I thought Coco Gauff was overrated and overhyped?

Then how is it, "not so at all?"
That is in reference to your comment that "people who've hyped have predicted correctly so far"... My response to that is "not so at all" (try to keep up hahahah)

...I'm sure others can give you examples but there are countless ones. I've got to make a deadline lol... I would even say that hyping Coco for 4 years or so without it coming to fruition at the level at which she's been hyped is a failed prediction on their part...so not so at all. And then I went into the phenomena of why this happens. I will try to remember what that is called--i don't remember right now if it has a name but it's a sociological phenomena and inherent in the nature of being an expert with a platform and HAVING to do what they do, make commentary. They can't effectively say: I have no Bloody idea of who's going to be good!!! LOL although they have started working that angle lately. But they are still pushed to make predictions. Its the nature of the beast.
 

jimmy8

Legend
That is in reference to your comment that "people who've hyped have predicted correctly so far"... My response to that is "not so at all" (try to keep up hahahah)

...I'm sure others can give you examples but there are countless ones. I've got to make a deadline lol... I would even say that hyping Coco for 4 years or so without it coming to fruition at the level at which she's been hyped is a failed prediction on their part...so not so at all. And then I went into the phenomena of why this happens. I will try to remember what that is called--i don't remember right now if it has a name but it's a sociological phenomena and inherent in the nature of being an expert with a platform and HAVING to do what they do, make commentary. They can't effectively say: I have no Bloody idea of who's going to be good!!! LOL although they have started working that angle lately. But they are still pushed to make predictions. Its the nature of the beast.
But you said: "Had she not hired Brad, she's still be 100% overhyped relative to her results and potential as she was."

I guess that means something other than what it sounds like.
 
It’s been a while since a player has come along with Coco Gauff’s combination of being singularly motivated, so physically gifted, extremely mature, and having a full team behind her with her best interests at heart.

She’s been very honest talking about things like crying in the middle of the night trying to figure out the final pieces of the puzzle to start winning majors. She is trying so hard, and we are getting an insight into it.

When she starts winning majors, she is not going to let that feeling of winning go. There is just zero distraction like there is with other players, and Coco seems to have great physical durability. We could be looking at the start of an ATG career that yields high single digit majors.
 
But you said: "Had she not hired Brad, she's still be 100% overhyped relative to her results and potential as she was."

I guess that means something other than what it sounds like.
yeah that forehand wasn't going to improve on its own and with the status quo. I'm sorry if you don't think I'm being clear..I think it's because we are coming at the issue from two very different perspectives.

FWIW, I like Coco and happy to see her doing well. i feel like maybe that's all you really want to hear from people. You are taking the word overhyped to equate to mean dislike of her in some way. IMO, you can like someone, hope they live up to their potential and still be aware that there is a disconnect or gap, ie an overhype, between what is said of the person's talent, etc and what results they are producing.

*side note, in the similar threads area below the top result is the "Genie Bouchard is seriously overrated" thread...and I think that was a really similar thing. She was completely overhyped. Press/commentary very often overly focused on her and the results were not bearing out in the least. She had a few good results but they spoke of her like she had many and had already "made it". And we all know where that ended up. Time will always tell. BTW, I think you can be in top 50 or maybe even 100 and deserving of some hype. I mean it's hard to make it that far--that's just being real and most players will never make number one even if they are very good/solid. That's just tennis rankings. What's wrong in the case of Genie or Coco, is that they get way more than their fair share of hype. Does Coco deserves some hype? Of course. Does she deserve it at the expense of everyone else that is producing similar results or has similar promise to her? I don't think so. Why do you think she and only she should be singled out positively--when there are others doing positive things as well?
 

jimmy8

Legend
yeah that forehand wasn't going to improve on its own and with the status quo. I'm sorry if you don't think I'm being clear..I think it's because we are coming at the issue from two very different perspectives.

FWIW, I like Coco and happy to see her doing well. i feel like maybe that's all you really want to hear from people. You are taking the word overhyped to equate to mean dislike of her in some way. IMO, you can like someone, hope they live up to their potential and still be aware that there is a disconnect or gap, ie an overhype, between what is said of the person's talent, etc and what results they are producing.

*side note, in the similar threads area below the top result is the "Genie Bouchard is seriously overrated" thread...and I think that was a really similar thing. She was completely overhyped. Press/commentary very often overly focused on her and the results were not bearing out in the least. She had a few good results but they spoke of her like she had many and had already "made it". And we all know where that ended up. Time will always tell. BTW, I think you can be in top 50 or maybe even 100 and deserving of some hype. I mean it's hard to make it that far--that's just being real and most players will never make number one even if they are very good/solid. That's just tennis rankings. What's wrong in the case of Genie or Coco, is that they get way more than their fair share of hype. Does Coco deserves some hype? Of course. Does she deserve it at the expense of everyone else that is producing similar results or has similar promise to her? I don't think so. Why do you think she and only she should be singled out positively--when there are others doing positive things as well?
If you saw the other previous threads about Coco being overhyped maybe you would understand. I even said she was overhyped, but that doesn't mean she's not going to figure it out someday. And I'm not saying she deserves to be on par with Steffi Graf, but Coco has stepped onto that escalator with the trajectory towards great things. And she has done enough to shed the title of overhyped. And your last sentence above - reread it, it doesn't make sense, and it's clear that it doesn't make sense.

