PDA

View Full Version : Who will win 2010 Prague? (Main draw inside)


Julian.
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:39 PM
Seeds:
1. Lucie Safarova
2. Alexandra Dulgheru
3. Timea Bacsinszky
4. Klara Zakopalova
5. Anabel Medina Garrigues
6. Gisela Dulko
7. Agnes Szavay
8. Barbora Zahlavova-Strycova

Main Draw:

(1)Lucie Safarova v Anastasija Sevastova
Johanna Larsson v (wc)Karolina Pliskova
Anna Chakvetadze v Q
Andrea Hlavackova v (8)Barbora Zahlavova Strycova

(4)Klara Zakopalova v Alize Cornet
Patty Schnyder v (wc)Zarina Diyas
Magdalena Rybarikova v Anna Tatishvili
Anna Lapuschenkova v (6)Gisela Dulko

(5)Anabel Medina Garrigues v (wc)Kristyna Pliskova
Sandra Zahlavova v Q
Stefanie Voegele v Lucie Hradecka
Monica Niculescu v (3)Timea Bacsinszky

(7)Agnes Szavay v Q
Q v Iveta Benesova
Tatjana Malek v Polona Hercog
Tathiana Garbin v (2)Alexandra Dulgheru

Ferg
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:44 PM
Alex and Agi in the quarters :sobbing:

Win it Alex :cheer:

goldenlox
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:45 PM
I want to watch Strycova-Chakvetadze.
I hope that gets streamed

itzhak
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:51 PM
Everybody knows that Safarova will lose in the 1st round...

Rafito.
Jul 10th, 2010, 03:54 PM
Alize yet again gets the worst draw possible.

Topspin2
Jul 10th, 2010, 04:17 PM
Chakvetadze o. Pivovarova

Break My Rapture
Jul 10th, 2010, 04:20 PM
Chaky hopefully! :cheer:

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 10th, 2010, 04:51 PM
Wide open. Very hard to predict. I think the final will be a battle between a player from the 2nd quarter vs a player from the 4th quarter. That is as far as I will go.

Dodoboy.
Jul 10th, 2010, 05:19 PM
Same clay hags here :lol::awww:

joăo.
Jul 10th, 2010, 05:38 PM
Hopefully Nicole attends the event so we can get new pix :sobbing:

KournikovaFan91
Jul 10th, 2010, 05:46 PM
Chaky will win :angel:

cn ireland
Jul 10th, 2010, 07:01 PM
Schnyder!!

*Jool*
Jul 10th, 2010, 08:05 PM
hopefully Hercog, but the draw is wide open for pretty much everybody to win the whole thing :shrug:

nevetssllim
Jul 11th, 2010, 12:32 AM
Because it's the last ever ECM Prague Open, I'd love it if Iveta won but I'd settle for a win in doubles, which is much more likely given her recent singles form, or lack of it! :p

WhoAmI?
Jul 11th, 2010, 10:24 AM
Bammer is not even trying to defend her title:unsure:

I voted for Lucie, but it can really be anyone..

Corswandt
Jul 12th, 2010, 11:44 AM
Seeds:
1. Lucie Safarova
2. Alexandra Dulgheru
3. Timea Bacsinszky
4. Klara Zakopalova
5. Anabel Medina Garrigues
6. Gisela Dulko
7. Agnes Szavay
8. Barbora Zahlavova-Strycova

Main Draw:

(1)Lucie Safarova v Anastasija Sevastova
Johanna Larsson v (wc)Karolina Pliskova
Anna Chakvetadze v Q
Andrea Hlavackova v (8)Barbora Zahlavova Strycova

(4)Klara Zakopalova v Alize Cornet
Patty Schnyder v (wc)Zarina Diyas
Magdalena Rybarikova v Anna Tatishvili
Anna Lapuschenkova v (6)Gisela Dulko

(5)Anabel Medina Garrigues v (wc)Kristyna Pliskova
Sandra Zahlavova v Q
Stefanie Voegele v Lucie Hradecka
Monica Niculescu v (3)Timea Bacsinszky

(7)Agnes Szavay v Q
Q v Iveta Benesova
Tatjana Malek v Polona Hercog
Tathiana Garbin v (2)Alexandra Dulgheru

For some reason I thought that at least a few players other than the usual regulars of the pointless post-English Open mini clay season would take the opportunity to play a couple of matches in July, but this is almost the exact same cast from Budapest + a couple of survivors from Bastad (Dulko and Babs). I suppose you can't blame aforementioned usual suspects for using this part of the season to bulk up their rankings by hogging every clay MM in sight, but...

