Not many comments on the final in here, but I assume there is another thread (I'm not checking, because I still haven't seen the men's final and I don't want it spoiled for me).
Anyway, nice win for Krejcikova. She deserved it for having a much harder path to the final, and for being the better player in the final. I'm also really happy for her, as she seems like a nice, humble woman, and she plays lovely tennis.
In my opinion she showed that she was pretty far superior to Paolini. Yes, she got tight in the second set and didn't play well, but at a certain point it seemed like everything was going Paolini's way, and that must have been hard for Krejcikova to deal with. Overall, Krejcikova's tennis was smarter, more skilled, and more interesting. If anything, I think Paolini played (and has been playing) like a better version of Coco Gauff. A few big hits here and there, but a game based on sticking around and fighting for every point, trying to throw opponents off by forcing extra balls and making them question their confidence.
Also, on a personal note, I'm glad Paolini didn't win. I get that she is very likable and a nice story, but she simply doesn't deserve to be a major champion. Making Schiavone and Pennetta share the spotlight with her would be insulting to them. Heck, having her win a major would be insulting to Giorgi as well, albeit for different reasons.
Well written.. but you even admit that its easier to have data. I think grafs serve and return may be tested a lot more and her late takeback for the forehand may have to change
Of course data is always useful, but we can't always have what we want. That we even have that handful of matches between Graf and the Williams sisters is something of a gift.
So yes, Serena and Venus were still young, but they were both already hitting very hard, and near their full potential. Steffi didn't have takeback issues against them (on some of those really fast hard courts they used to use back at that time), her return held up to Serena (the best server the WTA has seen for 25 years), and her own serve was fine.
I mean, in this thread you had people mentioning Paolini's success despite a very weak serve, and Kerber's weak serve as well. Heck, look at Swiatek's second serve, and Sabalenka's as well. Steffi (and Martina) would have been just fine as what they lack in outright power would be more than compensated for with placement and precision. Martina's serve and volley game wasn't just amazing because of how great she was at net, but also because she would set it up so well with serve placement.
Good for her. I still want townsend to cash in on her investment in super siniakova.
Seriously, are some of these women offering Siniakova a 60/40 prize money split at this point? I don't know if that is even possible, but seeing her carry two unfamiliar partners to Gran Slam wins is mighty impressive. How is she not the #1 in doubles? Also happy for Townsend. I know she is a little bit controversial, and she does get on my nerves at times, but she plays nice tennis and deserved something to show for it.
Rybakina’s coaching situation is where my attention immediately goes. Two years in a row she’s had basically the same loss, her gameplan goes kaput when she gets change ups. Part of it is athletic limitations but her ballstriking seemed so naive at times. Pressing. Not sure the fix.