I'm not a huge Coco fan. I like watching her because I like players with great speed. I thought the denigrating posts were unfair because she's young and she's still developing and I could see she has it, that maybe her parents being her coaches were probably holding her back because they're not really tennis people. Brad fixed that and I felt that was what she needed even before it happened. If you don't believe me there's posts dated before her recent run where I said those things.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
She is not overhyped in the sense that the media anoints her as one of the favorites to win every WTA tournament. I find it strange though that Tennis Channel has shown every one of her matches in the last 2-3 years like she is the clear headliner of tennis even if Djokovic, Alcaraz or Swiatek are playing at the same time. I can only assume that she is very popular with Tennis Channel viewers even though I would rather watch other top players ranked higher on either tour.
 

atatu

Legend
She is not overhyped in the sense that the media anoints her as one of the favorites to win every WTA tournament. I find it strange though that Tennis Channel has shown every one of her matches in the last 2-3 years like she is the clear headliner of tennis even if Djokovic, Alcaraz or Swiatek are playing at the same time. I can only assume that she is very popular with Tennis Channel viewers even though I would rather watch other top players ranked higher on either tour.
This isn't actually a true statement, I'm going to assume it just seems that way to you based on your experiences watching tennis channel, I can tell you for sure that there have been Gauff matches that were not shown on Tennis Channel while an ATP match was shown instead.
 

jimmy8

Legend
This isn't actually a true statement, I'm going to assume it just seems that way to you based on your experiences watching tennis channel, I can tell you for sure that there have been Gauff matches that were not shown on Tennis Channel while an ATP match was shown instead.
What about this statement from ihitlikeagirl:

Why do you think she and only she should be singled out positively--when there are others doing positive things as well?

That's the most extreme statement maybe ever.
 

LaVie en Rose

Hall of Fame
Looks fabulous here at the WTA celebratory night.
Love the simplicity of the dress and coulour suits her beautifully
F4duS8bXEAA4DIl
 

AM75

Hall of Fame
If you ask 1000 random Americans to name a current American tennis player (male or female), among those that could name anyone at all, I'd bet about 85-95% would say Gauff's name first. Why is that? Kenin won a Grand Slam at age 21. Why is Gauff more famous?
She‘s more famous because she has Federer‘s PR agent and signed with Federer‘s PR firm quite early. Greedy Fed always makes sure that money is rolling.
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
Btw OP, she was overrated and she was overhyped. People weren’t wrong for saying those things, they were true statements, before August 2023.

Simply put it was plain as day that she wasn’t on the level of the top players in the world. She made one Slam final with maybe the easiest draw ever, 0 players within the top 30, and proceeded to do almost nothing for an entire calendar year afterwards. Her loss at Wimbledon just a month ago was one of the lowest of the low. She was not playing at the level of a Slam or 1000 contender.

Her FH, her serve, aggressiveness coming to net, and her general on-court attitude is quite literally night and day compared to what it was at any point in her career. Gilbert has done wonders here. She improved a lot.
Rubbish moving of the goalpost. The rating and "hype" of players is inherently a commentary on their future also, not only their present. Can't turn around and say it was true till July but not true from August. That's ludicrous and absurd. And there was no caveat to all the irrational anti-Coco drivel — it was not constrained by time or by her hiring a coach. Her haters unanimously asserted she was doomed and that nothing could be done about her.
 

bobleenov1963

Hall of Fame
Rubbish moving of the goalpost. The rating and "hype" of players is inherently a commentary on their future also, not only their present. Can't turn around and say it was true till July but not true from August. That's ludicrous and absurd. And there was no caveat to all the irrational anti-Coco drivel — it was not constrained by time or by her hiring a coach. Her haters unanimously asserted she was doomed and that nothing could be done about her.

