Emma R v Emma N: Great match today...who will have the better career?

[RaulRamirez]

Yes, it was only a Round of 64 match at the Miami Open, but I thoroughly enjoyed the matchup of the two Emmas, won in an upset (third-set tiebreaker by Raducanu.
I enjoy watching both players. Navarro, of course, has been the more accomplished player the last couple years -- more experienced, more fit and match tough, etc. At the moment in the live rankings, Navarro (11th in ranking; 7th in the live race) is way ahead of Raducanu (54th in ranking, 63rd in the race) -- no surprise, if you've been following the tour.

It may seem crazy then to ask: At the end of their careers, who will have accomplished more? Keep in mind that Navarro is 1.5 years older, and also hasn't suffered as many interruptions from injuries. Now, that can be a point in Raducanu's favor (if she indeed has a streak of good health and fitness) or a trend that she will always be plagued with various health issues.

Looking at their games, they both hit the ball very crisply and move fluidly. Right now, N has a big fitness edge and a little better movement, although R certainly moves well. Neither has a great serve, although R may have a little more potential there (?) and R has the better ROS--among the best on tour. Both are good athletes, and N is a little better in shot selection and tactics. Understandable. Overall, though, I see two evenly matched games (and both are great to watch).

Accomplishments? Obviously, Raducanu has won the only major, which was a big spike (as opposed to Navarro's more steady climb. Overall, she is 20-10 at slams; her highest ranking attained is #10. Navarro's slam record is 19-9 and her highest ranking is #8.

Again, two very different paths, and you can make a case for either having the better record at this point, although the edge probably goes to Emma R for her slam.

Going forward, if (and these are big IFs) Raducanu is blessed with better health and a more stable coaching situation (that's the only thing I don't like about her, but who knows what goes on behind the scenes), I think Raducanu may have a little more upside.

Your thoughts? I hope they both have a lot of success going forward.

 

[RSJfan]

I find them both appealing. I don’t know who will have the better career but ER has already won a major.

I saw Eala won today. I like her as well. It’s nice to see her get a win over a seeded player.

 

[airchallenge2]

Same here, Raducanu is already a GS winner.
As OP said: I wish both of them good luck as competition seems to be very strong.

 

[bitcoinoperated]

Emma R's body is having problems holding up in her early 20s. It is highly unlikely she is going to have a long career.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Emma R's body is having problems holding up in her early 20s. It is highly unlikely she is going to have a long career.

That's what I fear.

I think she has a Top15-type, possibly Top10) game when in match shape.

 

[nolefam_2024]

That's what I fear.

I think she has a Top15-type, possibly Top10,0) game when in match shape.

I think this can get exaggerated. Everyone in top 30 in wta has a top 15 type game. Raducanu does not dominate the best players.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I think this can get exaggerated. Everyone in top 30 in wta has a top 15 type game. Raducanu does not dominate the best players.

Sure. I get that. Perhaps, 40 players have Top-15 talent; my comment was quite subjective.

But even with all her injuries and time off the tour, there are still not that many players younger than her presently with a higher ranking, and while she hasn't achieved anything close to her astonishing 2001 US Open victory, she is a terrific player. A 20-10 record at slams is very good. I think her game is somewhat comparable to an Emma N, as I broke down.

I never thought she would be the dominant player on tour, but you don't just fluke coming onto the tour and starting out with a R of 16 at Wimby and then winning 10 straight matches, counting qualies, in straight sets at the US Open. It's also a sport of adjustments, and for whatever reasons, she hasn't been able to make enough positive ones so far.

 

[PDJ]

Brit Emma.
Can't abide crybaby Olympian American Navarro and can't see her winning a major, but will have more consistency.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Brit Emma.
Can't abide crybaby Olympian American Navarro and can't see her winning a major, but will have more consistency.

