2020 French Open

I don't know if the limited crowd improves the chances of underdogs, but she became a favourite at some point and the limited crowd didn't cause her a trouble.

The 2:0 wins all the way, too.

Amazing tournament for her. Pleasure to watch her and listen to. Very modest player.

Another great day for Polish tennis, missed it for a while.

Renegadema wrote: »

Full package? I don’t watch much tennis anymore so I’m prepared to be educated but I thought she had great power off the baseline and thrashed a weak opponent but maybe the standard of ladies tennis is that way.

Judging on the whole tournament, not just the one match. She basically blew all her opponents away, including a former slam winner and a FO finalist from last year. Goes without saying, i'd hold fire after just one tournament where a lot of top players were absent but she was mighty impressive regardless i thought. Very raw still but think she might prove a level above the likes of barty and osaka.

When Swiatek beat Halep, it was a proper eye opener.
It was not the case that Halep had played badly, she didn't, it was just Swiatek was exceptional.
From that moment I had to watch Swiatek, most deserved champion.

glasso wrote: »

Ideally you want a few strong, or even to start with, consistent, players in the game to make it interesting.

Agree with that, there needs to be standard bearers within any sport who are consistent and reliable and requires a certain level to beat them, this is what the women's game has lacked in the last decade, bar Serena who had no real challenger, the rest have been extremely inconsistent.

The men's game has almost always had 2, 3 or 4 players to keep the standard honest with very few slams won by outsiders who never really did anything again. Since the big 3 the standard has been exception with each pushing the other, it's also meant it has required exception performances from others to defeat them.

Once the big 3 finally finish, we will see a drop in standard on the men's side and players winning slams who in other era's wouldn't be contenders.

It may well be the case in 5 or 6 years where men's and women's tennis will be the reverse of where they are today. We may see 2 or 3 players like Osaka, Barty, Andreescu dominating and winning slams and on the men's side a series of players winning 1 or 2 slams with no one really dominanting.

glasso wrote: »

I would agree that she has some potential.

Would be good to have a few players as said who raise the standard, particularly in the consistency stakes as it's been sorely lacking.

The 1/4 final and on GS line-up could do with having a few more names that become vaguely familiar

Touché on Kuerten!

Cant disagree with that at all. Said a while back that issue in wta has, for whatever reason, been with the generation in their mid to late 20s now who just haven't done enough. Pliskova been the biggest disappointment of the lot for me, has the game but just not mentally strong enough. Don't know what it is, too many beatings from serena or something? Hard to say. I think and hope there is more potential in the generation coming through now but only time will tell.

Girly Gal wrote: »

Kuerten did win 3 FOs and got to No. 1, so did have a decent career, a lot of the recent ladies grand slam winners have really struggled after winning a slam or never really challenged again.

As indicated above, i wasn't saying anything whatsoever against Gustavo Kuerten or comparing him to anyone.

When you say "a lot" of recent slam winners struggled or never challenged again, who do you mean? Ostapenko obviously but who else?

Joe_ Public wrote: »

As indicated above, i wasn't saying anything whatsoever against Gustavo Kuerten or comparing him to anyone.

When you say "a lot" of recent slam winners struggled or never challenged again, who do you mean? Ostapenko obviously but who else?

By recent I'm talking about the last decade and players like Pennetta, Bartoli, Schiavone and even Sloane Stephens (I know she made a FO final after winning US Open) and of course Ostapenko, which is quite a lot in a 10 year period. I'd agree with you regarding that players who are in their early twenties now like Osaka appear to be better than the generation immediately before them ie those in their late twenties to early thirties like Pliskova.

It's actually similar in the men's game where younger players appear to be stronger than players in late twenties and early thirties (outside the big 3 of course).

Girly Gal wrote: »

By recent I'm talking about the last decade and players like Pennetta, Bartoli, Schiavone and even Sloane Stephens (I know she made a FO final after winning US Open) and of course Ostapenko, which is quite a lot in a 10 year period. I'd agree with you regarding that players who are in their early twenties now like Osaka appear to be better than the generation immediately before them ie those in their late twenties to early thirties like Pliskova.

It's actually similar in the men's game where younger players appear to be stronger than players in late twenties and early thirties (outside the big 3 of course).

That's fair enough. Pennetta and Bartoli never had chances to follow up as they retired almost immediately iirc, but it's not likely they would anyway. Personally i think a lot of it comes down to mental strength and i wonder if it's lacking more with players today than it once did. Same goes for the men's side too. Could be wrong, just something I've suspected for some time.

Girly Gal wrote: »

Pennetta and Bartoli weren't exactly strong challengers of slams and probably are proof of the poor standards when they won, basically it was only Serena at that time.

Only serena? Think that's a bit of a stretch tbh. Kvitova, azarenka, venus, maria, kerber etc.....i think these are excellent players in any era.

Nor do i believe bartolis wimbledon title deserves to be devalued. She's not up there in the list of greats, nowhere near let's be fair, but in any sport it can take some that much longer to reach their potential than others and maybe that summer was just her time. Open to correction, but i think she belongs to a very exclusive club who have won wimbledon without dropping a set. Whatever her flaws as a player, i think that was a fair achievement.

Girly Gal wrote: »

Winning a slam is a great achievement and I wasn't devaluing Bartoli's achievement, but, she wasn't a serious contender of slam titles before she won, then she retired, not sure if she had to retire because of injury, but, I wouldn't have expected her to win another slam.
Kvitova, Azarenka, Sharapova,and Kerber, were all good players but very inconsistent and I think probably didn't fulfil their potential and were generally a distant second to Serena. Venus is the only one you mentioned that I'd consider a great and she was well past her best in the early 2010s.

From memory i dont think there was serious injury with bartoli, just she'd achieved her main goal and felt it was time to move on. I dont think the whole stress of tour life was much to her liking, motivation was sometimes an issue with her. Something similar with Sloane i suspect. Bartoli had been deep in a few slams though, 2014 wasnt her first final.

All those players were a level below serena alright but the latter is a freak in terms of talent and power as we know, so i think that should be put in a bit of perspective.

And yes venus was past her peak by the turn of the decade but she remained a formidable competitor, a player you were now more likely to meet early rounds of a slam. And while i think it's valid to criticise wta for lack of consistency or whatever else, i think the other side is there is more strength in depth now than there was. Say what you like about Sloane Stephens but I'd still rather avoid her first round of a slam.

Girly Gal wrote: »

I think the general level is higher now than say 20 years ago, by that I mean that the top 100 is stronger now than it was 20 years ago, but, at the same time the top 5 is probably weaker than 20 years ago and has been for a lot of the last decade, a lot of that may have been down to Serena's dominance and not having any real rival. When the media was trying to build a rivalry between Serena and Maria you knew the game was not in good shape.

It's rivalries that make sport, I do think we might be at the early stages of getting a more consistent top 5/10 over the next few years with Serena bowing out and the likes of Osaka, Barty and Andreescu hopefully building up rivalries amongst themselves and the other top players. The opposite may well be the case with the men's game once Rafa and Novak bow out.

Yeah, all fair comment. I particularly like barty but it was a bit quick how she got to No.1 and it's always a worry her relative lack of power will count against her. Though that makes me just root for her more.

The standard is definitely going up which theoretically should mean more chance of producing another great or two. Like, muguruza blew it against Collins this week but Collins is a seriously tough opponent who could be a contender if she wasn't such a mental basket case, which i don't mean disrespect by, but any player berating her coach mid game for sitting in the "wrong" seat has got big issues imho.