Naomi Osaka won 4 GS and didn't get the hype that Gauff received :-D
 

atatu

Legend
Naomi Osaka won 4 GS and didn't get the hype that Gauff received :-D
Again, not a true statement, here is the list for 2022 according to Forbes

The top 10

  1. Naomi Osaka, Tennis – $51.1 mil
  2. Serena Williams, Tennis – $41.3 mil
  3. Eileen Gu, Freestyle Skiing – $20.1 mil
  4. Emma Raducanu, Tennis – $18.7 mil
  5. Iga Swiatek, Tennis – $14.9 mil
  6. Venus Williams, Tennis – $12.1 mil
  7. Coco Gauff, Tennis – $11.1 mil
  8. Simone Biles, Gymnastics – $10 mil
  9. Jessica Pegula, Tennis – $7.6 mil
  10. Minjee Lee, Golf – $7.3 mil
 

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
Rubbish moving of the goalpost. The rating and "hype" of players is inherently a commentary on their future also, not only their present. Can't turn around and say it was true till July but not true from August. That's ludicrous and absurd. And there was no caveat to all the irrational anti-Coco drivel — it was not constrained by time or by her hiring a coach. Her haters unanimously asserted she was doomed and that nothing could be done about her.
Don't call me rubbish. You don't know ****. Why all the aggressive language?

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Gauff is over-hated, per se, given that she is still yet to turn 20. She obviously still had a long way to develop in front of her.

However, if you are American as I am myself, I believe we all are aware of just how much coverage she gets, and the way commentators discuss her as a favorite for Slams even when she was losing to essentially everyone on her WB 22-WB 23 downturn. She is constantly on show courts, constantly first on TV coverage in basically every American broadcast, including TennisTV, and we have all seen a LOT of Gauff over these past few years since her (admittedly impressive) breakthrough a few years ago.

That's what the overhype means. She was being treated as if she was a star already despite her performance not really matching those standards at all. And specifically, the point I and many always came back to, was her lacking FH. It had a giant target on it and was constantly attacked and broken down - despite her defense and BH becoming quite good, we felt that her FH would hold her back, and I know I said as much multiple times, saying she had to improve that shot to do anything in tennis.

And voila. She hires Gilbert, and the FH is so much better, 5 times better even. That's what I had been hoping for her all along.

I don't know who or what your post was directed at. Stop building strawmen and trying to get in an 'I told you so' type of argument. We are all happy for Gauff - we wanted to see her play well. She wasn't playing well, but her improvement has been very impressive to watch, and she is a nice young girl with a great future ahead of her.
 

bobleenov1963

Hall of Fame
Again, not a true statement, here is the list for 2022 according to Forbes

The top 10

  1. Naomi Osaka, Tennis – $51.1 mil
  2. Serena Williams, Tennis – $41.3 mil
  3. Eileen Gu, Freestyle Skiing – $20.1 mil
  4. Emma Raducanu, Tennis – $18.7 mil
  5. Iga Swiatek, Tennis – $14.9 mil
  6. Venus Williams, Tennis – $12.1 mil
  7. Coco Gauff, Tennis – $11.1 mil
  8. Simone Biles, Gymnastics – $10 mil
  9. Jessica Pegula, Tennis – $7.6 mil
  10. Minjee Lee, Golf – $7.3 mil
Have you been watching ESPN last week and today?
 

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
Coco is for real, she’s been incredible since the first game of the 2nd set tonight. Highlight reel athleticism and passing shots. She’s a star.
 
The overhype was straight out of NBC's Olympics playbook. Prior to the Games, NBC decides which Americans are going to get top billing. When they should just wait and let the events play out and heap the winners/best finishing American with coverage. Isn't the authentic drama one of live sports' main selling points? Then you don't have egg on your face when one of your supposed "stars" fails to deliver.

Coco could easily become a multi-slam winner. But the ESPN machine of the past few years has bordered on insufferable.

And it must be said again. The Venus Coco Wimby R1 "passing of the torch" draw was completely rigged.
 

robyrolfo

Professional
Did Gauff get a $150mm deal from Nike?
She doesn't wear Nike. What's your point?

Your argument is that because of her skin color Coco gets more attention and that Kenin did not get that same attention. However, Sloane did not get that attention either, so please explain that for me. It seems like both Sloane and Kenin won slams and got similar levels of attention. Now you're backtracking and saying that back when Sloane won her slam in 2017 Serena was still around so no one really cared, but when Kenin won in 2020 that wasn't the case ?
Nobody is "backtracking." I'm simply stating a fact. Sloan won her slam when Serena was still the face of American tennis, and women's tennis. The sport's marketers didn't need anyone to step up at that point, although if Sloane had continued to do well in her career there would have surely been some "passing of the torch" talk. But we all know that didn't happen (and Sloane turned out to be about as likable as a piece of bread.

Kenin came along when the marketers were starting to scramble, and they really had to begin planning for the post-Serena era of American and Women's tennis. But did they give any attention to the woman who won a major and competed for others? Nah, they went for the younger woman who hadn't won anything, but had all of this vague and unknowable "potential." Wonder why?

