2024 WTA Finals - General Discussion

[Pheasant]

I think that Coco can potentially have Venus Williams type of career. People forget that she's only 20 years old. A Coco with a good reliable serve would be quite scary.

Hopefully, Coco, Swiatek, Rybakina, Zheng, and Sabalenka all zone next year.

 

[TennisXpert@2023]

Ha! Ha! deleted my post telling the truth about Zheng. She was salty and deserved to lose. Most here like Zheng and excuse her behavior because most users here identify with her saltiness.

 

[travlerajm]

Ha! Ha! deleted my post telling the truth about Zheng. She was salty and deserved to lose. Most here like Zheng and excuse her behavior because most users here identify with her saltiness.

Losing to a pusher hurts.

 

[spystud]

Most here like Zheng

And here's a guy that rarely ventures into WTA threads.

 

[NaomiKonjuhPotapova]

At one point I didn't think she was going to mention the champion at all. I think people are reading into these exchanges too much, she congratulated the champion and that's enough, you don't need to say something sentimental if you're not well acquainted with the person. Zheng is certainly somewhat cold and distant but I don't see an issue with that and many many people saw nothing wrong with Sharapova's demeanor.

me too. Honestly missing this kind of character post Maria.

 

[JJGUY]

This is a match that Zheng could win in straights, it's tough to swallow such a close defeat, and she was leading in both second and third set. On the other hand, Gauff beat both #1 Sabalenka and # 2 Swiatek, if she lost to Zheng in the final, that would be a gross "injustice".

 

[ChrisRF]

I see now what your talking about after looking at the match results and match completion sequence. Apparently even after Iga's win over Daria, that match didn't matter. I.e. even if Coco were to lose the them upcoming match in straight sets, Iga would've been out due to the sets percentage like you said. Iga was asked about this after her win over Daria. She was asked by a journalist whether she knew that going into that match would've no bearing to her making the SF.

The journalist then explained the situation.

Strange that the journalist had to remind her. I mean, a journalist SHOULD know the rules (and yet some don't), but first and foremost a player should ALWAYS know them.

 

[zvelf]

actually it is true that Swiatek match did not matter.
If Swiatek lost, even 0:2 but Krejcikova _also_ lost regardless of the set score, then Swiatek, Krejcikova and Kasatkina would have one win. Kasatkina would be eliminated via first tie-breaker - number of matches played. That would leave Swiatek and Krejcikowa tied and because Swiatek beat her she would have advanced. Obviously if Swiatek won and Krejcikova lost Swiatek would have advanced too.
If Krejcikova won 2:1, then even if Swiatek won 2:0, there would be three way tie: Gauff, Krejcikova, Swiatek. Gauff sets would have been 5:2, Krejcikova 5:3, and Swiatek 4:3. Swiatek eliminated
If Krejcikova won 2:0, then even if Swiatek won 2:0, there would be three way tie: Gauff, Krejcikova, Swiatek. Gauff sets would have been 4:2, Krejcikova 5:2, and Swiatek 4:3. Swiatek eliminated

You're taking the perspective that Swiatek's match did not matter after the match was completed. I'm taking the perspective that it mattered before it was played and that is true.

 

[jmnk]

You're taking the perspective that Swiatek's match did not matter after the match was completed. I'm taking the perspective that it mattered before it was played and that is true.

No. Światek match literally did not matter. Even before her match. Krejcikova wins - Krejcikova advances _regardless of the outcome of the earlier swiatek match_. Krejcikova loses - swiatek advances _regardless of the outcome of her earlier match_.

 

[robyrolfo]

Just finished watching the replay of the final. Yes, it was compelling, but as a neutral the tennis was just awful at the end. It pretty much devolved into Coco just getting everything back, and waiting for Zheng to implode by making a terrible decision and going for too much (although every now and then Gauff still threw in a random poor shot).

Zheng also looked awful whenever she was forced to come to the net, with some dreadful volleys. And Gauff was only slightly better, clearly just trying to volley balls back in play, without any real intention (which you would expect something more from someone who plays a lot of doubles).

Anyway, for those that think this new generation would dominate the greats of the past, this match is more proof you are completely clueless.

More reactions below...

 

[robyrolfo]

Looks like Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena, and Henin, unless I'm missing someone.

And all of those players would have won this match (and their previous matches leading up to it), 6-2, 6-2. Maybe Evert would have struggled a little, because she was the oldest with the least modern game, but she probably still finds a way.

Just want to point this out because it's really poor in my opinion.

