PDA

View Full Version : So much depth in men's tennis


Fingon
Aug 30th, 2002, 04:02 AM
Jan Michael Gambill def. Carlos Moya 6-3 6-3 6-1

Andre Agassi def. Justin Gimelstob 6-0 6-1 6-1

Lleyton Hewitt def. Noam Okum 7-6 6-4 6-1 (that was close)

Roger Federer def. Michael Chang 6-3 6-1 6-3

Fernando Vicente def. Mardy Fish 7-5 7-6 6-1

Dominik Hrbarty def. Y. Kafelnikov 6-3 6-1 6-1

An also, how many men have retired injured so far?

Fingon
Aug 30th, 2002, 04:47 AM
a couple?, I could add some results from the first day as well, and today there is more than a couple.

We could say the same about the women, a "couple", or you count different when it's about women?

Fingon
Aug 30th, 2002, 05:08 AM
actually, IMO you can't look at the depth based on results. Different winners and early upsets can mean there is a general high level, or there is a general mediocre level.

And, if I remember it right, you said women matches were boring because they were too one-sided and preferred more men's matches.

And, nobody has claimed there is depth in women's tennis, but commentators keep saying the ATP is better because it has somuch depth while the top women win so easily. Well, the results prove the commentators talk bullshit.

Sam L
Aug 30th, 2002, 05:13 AM
You know how you can tell there's not enough depth in womens' tennis? The fact that it's so predictable. There's like a 99% chance that it will be an all-Williams final. You tell me a possible mens' final match up that you're confident enough to bet your house on. Come on? Safin vs. Hewitt? I mean they're #1 and #2. But you just know that's not very likely don't you? :rolleyes:

By all means, I like womens' tennis better and it's more enjoyable, but I hate this crap about slagging off mens' tennis for not having enough depth. Come on, anyone can beat anyone there.

Gandalf
Aug 30th, 2002, 07:00 AM
I'm sure that if the situations reversed and there were more upsets in the WTA than in the ATP, they would say that in the WTA there are not really great players, while in the ATP you can see the difference between the stars and the rest, bla, bla....

TheBoiledEgg
Aug 30th, 2002, 09:18 AM
Moya & Kafelnikov got upset in straight sets

Chang is old and useless

Gimelstob is more of a Court Jester than a serious tennis player
Mardy Fish ......... erm a fish out of water :o

tennisvideos
Aug 30th, 2002, 09:25 AM
Womens tennis is exciting because you will almost always get to see the marquee players competing head to head from the Quarters onwards, and that is always something to look forward to.

But Mens tennis is equally exciting but in a different way. It is so open that it seems the entire top 50 have a chance to win the titles. And there are so many exciting players as well: Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Haas, Kuertan, Sampras, Agassi, Gambill, Philippoussis to name but a few.

Personally, I love both tours as they both have a lot to offer genuine tennis fans. Why slag one tour off, it only denigrates the wonderful sport of tennis as a whole.

Hulet
Aug 30th, 2002, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Sam L
You know how you can tell there's not enough depth in womens' tennis? The fact that it's so predictable. There's like a 99% chance that it will be an all-Williams final. You tell me a possible mens' final match up that you're confident enough to bet your house on. Come on? Safin vs. Hewitt? I mean they're #1 and #2. But you just know that's not very likely don't you? :rolleyes:

By all means, I like womens' tennis better and it's more enjoyable, but I hate this crap about slagging off mens' tennis for not having enough depth. Come on, anyone can beat anyone there.

I don't see how unpredictability necessarily indicates depth. IMO, the top players in mens game have a huge problem with nerves and suffer from the tanking syndrom, except for hewitt. That's why matches that were supposed to be easy for them take four or five hours to finish. Women's tennis is not as deep as the men's but the men's is not as deep as it's hyped to be.

BTW, I am predicting Hewitt to win the USO. The other finalist is a player ranked in the 20s. How about that for unpredictability;)

Williams Rulez
Aug 30th, 2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Gandalf
I'm sure that if the situations reversed and there were more upsets in the WTA than in the ATP, they would say that in the WTA there are not really great players, while in the ATP you can see the difference between the stars and the rest, bla, bla.... That is so true.

GoDominique
Aug 30th, 2002, 01:24 PM
I think the main difference is:

If top-ranked men put up a sloppy performance, they will often be punished.

If top-ranked women put up a sloppy performance, they will rarely be punished.

Sam L
Aug 30th, 2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by GoDominique
I think the main difference is:

If top-ranked men put up a sloppy performance, they will often be punished.

If top-ranked women put up a sloppy performance, they will rarely be punished.

Exactly! Which means lower ranked male players are pretty close to the top players in skill level, meaning more depth.

More to the point, if anybody remember Venus in the early rounds at the Australian Open, she was limping and still won her matches handily.