By the way who is the most hyped WTA player in history ? Anna Kournikova - never won a singles tournament but made millions off endorsement deals. It's all about marketing and if companies wanted to pay her, more power to her.
Thanks for helping my argument. Kournikova made a lot of money, but how? Why? Because she looked a certain way. Nobody was seriously talking about her like she was a great tennis player (and nobody cared if she was, either).

So why is Coco making so much money already? Because of the way she looks, right? And how does she look?

When she starts winning majors, she is not going to let that feeling of winning go. There is just zero distraction like there is with other players, and Coco seems to have great physical durability. We could be looking at the start of an ATG career that yields high single digit majors.
This is textbook overhype right here. She won two out of three tournaments, and her first Master's 1000, and now you are talking about her being an ATG? And ATG that is riding high on confidence... and then nearly lost to Laura Sigmond?

Rubbish moving of the goalpost. The rating and "hype" of players is inherently a commentary on their future also, not only their present. Can't turn around and say it was true till July but not true from August. That's ludicrous and absurd. And there was no caveat to all the irrational anti-Coco drivel — it was not constrained by time or by her hiring a coach. Her haters unanimously asserted she was doomed and that nothing could be done about her.
Um, if the original goalposts are (as above) a high number of slams and status an one of the ATG's, then she and her hype train could very much still be doomed.
 

coolcamden

Hall of Fame
She doesn't wear Nike. What's your point?


Nobody is "backtracking." I'm simply stating a fact. Sloan won her slam when Serena was still the face of American tennis, and women's tennis. The sport's marketers didn't need anyone to step up at that point, although if Sloane had continued to do well in her career there would have surely been some "passing of the torch" talk. But we all know that didn't happen (and Sloane turned out to be about as likable as a piece of bread.

Kenin came along when the marketers were starting to scramble, and they really had to begin planning for the post-Serena era of American and Women's tennis. But did they give any attention to the woman who won a major and competed for others? Nah, they went for the younger woman who hadn't won anything, but had all of this vague and unknowable "potential." Wonder why?


Thanks for helping my argument. Kournikova made a lot of money, but how? Why? Because she looked a certain way. Nobody was seriously talking about her like she was a great tennis player (and nobody cared if she was, either).

So why is Coco making so much money already? Because of the way she looks, right? And how does she look?


This is textbook overhype right here. She won two out of three tournaments, and her first Master's 1000, and now you are talking about her being an ATG? And ATG that is riding high on confidence... and then nearly lost to Laura Sigmond?


Um, if the original goalposts are (as above) a high number of slams and status an one of the ATG's, then she and her hype train could very much still be doomed.

Great points all.
 

atatu

Legend
She doesn't wear Nike. What's your point?


Nobody is "backtracking." I'm simply stating a fact. Sloan won her slam when Serena was still the face of American tennis, and women's tennis. The sport's marketers didn't need anyone to step up at that point, although if Sloane had continued to do well in her career there would have surely been some "passing of the torch" talk. But we all know that didn't happen (and Sloane turned out to be about as likable as a piece of bread.

Kenin came along when the marketers were starting to scramble, and they really had to begin planning for the post-Serena era of American and Women's tennis. But did they give any attention to the woman who won a major and competed for others? Nah, they went for the younger woman who hadn't won anything, but had all of this vague and unknowable "potential." Wonder why?


Thanks for helping my argument. Kournikova made a lot of money, but how? Why? Because she looked a certain way. Nobody was seriously talking about her like she was a great tennis player (and nobody cared if she was, either).

So why is Coco making so much money already? Because of the way she looks, right? And how does she look?


This is textbook overhype right here. She won two out of three tournaments, and her first Master's 1000, and now you are talking about her being an ATG? And ATG that is riding high on confidence... and then nearly lost to Laura Sigmond?


Um, if the original goalposts are (as above) a high number of slams and status an one of the ATG's, then she and her hype train could very much still be doomed.
Ok so are you saying Kournikova, who never won a singles tournament in her entire career is the same as Gauff, who has already won multiple singles tournament at the age of 19 and has made the final of a Grand Slam ? Makes sense.
 

robyrolfo

Professional
Ok so are you saying Kournikova, who never won a singles tournament in her entire career is the same as Gauff, who has already won multiple singles tournament at the age of 19 and has made the final of a Grand Slam ? Makes sense.
No, that's not my argument at all, but thanks for being disingenuous. My comment is right there for you (and anyone else) to go back and read.

I specifically said that nobody was really talking about her for her tennis. They were talking about her for other reasons. And you mentioned how much money she made, and I pointed out that she made that money for other reasons. Just like Gauff has made a lot of money thus far, largely for reasons that don't have any direct correlation to her tennis results. And that's essentially a fact. So the question becomes, why or how? Can you answer that?
 
