/media coverage.
I'm minded of poor Tauziet (I'm a fan! Wonderfully surly and direct) who reached the Wimbledon Singles Final only to have her country France playing the World Cup Final on the same day!
No wonder she was surly :)
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
By invoking Sharapova, you're arguing marketing, which is not the ingredient needed for a sport to survive, as its effects are fleeting a best, which we have seen with stunts like playing music during changeovers (which the players resented), or hyping the next bleached "it girl" to a part of tennis viewership that's never there for the long haul in the first place. This was also an issue in the pre-majors titles period for Agassi, where he was hyper-marketed with the "Image is Everything" campaigns (and others similar to it), yet he was not holding up his end in his profession at the time. I can tell you, as a person who comes from a long line of tennis fans among family and friends, we were not following the sport because of Agassi being hyped by the tennis and talent agency PTB.
Click to expand...

You are right that we are not following the sport because of endorsements, but your insinuation is getting the cause and effect backwards. The sport thriving results in endorsements from the likes of Sharapova and Agassi. If no one knows who Sharapova and Agassi are, they wouldn't be offered the money to make endorsements. With their on-court results (and looks), they became marketable stars and drew in more viewers. Outside of their own countries, the likes of Schiavone, Stosur, Bartoli, Pennetta, Stephens, and Ostapenko are blips.

Further, no sport has longevity as part of its plan if it relies on so-called "proper" faces aging and either becoming has-beens who will never reach their career highs again, or--as on the men's side--you have aging name players who preside over two generations of losers, so there's no competition, no hope to invest in someone who is going to rise to the top (and most importantly, be the future of the sport), thus the majors are as predictable and competitive as the staged Harlem Globetrotters games versus clay pigeon opposing "teams".
Click to expand...

You can besmirch Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic all you want, but from the point of view of drawing viewers, having them is far more preferable than not having them. Predictability is far more preferable than randomness for the simple reason that people have someone they can dependably root for. That's why you can see deeply, deeply devoted camps in this forum to each of those 3 players. It's harder to root for 1-time major-winning players who frequently don't make it past the first week of a major after that 1 major.

Real fans of this sport want to see as many players as possible prove their worth and win the sport's biggest titles
Click to expand...

No, that's just a made-up definition of a "real" fan and again, you just expressing your personal preference. It's definitely not better for the sport for "as many players as possible" to win majors.

that requires--demands that new blood rise to the challenge, which includes eliminating "name" players along the way, otherwise, you end up with "name" players simply snuffing out the field, leaving it stagnant, or the marketing of the sport almost exclusively focuses on players who--like it or not--are not the reason people honestly follow the sport.
Click to expand...

That last part is simply not true. A huge amount of the marketing of the sport goes through Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic and they are the reason people honestly follow the sport. They are indisputably 3 of the greatest players ever to play the game and they have heated rivalries. How can that not be a draw? Furthermore, I think what you're failing to see is that the ATP does have new blood rising. Even though Tsitsipas, Medvedev, and Zverev haven't beaten Nadal and Djokovic at majors, they have been contending deep into majors and thus making names for themselves through that consistency. When the Big Three retire, these name players will take their place.
 
zvelf said:
That's because you are misrepresenting the argument. It's a straw man to say "the WTA is at risk of disappearing" because those aren't the stakes and no one is arguing the WTA is about to go under for lack of famous players. The point being made is simply that the WTA will thrive more with big-name star players better than it will with a new major winner every slam and that the latter happening actively prevents the rise of big-name star players.
Click to expand...

That is misunderstanding the sport i) as a continually evolving process, where no configuration repeats exactly what happened in the past, and ii) as a cyclical process of ebbs and flows where there are periods of domination and periods of decentralisation. There is no point in forcing the sport to thrive or lamenting that it's not thriving in the way you want it to: wait a few years and maybe your expectations will be met. I just don't understand the idea that something has to be "fixed". Bigger names only appear and thrive against the backdrop of lesser names. If the sport isn't going away, what are you worried about exactly?
 
Last edited:
ScentOfDefeat said:
That is misunderstanding the sport i) as a continually evolving process, where no configuration repeats exactly what happened in the past, and ii) as a cyclical process of ebbs and flows where there are periods of domination and periods of decentralisation. There is no point in forcing the sport to thrive or lamenting that it's not thriving in the way you want it to: wait a few years and maybe your expectations will be met. I just don't understand the idea that something has to be "fixed". Bigger names only appear and thrive against the backdrop of lesser names. If the sport isn't going away, what are you worried about exactly?
Click to expand...
I must be confused, because I genuinely think you've misunderstood @zvelf point.
For me, he's clearly right. Or, at least, I share his opinion.
 