In her last 3 matches, Gauff has hit a disgusting 100 unforced errors but just 44 winners. So before people start hyping her and thinking she's turned a new leaf, i'd point out that it literally is that her opponents have just played far worse. Sabalenka and Swiatek each hitting 47 unforced errors? And then when an opponent didn't hit over 40 unforced errors (Krejcikova), Coco loses.

Yep, these numbers are clear and undeniable. The tennis on display was awful. Rybakina, Sabalenka, Swiatek (and so many others), they just go big all the time, and hope that they are having a good day. Maybe the thin air made them worse than usual.

Gauff has a significant court coverage advantage over every other player in the WTA field. She can use this advantage to trade shots in a rally without having to pull the trigger and take excess risk. This forces the opponent to take risk and make more errors than usual, because continuing to rally will eventually favor the player with faster footspeed.

Stop with this. If you think Gauff is that much faster than Swiatek, Kostyuk, Zheng, and a few other players, you aren't watching closely enough. It just seems like she is faster because her game is so defensive and so she is always retrieving.

Exactly. This has been one of the highest level WTA matches I’ve seen.

We haven’t really witnessed a WTA fh with this level of heaviness and security as Zheng’s hitting it right now.

Do you even watch WTA tennis? The level was dreadful. Just hard rally balls until someone made a mistake. Or, at some points, they were just straight up exchanging moon balls.

Any of the past greats would have eaten these players up like it was nothing.

Zheng just hit belted a ball way wide while she had the easy winner at the net. Let’s not make excuses for why she’s going to hit over 50+ unforced errors this match and barely hit 20 winners, which was what that point should’ve been.

Exactly. She was so bad at the end especially.

Both players are striking well in the rallies but can’t hit a winner. No great game play, no dropshot attempt, no angles or change of play, just hitting it back waiting for the other to go for something which they inevitably miss. It’s not great.

They were making exactly zero effort to construct points, dictate play or do anything that would have implied intelligent, tactical tennis. It was all just, "ok, I'm going to hit this ball pretty well, right up the middle, and hope she misses her next shot." Rinse and repeat.

 

[travlerajm]

And all of those players would have won this match (and their previous matches leading up to it), 6-2, 6-2. Maybe Evert would have struggled a little, because she was the oldest with the least modern game, but she probably still finds a way.


Yep, these numbers are clear and undeniable. The tennis on display was awful. Rybakina, Sabalenka, Swiatek (and so many others), they just go big all the time, and hope that they are having a good day. Maybe the thin air made them worse than usual.


Stop with this. If you think Gauff is that much faster than Swiatek, Kostyuk, Zheng, and a few other players, you aren't watching closely enough. It just seems like she is faster because her game is so defensive and so she is always retrieving.


Do you even watch WTA tennis? The level was dreadful. Just hard rally balls until someone made a mistake. Or, at some points, they were just straight up exchanging moon balls.

Any of the past greats would have eaten these players up like it was nothing.


Exactly. She was so bad at the end especially.


They were making exactly zero effort to construct points, dictate play or do anything that would have implied intelligent, tactical tennis. It was all just, "ok, I'm going to hit this ball pretty well, right up the middle, and hope she misses her next shot." Rinse and repeat.

That’s the best we got.

 

[sportsfan1]

For gauff to be beating the likes of iga, xinwen etc is a big turnaround. It runs counter to the coaching legend of bg.

 

[robyrolfo]

For gauff to be beating the likes of iga, xinwen etc is a big turnaround. It runs counter to the coaching legend of bg.

Let's see her do it when it really matters. I know people put a lot of stock in the tour finals (probably because the ATP finals are a pretty seriously contested event), but the WTA finals have been pretty dreadful the past few years. I mean, last year was pretty much a complete joke. So I wouldn't draw too many conclusions based on this event, or even the tail end of the season, when a lot of players are already checked out.

But I'll say it again: the fact that Gilbert was able to guide her to a slam win is/was pretty remarkable. And I say that because she doesn't seem like a good fit for him at all. She plays the way she plays, and she has shown very little willingness to really make any changes, or perhaps little ability to make them. Her game is about hustle, defense, retrieving and making opponents make mistakes. So while that does fit with "winning ugly," she was still just doing what she always does, and probably not responding at all to any feedback about other aspect of her game.

And in Gauff's defense, I would say this about the vast majority of the WTA tour these days. How many of them really play noticeably different after a coaching change? Perhaps we MIGHT see a different service motion from someone, but most of the time the players look exactly the same, no matter who is coaching (Osaka is a prime example). These girls have their styles, and they know what got them to where they are, so most of them seem to struggle to play differently in a big event.