I like Emma N's game quite a bit. I did not like, whatsoever, her insulting Qinwen after losing to her, and subsequently doubling abd tripling down on those comments. That overall episode does seem to have been a one-off, so I'm trying to overlook it but it's hard to ignore completely.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

But even with all her injuries and time off the tour, there are still not that many players younger than her presently with a higher ranking, and while she hasn't achieved anything close to her astonishing 2001 US Open victory, she is a terrific player. A 20-10 record at slams is very good. I think her game is somewhat comparable to an Emma N, as I broke down.

i think this previously unstated narrative framing speaks to the highly admirable tone of your original post and the following comments, and sparks some interesting questions. first, it seems you would argue that as a tennis community, we should try to view Raducanu as a young talent who has potential to achieve more, and we should acknowledge that but try to have measured expectations, and to some degree we should pretend USO '21 didn't happen, to reorient from how massively that skews the Raducanu discourse

I never thought she would be the dominant player on tour, but you don't just fluke coming onto the tour and starting out with a R of 16 at Wimby and then winning 10 straight matches, counting qualies, in straight sets at the US Open. It's also a sport of adjustments, and for whatever reasons, she hasn't been able to make enough positive ones so far.

but second... maybe you can fluke that kind of thing, and that's ok? maybe Slams aren't the only (or even a good) way to look at a career's past or future trajectory, because if that's the only Slam she wins or even does anywhere as well in... that's ok? (shout-out Madison Keys) maybe we could genuinely say that the (presumably/generally acknowledged/ostensibly) less talented Navarro will nonetheless be much more likely to be the more accomplished player at the end of their careers, even if in none of those potential worlds Navarro is a Slam winner?

i am fascinated by lots of analysis from this Raducanu-focused article and highly recommend it: https://rothrocks.wordpress.com/202...h-a-reflection-of-the-tour-and-its-stalwarts/

but i'm actually only going to post this snippet, as the section that immediately jumped out and then stuck with me because of how TTW it sounds. that might even make this quote appear as an anti-recommendation!

In hindsight, it appears as if every opponent played her the wrong way all the way to the final. That sounds ridiculous on the surface but rings true when you look at the patterns she perused to obtain winners. Then too, her winners were mostly well placed shots into wide open spaces.

what are your thoughts?

 

[RaulRamirez]

i think this previously unstated narrative framing speaks to the highly admirable tone of your original post and the following comments, and sparks some interesting questions. first, it seems you would argue that as a tennis community, we should try to view Raducanu as a young talent who has potential to achieve more, and we should acknowledge that but try to have measured expectations, and to some degree we should pretend USO '21 didn't happen, to reorient from how massively that skews the Raducanu discourse

but second... maybe you can fluke that kind of thing, and that's ok? maybe Slams aren't the only (or even a good) way to look at a career's past or future trajectory, because if that's the only Slam she wins or even does anywhere as well in... that's ok? (shout-out Madison Keys) maybe we could genuinely say that the (presumably/generally acknowledged/ostensibly) less talented Navarro will nonetheless be much more likely to be the more accomplished player at the end of their careers, even if in none of those potential worlds Navarro is a Slam winner?

i am fascinated by lots of analysis from this Raducanu-focused article and highly recommend it: https://rothrocks.wordpress.com/202...h-a-reflection-of-the-tour-and-its-stalwarts/

but i'm actually only going to post this snippet, as the section that immediately jumped out and then stuck with me because of how TTW it sounds. that might even make this quote appear as an anti-recommendation!

what are your thoughts?

I may return to this, as lack of time and enough sleep of late has me feeling a but rushed and lazy.
Yes, I did read the article you referred to. I haven't rewatched USO21 but it dwells within me as magical runs for both Leylah and Emma.
Maybe, it was a bit fluky in the sense that Emma may never again experience that level of success again. But at the time, it did not feel like a one-off, as she didn't even appear to be redlining. She made it look easy, was never even pushed to a tiebreaker, and she handled everything with amazing maturity and class.

Fernandez appeared to be redlining that tourney, winning a succession of tight, down-to-the-wire matches with exquisite shotmaking. Emaa just appeared to cruise. Was that the case of bad tactics by several of her opponents? I guess that played a role, but I never analyzed it --I mostly basked in the pure pleasure of it all.

 

[GoKenin]

Emma N by a skosch