PDJ said:
I must be confused, because I genuinely think you've misunderstood @zvelf point.
For me, he's clearly right. Or, at least, I share his opinion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am.
But from what I've understood so far, and I might be wrong, this is simply a matter of taste and not a matter of being right or wrong.
I don't think the sport is necessarily in a worse place because there aren't bigger names.
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
Perhaps I am.
But from what I've understood so far, and I might be wrong, this is simply a matter of taste and not a matter of being right or wrong.
I don't think the sport is necessarily in a worse place because there aren't bigger names.
Click to expand...
Ah ok. I definitely don't agree.
But, I normally agree with you and respect your views nonetheless.
Have a great weekend.
 
Just to make sure, are you guys not discussing Krejcikova's blatant cheating in today's doubles semi because you haven't watched the match and only saw the scoreline or do you find it acceptable?
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
That is misunderstanding the sport i) as a continually evolving process, where no configuration repeats exactly what happened in the past, and ii) as a cyclical process of ebbs and flows where there are periods of domination and periods of decentralisation. There is no point in forcing the sport to thrive or lamenting that it's not thriving in the way you want it to: wait a few years and maybe your expectations will be met. I just don't understand the idea that something has to be "fixed". Bigger names only appear and thrive against the backdrop of lesser names. If the sport isn't going away, what are you worried about exactly?
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating some way to fix anything. Unless you fix matches like in professional wrestling, winners are whoever plays better that day on top of maybe some luck and that's not under anyone's control. I am expressing a personal preference to see more big stars on the WTA tour and that's achieved through players consistently contending deep into slams, not winning one and then fading. But aside from personal preference, I also think it's better for the sport. The more spectators you draw, the more money the sport has to make improvements, pay players, and draw in new players. I'm not sure what's so controversial about the assertion that if a sport has no big stars, that makes it harder to thrive.

Yes, right now the WTA has Naomi Osaka, but she's the only global name who's playing well. In the USA, commentators still milk Serena Williams for all she's worth, but let's face it, her chances of winning another major are slim at best. If the ATP is depending on an aging Big Three, two of whom are still winning a lot, the WTA looks much worse if they are depending on a near-obselete Serena who's not winning anything.
 
Matmac said:
Just to make sure, are you guys not discussing Krejcikova's blatant cheating in today's doubles semi because you haven't watched the match and only saw the scoreline or do you find it acceptable?
Click to expand...

I'd guess most people, like myself, didn't see it and so are not commenting on something of which we have no first-hand knowledge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
zvelf said:
I'd guess most people, like myself, didn't see it and so are not commenting on something of which we have no first-hand knowledge.
Click to expand...
Sure, I understand. I was extremely disappointed, I really like Krejcikova's smart tennis. And I would expect something like that from Siniakova, we all know her exploits, but not from Krejcikova. Makes me reinterpret her resilience when on the receiving end of an umpire's mistake. Only Sakkari wasn't doing anything intentional to provoke it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
zvelf said:
I am expressing a personal preference to see more big stars on the WTA tour and that's achieved through players consistently contending deep into slams, not winning one and then fading. But aside from personal preference, I also think it's better for the sport.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think the main difference here is that I'm probably more willing to accept the ebb and flow nature of the game (a little bit of chaos that is still possible in an otherwise very structured professional game) than you and a few other posters here. I have no problem with that. I'm sure it will eventually stabilise into something that is more along the lines of what you prefer. I don't really have a preference overall, I always seem to find things to enjoy about different eras or contexts in the game.
 
Gizo said:
I'm looking forward to tomorrow's final. I personally love parity in sports, and the fact that a large number of players in the draw have a realistic shot of either winning the grand prize or at least getting reasonably close to winning it. I personally don't like 1 or 2 players being incredibly dominant. However I'm fully aware that I'm in the minority, and the sport is better placed to attract casual fans (diehard tennis fans are very much in the minority unfortunately) when there is a small pool of big name players that dominate and build up sustained rivalries against each other.

I remember Pavlyuchenkova's excellent junior career, and the fact that she generated quite a big buzz as an exciting young player at Wimbledon in 2008. I would prefer her to win tomorrow's final, but I won't really mind either way.

When there was a thread created at the start of the clay court season discussing the potential RG title contenders, I did say that there was a strong possibility of a player that none of us were talking about coming through and winning it. Women's clay court tennis is incredibly random that's for sure. We may well see something similar only with different players at Wimbledon in a few weeks as well.