You don't exactly have to "win" to make money in pro sports. LOL. Osaka is making what 30-50 Mil still? How many tournaments is she winning currently? Or Raducancu? LOL. People just make their money off superficial BS now. Not merit.
 

atatu

Legend
No, that's not my argument at all, but thanks for being disingenuous. My comment is right there for you (and anyone else) to go back and read.

I specifically said that nobody was really talking about her for her tennis. They were talking about her for other reasons. And you mentioned how much money she made, and I pointed out that she made that money for other reasons. Just like Gauff has made a lot of money thus far, largely for reasons that don't have any direct correlation to her tennis results. And that's essentially a fact. So the question becomes, why or how? Can you answer that?
It's not "essentially a fact." She's made a lot of money because she's the future of American tennis, she's already made the finals of a grand slam and has won tournaments at the age of 19. She's young and has great potential. You seem very determined to argue that she's only getting attention because of "other reasons" and her talent and potential have nothing to do with it. Right now there are several women on the tour who "look like" Coco but they don't have her endorsements. You want to ignore Sloane Stephens so let's try Alycia Parks, Robin Montgomery, Sachia Vickery to just name a few. Why do you think they aren't getting hype ?? Well the fact is that they aren't as good as Coco, they haven't gotten the results, is that correct ?
 
She doesn't wear Nike. What's your point?


Nobody is "backtracking." I'm simply stating a fact. Sloan won her slam when Serena was still the face of American tennis, and women's tennis. The sport's marketers didn't need anyone to step up at that point, although if Sloane had continued to do well in her career there would have surely been some "passing of the torch" talk. But we all know that didn't happen (and Sloane turned out to be about as likable as a piece of bread.

Kenin came along when the marketers were starting to scramble, and they really had to begin planning for the post-Serena era of American and Women's tennis. But did they give any attention to the woman who won a major and competed for others? Nah, they went for the younger woman who hadn't won anything, but had all of this vague and unknowable "potential." Wonder why?


This is textbook overhype right here. She won two out of three tournaments, and her first Master's 1000, and now you are talking about her being an ATG? And ATG that is riding high on confidence... and then nearly lost to Laura Sigmond?
Coco’s recent title runs are great data points. Heading into your home major on a form streak like this is a great place to be in.

But my positive comments on her and what I think she is capable of are not based solely on those recent title runs.

If you’re interested in why I think she is destined for greatness you can refer to my posts earlier in the thread.

I can understand that you are not happy because you think there is a lot of hype at the moment, but you have to put yourself in the mindset of tennis fans.

We have a player who was earmarked for greatness a few years ago, and we are witnessing in real time the process of her coping with the expectation, getting even better, and putting all the pieces together. It’s a very exciting thing to watch unfold.
 

robyrolfo

Professional
It's not "essentially a fact." She's made a lot of money because she's the future of American tennis, she's already made the finals of a grand slam and has won tournaments at the age of 19. She's young and has great potential. You seem very determined to argue that she's only getting attention because of "other reasons" and her talent and potential have nothing to do with it. Right now there are several women on the tour who "look like" Coco but they don't have her endorsements. You want to ignore Sloane Stephens so let's try Alycia Parks, Robin Montgomery, Sachia Vickery to just name a few. Why do you think they aren't getting hype ?? Well the fact is that they aren't as good as Coco, they haven't gotten the results, is that correct ?
Watching you try to avoid the obvious is pretty funny, but also a little depressing. Again, doing what you are doing is not going to help anyone's cause. You are doing more damage than good by being intellectually dishonest.

So she's the future of American tennis? Why? Why not Fritz? Why not Tiafoe? Why not Shelton? Why not Korda? Why not Kennin? Why not Pegula (who still has at least 5 years left on tour)? Why wasn't it Anisimova a few years ago?

Naming a few other random black women's players is meaningless, as none of them are even regulars in the top 100, save for Stephens who has already been explained (she peaked during Serena's reign, and she has zero personality and flat out quits in some of her matches). You have no argument. You know very well why she gets that extra bit of hype that none of the others named above have received, despite accomplishing A LOT more than her. So why don't you just admit it, and then we can move on. There's nothing wrong with it. People are just pointing out that it is real.

We have a player who was earmarked for greatness a few years ago, and we are witnessing in real time the process of her coping with the expectation, getting even better, and putting all the pieces together. It’s a very exciting thing to watch unfold.
She played one good lower level event, the first harcourt play for most of her opponents, and most of whom had just travelled to America. Then she got a laughable draw in a Master's 1000 and won it, beating a less than impressive Swiatek in the process. You could say that the player that beat her in the other M1000, Pegula, is "unfolding" in just the same way right now.
 
Last edited:

atatu

Legend
Watch you try to avoid the obvious is pretty funny, but also a little depressing. Again, doing what you are doing is not going to help anyone's cause. You are doing more damage than good by being intellectually dishonest.

