Tennis the 9th: Medical times out and teenage superstars

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Raducanu loses in the first round, another of many surprises on both the men's and women's side. Still blows my mind last year reading articles that she could ink upwards of $100m in endorsements off of one slam win. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Osaka knocked out and pretty decisively by Collins (19). The latter could make a deep run if she plays like that going forward. 

[BigFatCoward]

I'm pleased Raducanu earned shit loads off her unlkely US Open win. Because she doesn't look like she is going to win much prize money going forward. Such a weid situation all round. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm pleased Raducanu earned shit loads off her unlkely US Open win. Because she doesn't look like she is going to win much prize money going forward. Such a weid situation all round. 

She's going to drop from 11 to somewhere in the 80's. That said, her play isn't bad at all from the clips I've seen. We're expecting too much from the kids these days. Imagine how fucked up the younger stars from yesteryear would be if they had to deal with all this social media bullshit...

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yeah, she looks like a top 50 talent (no shame in that at all), who had an exceptional run last year. Thing is, it did give her opportunities like favorable seedings for the past year that could have been leveraged into continuing good performances, but now that is no longer the case. She'll have to grind her way back to the top, and its hit-or-miss if that can actually result in further grand slams.

I dont know if its mismanagement or what, but the blister stuff seemed weird to me. This shouldnt be a problem for someone with a team that provides proper guidance.

[Poobah]

My main feeling about Raducanu is that the coach she fired after she won the US open must be laughing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Hard to see Serena pulling this off despite winning the first set. She looks like she's running in quicksand, is making a lot of errors, has to be exhausted and Kontaveit finally figured out that if she hits the ball cross court with any kind of velocity Serena just has to watch it. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

REVERSE JINX!!!!!

[BigFatCoward]

The current top 16 of the women's game are the most anonymous group of tennis players in history. I have hardly heard of any or them. 

[3CityApache]

It's really unbelievable to see Serena being able to defeat #2 at 40, even if Kontaveit's rank is somewhat undeserved. Imagine what she could do if she was physically as fit as her sister.

[3CityApache]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

The current top 16 of the women's game are the most anonymous group of tennis players in history. I have hardly heard of any or them. 

You haven't heard of Halep (two slams and former #1), Muguruza (two slams and former #1), Świątek (two slams and current #1), Jabeur or Sabalenka? I guess it just means you have no particular interest in women's tennis.

There are not so many players with multiple slam titles here at the moment, that's true, but I definitely wouldn't call them anonymous. Few of them are close to the top for more than a decade.

[BigFatCoward]

41 minutes ago, 3CityApache said:

You haven't heard of Halep (two slams and former #1), Muguruza (two slams and former #1), Świątek (two slams and current #1), Jabeur or Sabalenka? I guess it just means you have no particular interest in women's tennis.

There are not so many players with multiple slam titles here at the moment, that's true, but I definitely wouldn't call them anonymous. Few of them are close to the top for more than a decade.

Yeah. I haven't heard of the rest. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

To be fair, the top side of the men’s draw includes a lot of random guys as well that are interchangeable. It’s crazy that four people have controlled the sport for over 20 years.

[baxus]

Three people controlled the sport for 20 years - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. No one else came even close.

[Spockydog]

Stick a Sampras in there and add another decade. 

[baxus]

37 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Stick a Sampras in there and add another decade. 

With all due respect to Sampras as the best player of all time at the moment of his retirement, the other three are on a whole other level. When Sampras retired, no one could've predicted that the next generation will have three players surpassing his record by such a margin.

That's kind of the reason why I don't like the talk of 4 players in this era, with presumably Andy Murray being the fourth. If Sampras doesn't compare, suggesting Andy Murray does is just insane.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, baxus said:

With all due respect to Sampras as the best player of all time at the moment of his retirement, the other three are on a whole other level. When Sampras retired, no one could've predicted that the next generation will have three players surpassing his record by such a margin.

That's kind of the reason why I don't like the talk of 4 players in this era, with presumably Andy Murray being the fourth. If Sampras doesn't compare, suggesting Andy Murray does is just insane.

Sorry, I was including Serena and talking about the sport as a whole. I tried looking for some actual numbers, but none of the articles I skimmed had anything concrete. That said, the consensus is that Tiger is the most important athlete relative to his sport and after him there’s a strong argument Serena’s importance to women’s tennis is number two.  

[Maithanet]

Feels a little strange to compare Serena to Nadal/Federer/Djokovich, but ok I guess.  But I will definitely push back on the old definition of "big four" which included Murray.  There was a time when it seemed like Murray could break into that class, but that time is long passed.  Murray is much closer to Stan the Man than he is to any of the Big 3. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The "big four" moniker was kind of insulting to Feds and Nadal from the jump. At the time Joker wasn't on their level either. He obviously is now, but there was never much of an argument for Murray being included. 

Serena being included in a "big four" makes sense because these four are probably the four most import players in the history of the sport and it's wild they all played at the same time. Sad that it's coming to an end with Serena and Feds largely being done and Nadal doesn't have much time left. Joker can still reasonably run the sport for a few more seasons, but after that who knows what the landscape will look like.

[baxus]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sorry, I was including Serena and talking about the sport as a whole. I tried looking for some actual numbers, but none of the articles I skimmed had anything concrete. That said, the consensus is that Tiger is the most important athlete relative to his sport and after him there’s a strong argument Serena’s importance to women’s tennis is number two.  

I don't care about golf. I think it's just a way to ruin a good walk.

22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But I will definitely push back on the old definition of "big four" which included Murray.  There was a time when it seemed like Murray could break into that class, but that time is long passed.  Murray is much closer to Stan the Man than he is to any of the Big 3. 

The very wording of "There was a time when it seemed like Murray could break into that class" is among the best arguments why "Big 4" was a joke.

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Serena being included in a "big four" makes sense because these four are probably the four most import players in the history of the sport and it's wild they all played at the same time. Sad that it's coming to an end with Serena and Feds largely being done and Nadal doesn't have much time left. Joker can still reasonably run the sport for a few more seasons, but after that who knows what the landscape will look like.

Including Serena makes sense the same way it would make sense to include the best WNBA player in history (you take your pick) into the Jordan vs. Lebron debate.