For as long as I've followed tennis, I've noted that women's tennis has always been criticised regardless of whether it has had dominance or parity. It was heavily criticised throughout the 80s including when Navratilova was insanely dominant in 1983-1984 and Graf was insanely dominant in 1988-1989. There was heavy criticism throughout the 90s. The early 00s was golden age in terms of the strength of the WTA top 10, but I remember at Wimbledon in 2003 for example when there was a lot of criticism regarding the overall depth of the field, given how easily Serena, Venus, Henin, Clijsters etc. destroyed their early round opponents.

The combination of women's tennis being overly hard court centric (it's more hard court centric than men's tennis), best of 3 sets, a weaker WTA top 10 compared to many previous eras, the standard of players ranked from 11-100 (or at least 21-100) being significantly stronger than in previous eras (that's blatant - currently women's tennis fully justifies 128 player draw sizes in majors, before the 21st century at least it didn't even justify 64 player draw sizes given the clear lack of depth outside the 10 / 20) etc., has basically contributed to what we've seen during the past 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this times 10. I wonder how many of the doom and gloom posters (based on the results of RG? Possibly the most famous female athlete in the world won the previous 2 majors and they think the WTA is in trouble based on this week? I think it's probably gonna be ok) even read it. All I ever heard was fans and press mocking women's tennis in the early rounds of majors decade after decade and there is finally depth(there was no one ranked outside the top 20 in the 70s/80s/90s anywhere near as good as the Zidanseks, Krejcikovas, Badosas etc today) and this is a bad thing?

And I have to laugh at some UK posters bring up Katie Boulter etc and expressing concern about the marketability of the sport today. I attended Wimbledon in the early 90s. Talked with a ton of fans there(everyone was so friendly and the whole queue thing was pretty crazy yet fun - its so much easier to get into the USO obviously). I would say the majority of fans I spoke to had never even seen Pete Sampras, USO champion and #3 seed play(was asked me who I thought would win and I said Sampras). Many probably wouldn't have recognized him if he was sitting next to them. He may as well have been Kreijcikova. I guess the ATP was in trouble back then based on his "marketability" in the UK.
 
Matmac said:
Sure, I understand. I was extremely disappointed, I really like Krejcikova's smart tennis. And I would expect something like that from Siniakova, we all know her exploits, but not from Krejcikova. Makes me reinterpret her resilience when on the receiving end of an umpire's mistake. Only Sakkari wasn't doing anything intentional to provoke it.
Click to expand...

I've replayed it. It's clearly in, but Krejcikova seems believe to be out? Do you think she's lying?
Pera and Linette seems chill about that as well.

For those who interested, it's 40-30 Linette serve (1-3, first set)
 
Aussie Darcy said:
Not sure if people have followed this but Krejcikova was actually mentored and coached by Jana Novotna. Jana tragically passed away in 2017. Krejcikova credited her doubles slams with Siniakova to Novotna.


www.wtatennis.com

From Braces to Aces: Krejcikova and Siniakova's 'tribute' season earns a Singapore spot

Playing in memory of Czech legend Jana Novotna, Barbora Krejcikova and Katerina Siniakova are the 1st team to qualify for the BNP Paribas WTA Finals Singapore presented by SC Global.
www.wtatennis.com www.wtatennis.com

I can't help but feel the final words of "go win a slam" wasn't just about the doubles and would be amazing if she won a singles slam and credited Novotna.
Click to expand...

Krejcikova talked about her yesterday(and looked skyward after her win in tribute to her). She said was devastated when Novotna passed away. But we can't talk about nice stories involving the women's side of the event this year.
 
NaomiKonjuhPotapova said:
I've replayed it. It's clearly in, but Krejcikova seems believe to be out? Do you think she's lying?
Pera and Linette seems chill about that as well.

For those who interested, it's 40-30 Linette serve (1-3, first set)
Click to expand...
I thought she was best placed to see where the ball landed. Pera and Linette were too far away. Siniakova being Siniakova immediately starts looking for any mark that would be out and Krejcikova supports her. But in the end only she knows what she saw. I kinda hope she honestly thought it was out, but I think it's unlikely. Still, no one can know for sure.
 
Gizo said:
I'm looking forward to tomorrow's final. I personally love parity in sports, and the fact that a large number of players in the draw have a realistic shot of either winning the grand prize or at least getting reasonably close to winning it. I personally don't like 1 or 2 players being incredibly dominant. However I'm fully aware that I'm in the minority, and the sport is better placed to attract casual fans (diehard tennis fans are very much in the minority unfortunately) when there is a small pool of big name players that dominate and build up sustained rivalries against each other.

I remember Pavlyuchenkova's excellent junior career, and the fact that she generated quite a big buzz as an exciting young player at Wimbledon in 2008. I would prefer her to win tomorrow's final, but I won't really mind either way.