So she's the future of American tennis? Why? Why not Fritz? Why not Tiafoe? Why not Shelton? Why not Korda? Why not Kennin? Why not Pegula (who still has at least 5 years left on tour)? Why wasn't it Anisimova a few years ago?

Naming a few other random black women's players is meaningless, as none of them are even regulars in the top 100, save for Stephens who has already been explained (she peaked during Serena's reign, and she has zero personality and flat out quits in some of her matches). You have no argument. You know very well why she gets that extra bit of hype that none of the others named above have received, despite accomplishing A LOT more than her. So why don't you just admit it, and then we can move on. There's nothing wrong with it. People are just pointing out that it is real.


She played one good lower level event, the first harcourt play for most of her opponents, and most of whom had just travelled to America. Then she got a laughable draw in a Master's 1000 and won it, beating a less than impressive Swiatek in the process. You could say that the player that beat her in the other M1000, Pegula, is "unfolding" in just the same way right now.
She's the future of American women's tennis because she's the one who has the best chance to win a major in the next 5-10 years. Honestly i'd love to see Fritz or Tiafoe win a major, I think think it's unlikely but it would be great (same for Korda). I'm always defending Fritz when people hate on him for stupid reasons like the fact that he comes from money or because of his girlfriend. If we are being honest I'd say Pegula is unlikely to win a major after the next couple of years, she's almost 30 but it would be great if she could squeeze one in sometime in the next year or two. Likewise I'd like to see Kenin make it back, but it's going to be tough, she can still play some great tennis but at the same time she struggles in matches that she should win easily. I'm not sure why you think I find it unlikely that Anisimova will be back at the top.

But you haven't answered the question - if the only reason Gauff is getting hype is her race, and not her talent and potential, why aren't we seeing more attention paid to Stephens, Keys, Parks, Montgomery, etc. ? Please give me an "intellectually honest" response. Do you think those players are as good as Coco ? Do they have the talent and potential ?
 

ChrisJR3264

Hall of Fame
She's the future of American women's tennis because she's the one who has the best chance to win a major in the next 5-10 years. Honestly i'd love to see Fritz or Tiafoe win a major, I think think it's unlikely but it would be great (same for Korda). I'm always defending Fritz when people hate on him for stupid reasons like the fact that he comes from money or because of his girlfriend. If we are being honest I'd say Pegula is unlikely to win a major after the next couple of years, she's almost 30 but it would be great if she could squeeze one in sometime in the next year or two. Likewise I'd like to see Kenin make it back, but it's going to be tough, she can still play some great tennis but at the same time she struggles in matches that she should win easily. I'm not sure why you think I find it unlikely that Anisimova will be back at the top.

But you haven't answered the question - if the only reason Gauff is getting hype is her race, and not her talent and potential, why aren't we seeing more attention paid to Stephens, Keys, Parks, Montgomery, etc. ? Please give me an "intellectually honest" response. Do you think those players are as good as Coco ? Do they have the talent and potential ?
Her talent is there. I wish she’d play more aggressive especially on forehand. That stupid slice approach too much isn’t going to get her a slam.
She’s got a huge serve that can hit 120. Sheesh. Great backhand. Great movement. Great athlete.

Uhh I don’t want to question her move to hire Brad Gilbert but when iga was noodle arming second serves , his instructions were to shape the ball and grind. She should’ve attacked in my opinion. I don’t think you can win a slam without having the ability to attack especially on forehand
 

bobleenov1963

Hall of Fame
Noami Osaka didn't get this kind of "hype" and she has dual citizenship (US and Japan). Osaka won 4 GS vs. ZERO for Gauff.

I was watching ESPN yesterday and Kris Mckendry interviewed Jon Rahm, the famous Spaniard golfer, and Rahm was talking about how talented Alcaraz and Nadal are... McKendry had to inject Gauff into the conversation as if Gauff is on the same level as Nadal and Alcaraz. You just can't make this stuff up.
 

ChrisJR3264

Hall of Fame
Noami Osaka didn't get this kind of "hype" and she has dual citizenship (US and Japan). Osaka won 4 GS vs. ZERO for Gauff.

I was watching ESPN yesterday and Kris Mckendry interviewed Jon Rahm, the famous Spaniard golfer, and Rahm was talking about how talented Alcaraz and Nadal are... McKendry had to inject Gauff into the conversation as if Gauff is on the same level as Nadal and Alcaraz. You just can't make this stuff up.
Idk if she’s that talented. Iga won a slam at 19.
So did sharapova, maybe younger. Emma won at 19. Coco still hasn’t broke through in the majors yet. And I think it’s her lack of aggressive style that’s been holding her back.

If she continues to play like she did Monday night - she’s not going to see week 2.
 

coolcamden

Hall of Fame
Noami Osaka didn't get this kind of "hype" and she has dual citizenship (US and Japan). Osaka won 4 GS vs. ZERO for Gauff.