If a male player was carrying any slight injury even, he'd be wiped off the court :eek:

Rollo
Aug 30th, 2002, 03:46 PM
Well put tennisvideos.
I'll grant that most men's early round matches are more entertaining, but Tracy missed a golden chance to rip into Mcenroe and Courier after the Agassi match. Here in America we had to watch most of it too:rolleyes: Of course, we didn't get to see the first set of Seles either because Venus was killing Molik.

God bless the day we can "pick" out own courts on TV like some can in Britain.

express
Aug 30th, 2002, 04:20 PM
Fingon the idiot strikes again. did u even SEE any of these matches? many of the games went to DEUCE. you can't only judge from the final scores!

a good example is the match between Venus and Molik. the final scores (6-1, 6-2) tell you nothing about that match. Molik played the match of her life.

meanwhile Safin and Kiefer went down to a tie-breaker in the 5th set! it was a nail-bitingly excellent match. there's depth on both sides but moreso for the men IMO.

Couver
Aug 30th, 2002, 04:27 PM
I agree both sides have depth. And I think we are seeing the emergence of much more depth than in the past, in the women's game. And that is not being mentioned.

With that said I'm glad the women's game has less depth. With the men I hate looking at the second week of a slam and saying 'who the hell is that?" and then not knowing the winner.

tazban1
Aug 31st, 2002, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Fingon
Jan Michael Gambill def. Carlos Moya 6-3 6-3 6-1

Er, the LOWER ranked player beat the HIGHER ranked player. If anything, this proves the depth.



[i]Andre Agassi def. Justin Gimelstob 6-0 6-1 6-1[/B]

Gimelstob's a joke -- and was playing badly even for him.

[i]Lleyton Hewitt def. Noam Okum 7-6 6-4 6-1 (that was close)[/B]

If this was the women's number 1 player against the women's #114 player, the score would be 6/0, 6/0. Though it's highly unlikely that the women's #114 player would even make it past the 1st round. I'd be shocked if any of the three female ranked below 100 who made it to the second round would make it to the third round.

[i]Roger Federer def. Michael Chang 6-3 6-1 6-3[/B]

If the women's #13 player played against the women's #132 player, the score would be more like 6/0, 6/0. Of course, it's unlikely that the women's #132 would get this far. (Yes, I know a 1,000 something ranked woman made it to the second round, but we all know that's an extreme aberration)


[i]Fernando Vicente def. Mardy Fish 7-5 7-6 6-1[/B]

There were two extremely tight sets, how does this prove anything?


[i]Dominik Hrbarty def. Y. Kafelnikov 6-3 6-1 6-1[/B]


Again, the LOWER ranked player defeated the much HIGHER ranked player.



Of course, except for the Agassi match, none of these are more lopsided than:

Serena Williams USA (1) 6 6
Nathalie Dechy FRA (26) 1 1

Daniela Hantuchova SVK (11) 6/3 6/1
vs. Iva Majoli CRO (24)

Lindsay Davenport USA (4) 6/3 6/1
Marion Bartoli FRA

Serena Williams USA (1) 6/0 6/1
vs. Dinara Safina

Vera Zvonareva RUS 6 6
Henrieta Nagyova SVK 1 0
(Vera's ranked slightly lower, but that's just because she's just starting on the tour)

Iroda Tulyaganova UZB 6 6
Adriana Serra Zanetti ITA 0 0

Daja Bedanova CZE (20) 6 6
Alina Jidkova RUS 1 3

Denisa Chladkova CZE 6 6
Meilen Tu USA 0 4

Daniela Hantuchova SVK (11) 6 6
Nicole Pratt AUS 2 1

Samantha Reeves USA 1 2
Justine Henin BEL (8) 6 6

Samantha Reeves USA 1 2
Justine Henin BEL (8) 6 6

Marion Bartoli FRA 6 6
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario ESP (25) 3 1

Lilia Osterloh USA 1 1
Tatiana Panova RUS (22) 6 6

Greta Arn GER 2 2
Jelena Dokic YUG (5) 6 6


Kim Clijsters BEL (7) 6 6
Conchita Martinez Granados ESP 1 0


Marlene Weingartner GER 2 1
Conchita Martinez ESP 6 6

Tina Pisnik SLO 6 6
Sandra Cacic USA 2 2

Bethanie Mattek USA 0 0
Jennifer Capriati USA (3) 6 6

Chanda Rubin USA (14) 6 6
Jill Craybas USA 1 3

Anca Barna GER 6 6
Alexandra Podkolzina USA 1 2

Maret Ani EST 2 2
Martina Muller GER 6 6

Alicia Molik AUS 6 6
Patricia Wartusch AUT 4 0

Mirjana Lucic CRO 0 0
Venus Williams USA (2) 6 6


And there was a whole slew of 3 and 2 or 4 and 1 matches.