When there was a thread created at the start of the clay court season discussing the potential RG title contenders, I did say that there was a strong possibility of a player that none of us were talking about coming through and winning it. Women's clay court tennis is incredibly random that's for sure. We may well see something similar only with different players at Wimbledon in a few weeks as well.

For as long as I've followed tennis, I've noted that women's tennis has always been criticised regardless of whether it has had dominance or parity. It was heavily criticised throughout the 80s including when Navratilova was insanely dominant in 1983-1984 and Graf was insanely dominant in 1988-1989. There was heavy criticism throughout the 90s. The early 00s was golden age in terms of the strength of the WTA top 10, but I remember at Wimbledon in 2003 for example when there was a lot of criticism regarding the overall depth of the field, given how easily Serena, Venus, Henin, Clijsters etc. destroyed their early round opponents.

The combination of women's tennis being overly hard court centric (it's more hard court centric than men's tennis), best of 3 sets, a weaker WTA top 10 compared to many previous eras, the standard of players ranked from 11-100 (or at least 21-100) being significantly stronger than in previous eras (that's blatant - currently women's tennis fully justifies 128 player draw sizes in majors, before the 21st century at least it didn't even justify 64 player draw sizes given the clear lack of depth outside the 10 / 20) etc., has basically contributed to what we've seen during the past 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
Henin, Clijsters, Venus, Serena from 15 years ago would destroy current field as well. Osaka would be only legit opponent on hard courts.
 
Krejcikova into the doubles final too, even though I am rooting for Palvy to win, I would be more happy to see Krejcikova pull out a double duty, win both singles and doubles.
 
Moose Malloy said:
Yeah, this times 10. I wonder how many of the doom and gloom posters (based on the results of RG? Possibly the most famous female athlete in the world won the previous 2 majors and they think the WTA is in trouble based on this week? I think it's probably gonna be ok) even read it. All I ever heard was fans and press mocking women's tennis in the early rounds of majors decade after decade and there is finally depth(there was no one ranked outside the top 20 in the 70s/80s/90s anywhere near as good as the Zidanseks, Krejcikovas, Badosas etc today) and this is a bad thing?

And I have to laugh at some UK posters bring up Katie Boulter etc and expressing concern about the marketability of the sport today. I attended Wimbledon in the early 90s. Talked with a ton of fans there(everyone was so friendly and the whole queue thing was pretty crazy yet fun - its so much easier to get into the USO obviously). I would say the majority of fans I spoke to had never even seen Pete Sampras, USO champion and #3 seed play(was asked me who I thought would win and I said Sampras). Many probably wouldn't have recognized him if he was sitting next to them. He may as well have been Kreijcikova. I guess the ATP was in trouble back then based on his "marketability" in the UK.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I have to say that I don't understand arguments that this current era when there is unprecedentedly strong depth in the WTA top 100 (especially from 21-100) and when the quality of early round matches at the majors (and tournaments like Miami and Madrid) is better than ever, is somehow weak compared to previous ones when there was clearly little or no depth outside the WTA top 10 (or top 20 at best), and when majors only properly got underway from the QF stage onwards and probably should have been capped at 32 or 48 player draw sizes. I previously mentioned the fact that in mid-March we had a week with 2 high quality and very entertaining tournaments in St Petersburg and Monterrey, without a single player ranked in the top 30 in either draw. That would have been impossible even in the early 00s, let alone in decades / eras before that.

As we've both said numerous times in the past, comparing eras is drastically different in women's tennis compared to men's tennis. Men's tennis has always had a very good base level of depth in the top 100 at least throughout the open era (Borg and Connors faced plenty of brutally difficult early round matches at majors and other tournaments in the 70s), and you could argue (I personally would) that there was actually greater depth in the ATP top 100 20 or 30 years ago than there is now. Women's tennis on the other hand only developed proper depth well into the 00s.

I loved watching matches between Evert and Goolagong especially on faster surfaces, the 1985 US Open final between Mandlikova and Navratilova etc, but I knew full well back then there was little to no depth outside the top 10. Navratilova was regularly asked about the lack of depth in women's tennis during the 80s for example.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
2021 WTA Madrid Open - WTA 1000
5 6 7
Replies
315
Views
9K
volleyandfun
volleyandfun
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
2024 WTA Finals - General Discussion
5 6 7
Replies
320
Views
8K
robyrolfo
robyrolfo
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
2023 WTA Miami Open
15 16 17
Replies
838
Views
39K
robyrolfo
robyrolfo
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
2023 Australian Open - Women's Singles Discussion
36 37 38
Replies
2K
Views
32K
D-Lite
D-Lite
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
2019 WTA Mutua Madrid Open - Women's Singles General Discussion
4 5 6
Replies
252
Views
8K
ScentOfDefeat
ScentOfDefeat
Back
Top