PDA

View Full Version : What's better: Big stars or many outsiders in the 2nd GS-week?


Navratil
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:31 AM
20 years back everybody was complaining that the top-players like Graf, Navratilova, Seles, Sanchez, Sabatini, Martinez, Fernandez etc. played in a different league. In every Grand Slam tournament you had the same faces facing each other. Random surprises and upsets. That was boring but on the other side the chance to see the very best playing each other.

But today? Last year's US-Open were full of upsets. A whole quarter filled with outsiders. This year a French-Open final that was a first round meeting a year ago. And now Pironkova and Kvitova in the Wimbledon semis and 21st seeded Zvonareva in the final!

What's better for the reputation of Women's tennis?

What do you prefer? A 2nd week of a Grand Slam with complete outsiders or always the same stars of the tour?

:confused:

Sharapowerr
Jul 2nd, 2010, 09:35 AM
I prefer same stars , but this is happening because some players are below their ranking , Henin/Clijsters isn't a 4th round match so isn't Serena/Maria

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 2nd, 2010, 10:28 AM
As long as there are good competitive matches I'm happy. There is more parity in the game on the tour now than anytime I can recall since watching tennis. I say this not as a bad thing or a good thing, but it is a fact, plain and simple. As a consequence there have been far more upsets over the last year than I can ever recall before. Some might not like this and that's okay, but personally I enjoy it.

I suppose it is my socialist nature to want to see success distributed to the many rather than the few. I like upsets, always have done. Sure I like them less when my faves are the upset victims but I can take that on the chin too providing those faves get their share of upsets as well.

We have a lot of talent right now within the top 100. We should embrace this rather than gripe about it everytime an unheralded player reaches the later stages of a big event. Fact is there isn't a huge gulf in the abilities between those in the top 20 and those outside the top 20 within the top 50 right now, and even outside the top 50 there are many dangerous players very capable of going deep in big tournaments.

I think it's nice to watch a tennis match knowing both players have the ability to win it rather than watching a predictable beatdown by an elite player over an also ran. We still get those kinds of matches too, and always will albeit much less frequently, but I remember the days of Evert, Navratilova, Seles and Graf and how even lower ranked top 10ers would get repeatedly crushed by them. Back then, everyone knew their place in the rankings, they knew who they should beat and the knew when to submit to a beating. I like it that these days players don't know their place and everyone is fair game.

Is this good for the game or not? I don't know and I don't really care. I can only speak for myself and say I like it a lot.

sammy01
Jul 2nd, 2010, 10:31 AM
big stars every time. i was far more excited and into the clijsters vs henin match and serena vs maria match thn either of the semi finals. the WWW polls on here had far more replies, and there was far more buzz.

LudwigDvorak
Jul 2nd, 2010, 10:32 AM
Big stars every single time. Champion qualities against other champion qualities have the best potential for matches.

9/10 Big star + no name is just only a matter of time before the no name falls apart. :zzz:

I mean just look how many people replied to the Serena/Maria match and it wasn't even that memorable.

bandabou
Jul 2nd, 2010, 10:36 AM
It depends...some of the no-names have FLUKE written all over them, so then it is better for the big stars to meet...

Andy.
Jul 2nd, 2010, 10:45 AM
Big stars all the way

Pops Maellard
Jul 2nd, 2010, 11:07 AM
A few upsets once in a while but I'm sick of every GS second week being a complete mess on the WTA tour.

MOSTLY big stars every time. I think back to Serena VS Dementieva semifinal '09. There's never good matches like that between a lower-ranked and a star - the star always loses because they make truckloads of errors (ie. Venus. :help:).

Привет
Jul 2nd, 2010, 11:08 AM
Big stars for sure. With most of these 'outsiders', their results lack credibility because you just KNOW they're going to go back to being an average player for the rest of their career as soon as they inevitably lose. I mean I'd love for Pironkova and Kvitova and all the other randoms who have had big grand slam results in the past few years to push their way to the top of the game. That'd be truly exciting, but it's so unlikely.

Look at Schiavone... I mean who didn't see her 1st round loss coming... :shrug: I even recall someone saying to me as soon as Fran had won RG, "Now watch her lose 1st round at Wimbledon." :o

Pironkova certainly had a couple nice wins over Bartoli and Venus, and likewise Kvitova over Zheng, Azarenka and Wozniacki, but it's just so absurd that either would be in a Wimbledon semifinal.

Just a couple of years ago, players of this calibre would have struggled to make 4th rounds and QFs. :shrug: Nowadays they're playing in SFs and finals. Schiavone hasn't even been close to a threat at Grand Slam level for her entire career, and then in 2010 she wins one? I mean what the fuck. :confused:

2010 has just been a total clusterfuck at the Slams. I truly hope it all gets sorted by next year so that when a new player makes a run at a GS, we can actually take it seriously.

SVK
Jul 2nd, 2010, 11:09 AM
No names in every single tournament...even in every single sport for me

But of course more people like these big stars so it's better when also some big stars are going in 2nd week...but if there are just big stars my
grandslam is over and better I am going to watch challengers or at least doubles...it is very very boring for me watching always the same people(or teams in other sports) in finals or semifinals

ce
Jul 2nd, 2010, 11:19 AM
big stars :shrug: