WHY DID NO ONE TELL ME LEYLAH FERNANDEZ WAS THAT GOOD

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
I call it improvisation. Sometimes, you just can't be in the position because the opponent took time away from you or the ball is coming fast and deep at your body and you don't have time to make room. That's tennis.
I completely agree, someone calling her out on bad footwork? Seriously? She made it the US Open Final on that footwork.

 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Enjoyed watching her play singles and dubs. Good follow up play to the USO, and set herself in the top 50 for sure, but likely we can see her around in the top 20 to come. Emma may have more struggles maintaining, but certainly also has the game to be a top 20 consistently if she doesn't get overwhelmed too quick.Fernandez seesm a little more level headed at the moment though to me.

WTA is definitely were it is at for action anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tin

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
Davenport made it to seven slam finals with her footwork.
Including doubles she actually made it to a total of 20 Grand Slams. So again, it couldn't have been that bad, if it got her there.
The point is that you can make it to many slam finals with below-average footwork.
You've already made up your mind about foot work, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I think tennis at any level requires you have good footwork to be successful, but we can agree to disagree.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
Leyla is very very good, extremely good even, but so are Raducanu, Halep, Kenin, Swiatek, Muguruza, Azarenka, Kerber, Barty, Svitolina, Pliskova, Sabalenka, Osaka etc.
 

socallefty

Legend
I watched her live at Indian Wells this week and thought she leaves too many neutral balls short on the court. It cost her dearly in the match I saw against Shelby Rogers as Shelby had enough power to take advantage of those short balls. Leyla doesn’t have enough power on either her serve or ground strokes to win a lot on slow courts including clay - she is talented, but has a lot of room for improvement like all teenagers.
 

R. Schweikart

Professional
Including doubles she actually made it to a total of 20 Grand Slams. So again, it couldn't have been that bad, if it got her there.


You've already made up your mind about foot work, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. I think tennis at any level requires you have good footwork to be successful, but we can agree to disagree.
Of course you need "good footwork" compared to the average guy/gal.
But you still can make slam finals with footwork which is worse than the average top 100's footwork. That is the point.

You even can make slam finals with a bad serve.
Ask Ms. Sabatini. Who of course had a better serve than 99 % of all female tennis players on this planet.
 

KYHacker

Professional
Fernandez is really good. Lots of potential there. Her forehand is a little too compact to hit through the service at IW, but she should be able to add power to that side. My biggest complaint about her is the illegal coaching from her box. It seemed to be less at IW than at the US Open, but it's still ridiculous. Given the homogeneity of the WTA, it's nice to see new players with really, really good technique and some diversity in their game. I think it will take a little more time, but I like her game.
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
She's only done well in 1 slam. This is the WTA where surprises are commonplace.

Explain why she is not another Vondruosova, Brady, etc.

Why do you think she will win more slams than Emma, Ostapenko, Swiatek, Stephens, Andreescu, Kenin,?

She'll have to beat the above players along with Osaka, Barty, Krejcikova, Muguruza, Kerber, Gauff, and yet another imminent WTA newcomer who will go deep.
There's always a surprise right?

I'm not against her. It's because the WTA is so up and down. She's a crafty very skilled lefty. I expect her to do very well at the FO and Wimbledon with her array of shots & movement. But I don't expert her or Radacanu to repeat their USO deep runs unless they face similar opponents or simply improve.
When Serena & Venus were great, you knew. When Osaka or Halep is focused, you know they will go deep and dominate.
So, I guess it says I don't know either way with Leyla or Emma.
 

fundrazer

Legend
She's only done well in 1 slam. This is the WTA where surprises are commonplace.

Explain why she is not another Vondruosova, Brady, etc.

Why do you think she will win more slams than Emma, Ostapenko, Swiatek, Stephens, Andreescu, Kenin,?

She'll have to beat the above players along with Osaka, Barty, Krejcikova, Muguruza, Kerber, Gauff, and yet another imminent WTA newcomer who will go deep.
There's always a surprise right?

I'm not against her. It's because the WTA is so up and down. She's a crafty very skilled lefty. I expect her to do very well at the FO and Wimbledon with her array of shots & movement. But I don't expert her or Radacanu to repeat their USO deep runs unless they face similar opponents or simply improve.
When Serena & Venus were great, you knew. When Osaka or Halep is focused, you know they will go deep and dominate.
So, I guess it says I don't know either way with Leyla or Emma.
+1

The other thing that we have yet to see yet is that oftentimes players on the WTA have a breakout type of year and then get figured out shortly after. Personally, I think Leylah's shot selection at times is kind of bad. Once her patterns are figured out a bit more, she may struggle more in the bigger matches. Of course I could also be completely wrong, but I don't think she deserves the hype just yet.
 
Top