I was watching ESPN yesterday and Kris Mckendry interviewed Jon Rahm, the famous Spaniard golfer, and Rahm was talking about how talented Alcaraz and Nadal are... McKendry had to inject Gauff into the conversation as if Gauff is on the same level as Nadal and Alcaraz. You just can't make this stuff up.
McKendry and ESPN. I just threw up in my mouth a little.
 

robyrolfo

Professional
She's the future of American women's tennis because she's the one who has the best chance to win a major in the next 5-10 years. Honestly i'd love to see Fritz or Tiafoe win a major, I think think it's unlikely but it would be great (same for Korda). I'm always defending Fritz when people hate on him for stupid reasons like the fact that he comes from money or because of his girlfriend. If we are being honest I'd say Pegula is unlikely to win a major after the next couple of years...

But you haven't answered the question - if the only reason Gauff is getting hype is her race, and not her talent and potential, why aren't we seeing more attention paid to Stephens, Keys, Parks, Montgomery, etc. ? Please give me an "intellectually honest" response. Do you think those players are as good as Coco ? Do they have the talent and potential ?
Best chance to win a major? But Kennin already won a major pretty recently. Why was it ignored? And you really think she has a better chance that Pegula? Pegula has been A LOT better for the past year, and even this past month when Gauff has been playing well, she lost to Pegula, and Pegula won that other M1000. So why is Gauff more likely right now?

As for the men, why bring them up? The men's game is different. I'd say that most of those guys are comparably better tennis players for their gender, but it's much harder to reach the top on the ATP tour than the WTA tour.

And if you really insist on making this false comparison, I'll go through them one by one. Stephens: won a slam when Serena was around, and in the process displayed very little personality and charisma. Since then she has looked like she couldn't care less about tennis, other than the paychecks. Keys: didn't win the big one, and hasn't done much of note post Serena. Also isn't as marketable. Doesn't have the "look." Parks: are you kidding me? She was a nobody until a few months ago, and will be a nobody again soon enough. Get serious. Montgomery: What? Who? An even bigger nobody than Parks.

You see, Gauff is a highly marketable package. She is young, has this nebulous "potential," gets decent results by taking advantage of easy draws and consistently beating lesser players, has a cute and memorable name in "Coco," and, of course, she ticks that other box at exactly the right time: Serena is stepping down, and they need a fresh faced heiress to the throne with similar attributes. It really couldn't be any more obvious. Problem is, Serena was already dominant the minute she showed up. Ditto Venus. Ditto plenty of other child prodigies.

Her talent is there. I wish she’d play more aggressive especially on forehand. That stupid slice approach too much isn’t going to get her a slam.
She’s got a huge serve that can hit 120. Sheesh. Great backhand. Great movement. Great athlete.

Uhh I don’t want to question her move to hire Brad Gilbert but when iga was noodle arming second serves , his instructions were to shape the ball and grind. She should’ve attacked in my opinion. I don’t think you can win a slam without having the ability to attack especially on forehand
She is indeed a great athlete, but not necessarily a great mover in tennis terms. Plenty of people comment on and complain about her footwork.

And Coco had an absolutely awful record against Swiatek, barely winning games, nonetheless sets. And now after her first win against Iga, you want to criticize Brad Gilbert's advice? Most people in here are giving him about 99% of the credit for her recent form.
 

ChrisJR3264

Hall of Fame
Best chance to win a major? But Kennin already won a major pretty recently. Why was it ignored? And you really think she has a better chance that Pegula? Pegula has been A LOT better for the past year, and even this past month when Gauff has been playing well, she lost to Pegula, and Pegula won that other M1000. So why is Gauff more likely right now?

As for the men, why bring them up? The men's game is different. I'd say that most of those guys are comparably better tennis players for their gender, but it's much harder to reach the top on the ATP tour than the WTA tour.

And if you really insist on making this false comparison, I'll go through them one by one. Stephens: won a slam when Serena was around, and in the process displayed very little personality and charisma. Since then she has looked like she couldn't care less about tennis, other than the paychecks. Keys: didn't win the big one, and hasn't done much of note post Serena. Also isn't as marketable. Doesn't have the "look." Parks: are you kidding me? She was a nobody until a few months ago, and will be a nobody again soon enough. Get serious. Montgomery: What? Who? An even bigger nobody than Parks.

You see, Gauff is a highly marketable package. She is young, has this nebulous "potential," gets decent results by taking advantage of easy draws and consistently beating lesser players, has a cute and memorable name in "Coco," and, of course, she ticks that other box at exactly the right time: Serena is stepping down, and they need a fresh faced heiress to the throne with similar attributes. It really couldn't be any more obvious. Problem is, Serena was already dominant the minute she showed up. Ditto Venus. Ditto plenty of other child prodigies.


