The most prominent was that thumb injury we all know about. Once it healed and she played her next match, her toss quickly worsened. She could never find the right depth of toss from phantom pains, and she'd compensate by tossing quicker before she could think of how wrong her toss was. The fast paces of matches compelled her to rush outside of practice, and the rushed tosses caused her to pronate less. This was admitted by her at first, but she'd later deny it and claim she didn't know the issue- probably assumed that would help it to go away. There were other issues with the serve- it's tragic to witness a player's mental state decline when their biomechanics break down, one component at a time.
I'm not looking to prod you, but I heard it all before. First, Osaka lost "one match". Then Sabalenka lost "one match". Swiatek lost "one match". It goes on and on.
It doesn't look good on you. I know what I'm talking about. I've been in this business too long to not know. Before this, people were telling me Stephens lost "one match". Bouchard lost "one match". Hell, I remember when
Dokic lost "one match". A good coach is going to look into how these players are living their lives and model their profession after what they see. I've looked into more tennis players professional lives than your average fan. I know what I'm talking about.
I'm not out to settle any grudge. I would hope that some people are learning from what I'm saying, and I know that's not a lie. The peanut gallery is louder, but where's the surprise? Raducanu lost for the reasons I told
@Chanwan she would. Her forehand is too novical, and it shows glimpses of promise when she has time to set up, but the extension takes away her time and power if she's not angled correctly. She adjusts by overhitting. This is common when players are still finding their hands on the racket. Raducanu's still finding her hands. Her serves let her down. You all talk about Kournikova's services, and you can bet that's a fair game. Take a close look at where Sasnovich was standing for a number of Raducanu's services. You'd think she was already preparing to shake Raducanu's hand- and she might as well've been. It's not as shaky as Kournikova, but Kournikova's services broke down after that aforementioned thumb injury and then another
two injuries. Raducanu doesn't have any of these semi-valid excuses. Her headspace is weaker. Why do you think I'm telling you these players today wouldn't have survived the '90s? Social media's a factor anyone can choose to ignore. The kids just don't have the discipline for it. When Kournikova and Hingis responded to pressures, it wasn't because they read them on social media. It was because the press and reporters back then were immoral hounds who wanted to do whatever it took to raise controversy amid their tennis reports. That's why the tennis back then was more exciting- but that's why we had more heartbreaking in the past. A certain champion boycotted the media this year, and Kournikova instead worked with her coaches on staying calm during media questions. One of the very few times that failed, BBC immorally aired an outtake of an interview of her being mocked because she "kept losing".
And lemme tell you about this game. You're confounding the players. I don't care how good Graf was at 13 or 14. Kournikova at 14 hit the ball harder than these two hit it at Flushing Meadows. That is a fact. Indisputable. They hit the ball as hard as Kournikova would slice it. Neither of them are power players like Osaka. Everyone else choked, including Osaka. This is what happens when you don't face chokers. The wins don't come easy to you. When you start to choke, you have to learn how to play through it. Raducanu choked almost immediately. She couldn't recover. She hit 31 UEs. Kournikova hit over
80 UEs in that match with Saeki. Her double faults totaled 31. But Kournikova won her match. I wonder what the difference is?
Without being able to possess them, I can only direct you to look at the difference in body language. Kournikova didn't get down on herself. She was used to double faulting away matches by that point and facing public ridicule, and she wanted to push through because she knew she was going to keep double faulting. That's not to say Kournikova was the most "intelligent" player on the court, but she certainly had the "heart". She tried her damndest whenever she got a service inside the box. Saeki eventually folded because Kournikova's frequent faults and rushed tosses ended up making her serve difficult to read. Raducanu has
not faced such public adversity yet, and she believes she's the current best on the tour. By the last tournament's standards, she was. But we've moved on from September, and you see the difference like day and night. When things don't go Raducanu's way, she can't grit her teeth. She's dumbfounded. Then she, for lack of better words: gives up. That's natural in unseasoned players. Her run was a miracle run, and we shouldn't expect a veteran's game from her. I can refer to the Raducanu you're focused on as "September Raducanu" from now on, but I'd rather see her find some of that heart when things aren't going her way. Suddenly, she loses her first set in months, and it's lights out upstairs.
You're right that we'll wait. As of now, she had a solid run in the past. The draw was lucky, and she deserved to win her draw with that level of play. That level of play isn't something players like this bring habitually. Fans all over the world would agree with me now. She has a long way to go before the coaches and analysts are impressed with what they're seeing. That loss wasn't impressing anyone. Look around. You'll see none of those yappers from earlier can talk to me, now that they've eaten crow.