 

[sportsfan1]

Let's see her do it when it really matters. I know people put a lot of stock in the tour finals (probably because the ATP finals are a pretty seriously contested event), but the WTA finals have been pretty dreadful the past few years. I mean, last year was pretty much a complete joke. So I wouldn't draw too many conclusions based on this event, or even the tail end of the season, when a lot of players are already checked out.

But I'll say it again: the fact that Gilbert was able to guide her to a slam win is/was pretty remarkable. And I say that because she doesn't seem like a good fit for him at all. She plays the way she plays, and she has shown very little willingness to really make any changes, or perhaps little ability to make them. Her game is about hustle, defense, retrieving and making opponents make mistakes. So while that does fit with "winning ugly," she was still just doing what she always does, and probably not responding at all to any feedback about other aspect of her game.

And in Gauff's defense, I would say this about the vast majority of the WTA tour these days. How many of them really play noticeably different after a coaching change? Perhaps we MIGHT see a different service motion from someone, but most of the time the players look exactly the same, no matter who is coaching (Osaka is a prime example). These girls have their styles, and they know what got them to where they are, so most of them seem to struggle to play differently in a big event.

Fair points. But gauff was losing a lot leading into the coaching change, at tournaments big and small. Her fh had worsened. Hadn't made a final since the start of the year. Now she's winning and beat iga, sabalenka, krecjikova and qinwen in a row. Her fh is working better. That's impressive. The new coach must have made improvements, technical or otherwise.

 

[NaomiKonjuhPotapova]

Fair points. But gauff was losing a lot leading into the coaching change, at tournaments big and small. Her fh had worsened. Hadn't made a final since the start of the year. Now she's winning and beat iga, sabalenka, krecjikova and qinwen in a row. Her fh is working better. That's impressive. The new coach must have made improvements, technical or otherwise.

Agree except she lost to Krej.
Roby dislike Gauff which is fine.

 

[robyrolfo]

Fair points. But gauff was losing a lot leading into the coaching change, at tournaments big and small. Her fh had worsened. Hadn't made a final since the start of the year. Now she's winning and beat iga, sabalenka, krecjikova and qinwen in a row. Her fh is working better. That's impressive. The new coach must have made improvements, technical or otherwise.

As someone pointed out, she lost to Krecjikova, who was simply playing smart and solid tennis (although in fairness, Gauff had nothing to play for). Iga, Sabalenka and Zheng were all pretty terrible in their matches, especially Sabalenka who was completely off the rails. Her FH might be a little better, but her error counts were still super high, so I'm not quite convinced that she has turned the corner just yet.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Agree except she lost to Krej.
Roby dislike Gauff which is fine.

Probably has a decade of hatred ahead of him then, he better enjoy it.

 

[robyrolfo]

Probably has a decade of hatred ahead of him then, he better enjoy it.

Awww, you mad or something? A decade of hatred? She has only won one slam, and that was basically gifted to her by Sabalenka. She might get another one or two that way, but she's not the star you think she is. Eventually the American media will figure that out as well, and they will focus on much more deserving American players.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Awww, you mad or something? A decade of hatred? She has only won one slam, and that was basically gifted to her by Sabalenka. She might get another one or two that way, but she's not the star you think she is. Eventually the American media will figure that out as well, and they will focus on much more deserving American players.

Mad ? I don't think I am, on the other hand you seem to struggle with accepting that Coco is not a total overrated hack. Much more deserving American players? Like who? Navarro, Stearns, Krueger, Parks ? Come on. I am not even a fan of Gauff, I do find her strokes ugly, I like her less than most of the top 10 and was rooting for Sabalenka and Zheng in her last matches, but objectively she is here to stay as a big contender for at least a few years. It doesn't matter whether or not she's a pusher/grinder who brings every ball back with her athleticism. Coco's decline most certainly will not come as fast as you think, and that is assuming that she's already at her peak, which probably isn't the case.

 

[robyrolfo]

Mad ? I don't think I am, on the other hand you seem to struggle with accepting that Coco is not a total overrated hack. Much more deserving American players? Like who? Navarro, Stearns, Krueger, Parks ? Come on. I am not even a fan of Gauff, I do find her strokes ugly, I like her less than most of the top 10 and was rooting for Sabalenka and Zheng in her last matches, but objectively she is here to stay as a big contender for at least a few years. It doesn't matter whether or not she's a pusher/grinder who brings every ball back with her athleticism. Coco's decline most certainly will not come as fast as you think, and that is assuming that she's already at her peak, which probably isn't the case.

Regarding American players that are more deserving of some media attention, I'd go with Shelton, Paul, Tiafoe, Fritz (although he's really not likable), Korda and yes, probably Navarro if she keeps progressing.