She is indeed a great athlete, but not necessarily a great mover in tennis terms. Plenty of people comment on and complain about her footwork.

And Coco had an absolutely awful record against Swiatek, barely winning games, nonetheless sets. And now after her first win against Iga, you want to criticize Brad Gilbert's advice? Most people in here are giving him about 99% of the credit for her recent form.
Yeah I am. Who sits back and doesn’t attack a 60 mph second serve?
I watched that match and iga let her off the hook way too many times with unforced errors. And coco kept her in the match by not attacking weak serves. It was a victory but ugly match
 

robyrolfo

Professional
Yeah I am. Who sits back and doesn’t attack a 60 mph second serve?
I watched that match and iga let her off the hook way too many times with unforced errors. And coco kept her in the match by not attacking weak serves. It was a victory but ugly match
Wait, wait... you do know that Brad Gilbert actually wrote a book called "Winning Ugly," right? It's his thing! And, again, it worked. She had never done anything other than get utterly humiliated against Iga, so I wouldn't question it.
 

ChrisJR3264

Hall of Fame
Wait, wait... you do know that Brad Gilbert actually wrote a book called "Winning Ugly," right? It's his thing! And, again, it worked. She had never done anything other than get utterly humiliated against Iga, so I wouldn't question it.
There’s a time to win ugly but when your opponent is serving up meatballs you should attack
 

Johnny505

Semi-Pro
The WTA have been putting her face on anything and everything relating to women tennis when she 1st came on the scene as if she's the best things to have happened since slice bread. She got invited to play in those 'fun' days ahead of the start of slam with more established players and multiple slam winners when there were more deserving players to choose from. I guess it ticked a few boxes for the organisers and their chums.
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
no, not the AMOUNT of hype she was getting long before she won Cincinatti. There are players who were much better who didn't get near the hype. It's not the fact that she gets hype, but the amount she gets relative to players better than her which is the definition of overrated/overhyped. lol


Look I may be missing something I don’t have access to worldwide media 24-7 but I think most countries hype up their players. And anyone who thinks that the USA media is going to hype other countries players over their own, is just being silly. All countries hype up their athletes.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
Regardless of the hype she has received in the US plus the UK (I was in Centre Court to watch her 3rd round match at Wimbledon in 2019 and I remember the huge buzz around her in our media at that time), what I don't understand is holding that against her personally.

It's not like she has personally declared that she's going to win a truckload of grand slams through press conferences or media interviews, or written glowing articles about herself. She shouldn't be held responsible for what other people have saying about her, predicting for her etc.
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
Well, she was overhyped as the next Venus yet Coco's main weapon is speed. Not power and not an intimidating serve.
In big moments, her serve is unreliable and she becomes very passive and conservative hitting loopy balls and waiting for her opponent's to make a mistake.
Gilbert is trying to break that flaw from her. The same thing Pegula does in big moments that David Witt is trying to correct.
Venus and Serena had MJ's instincts to pummel their opponents and put serious doubt in their minds that they have no chance.
I do think Coco can win 2 or 3 slams and maybe even this tournament.
 
Last edited:

buscemi

Hall of Fame
As I recall Venus was dominant first, then Serena took over. Serena kinda piggybacked off the association with Venus.
Depends on what you mean by "dominant." In 1999, Serena won Indian Wells (beating Graf in the final), the U.S. Open (beating Hingis in the final), and the Grand Slam Cup (beating Venus in the final), all before Venus won her first Major in 2000.
 
Depends on what you mean by "dominant." In 1999, Serena won Indian Wells (beating Graf in the final), the U.S. Open (beating Hingis in the final), and the Grand Slam Cup (beating Venus in the final), all before Venus won her first Major in 2000.
I guess I was too young then to have a good sense.
 
I'd say she needs to show up for the next 12 months pretty consistently. If she can't win a slam, another final and a couple of 1000s (sorry if that's not what they are called on WTA) and a SF or final showing at the WTF will mean she is living up to the hype.
I don't expect a slam just yet. But i do believe she could do it. I wasn't at that point even a month ago but Canada and the way she's handing this USO pressure makes me think it's doable in the next 2 or 3 years.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
Well, by your reasoning, Sloane Stephens should be the most hyped American player since Serena right ? Like Kenin, she won a Grand Slam, the US Open no less, which is the biggest one for American players. In addition, she made the finals of the French and was runner up at the WTA finals correct ? I would say she's had at least as good of a career as Kenin, so she should be the most hyped player on the WTA ? Wrong - she's not consistent (like Kenin) and now at age 30 her best days are behind her.
Sloane was hyped. Now, a desired marketable player has come along to take her place. In marketing, you always jump onto whatever bandwagon you can that makes your marketing spidey sense tingle and throw away the old that is on the downslope.
 
Top