Anyways, I don't expect those who went deep the past week (Dulko, Schnyder, maybe even Safarova) to do so for the second week in a row, so who the upper half finalist is anybody's guess. The draw is very unbalanced, with some brutal 1R matchups. Dulgheru FTW I suppose.

Good to see La Push in a WTA MD regardless.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 12th, 2010, 12:48 PM
For some reason I thought that at least a few players other than the usual regulars of the pointless post-English Open mini clay season would take the opportunity to play a couple of matches in July, but this is almost the exact same cast from Budapest + a couple of survivors from Bastad (Dulko and Babs). I suppose you can't blame aforementioned usual suspects for using this part of the season to bulk up their rankings by hogging every clay MM in sight, but...

Anyways, I don't expect those who went deep the past week (Dulko, Schnyder, maybe even Safarova) to do so for the second week in a row, so who the upper half finalist is anybody's guess. The draw is very unbalanced, with some brutal 1R matchups. Dulgheru FTW I suppose.
Good to see La Push in a WTA MD regardless.

No way. Alex looked exhausted last week and the matches against Chakvetadze and Szavay were the worst I've seen her on clay this season. She needs a weeks rest bigtime. I will go with Hercog or Zakapalova to win this or just maybe Sevastova.

Juanes
Jul 12th, 2010, 12:54 PM
Hercog or Dulko

sammy01
Jul 12th, 2010, 01:45 PM
For some reason I thought that at least a few players other than the usual regulars of the pointless post-English Open mini clay season would take the opportunity to play a couple of matches in July, but this is almost the exact same cast from Budapest + a couple of survivors from Bastad (Dulko and Babs). I suppose you can't blame aforementioned usual suspects for using this part of the season to bulk up their rankings by hogging every clay MM in sight, but...

Anyways, I don't expect those who went deep the past week (Dulko, Schnyder, maybe even Safarova) to do so for the second week in a row, so who the upper half finalist is anybody's guess. The draw is very unbalanced, with some brutal 1R matchups. Dulgheru FTW I suppose.

Good to see La Push in a WTA MD regardless.

these tournaments are so painful to watch. chak played budapest last week and prague this, bet 365 have livestreams but i couldn't bare to watch some of the horror show matches before and after chaks matches (im not saying chak's was any better) but unless you have an intrest in one of the players these tournaments are worthless.

i understand the lower ranked girls need to gain points ect, but why on clay, it just skews the rankings in favour of semi decent clay courters.

Dodoboy.
Jul 12th, 2010, 01:58 PM
If your ranking is outside the top 75 or so, and you can't play on clay, the tour LOVES to punish you :crying2:

Hian
Jul 12th, 2010, 02:03 PM
Please not Pusheru :(
I think Barbie :)

Corswandt
Jul 12th, 2010, 04:41 PM
these tournaments are so painful to watch. chak played budapest last week and prague this, bet 365 have livestreams but i couldn't bare to watch some of the horror show matches before and after chaks matches (im not saying chak's was any better) but unless you have an intrest in one of the players these tournaments are worthless.

i understand the lower ranked girls need to gain points ect, but why on clay, it just skews the rankings in favour of semi decent clay courters.

The whole Euro summer tennis season is being clay-ified.

Like I said in another thread, this merely reflects the way in which the Euro clay challenger season goes on for pretty much the whole year. From March to October, the great majority of Euro challengers are played on claycourts. The best surface of many Generation Suck Europushers is clay rather than hard, and in the New Wave of Suck (Hercog, Halep, Rus), claycourtitis is even more rampant. Even those Euro Generation Suckers who have games that are actually better suited to faster surfaces (Görges, Bacszszcszczsinszscszky) also hog these clay MMs.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 12th, 2010, 07:01 PM
The whole Euro summer tennis season is being clay-ified.

Like I said in another thread, this merely reflects the way in which the Euro clay challenger season goes on for pretty much the whole year. From March to October, the great majority of Euro challengers are played on claycourts. The best surface of many Generation Suck Europushers is clay rather than hard, and in the New Wave of Suck (Hercog, Halep, Rus), claycourtitis is even more rampant. Even those Euro Generation Suckers who have games that are actually better suited to faster surfaces (Görges, Bacszszcszczsinszscszky) also hog these clay MMs.

And when has it ever been any different? When have the summer Continental European events ever been played on anything but clay? When have the majority of European ITFs taking place between April and October ever been primarily on anything but clay. This is nothing new nor is the development of players from Europe who begin their careers much more comfortable on clay than any other surface some remarkable new trend.

And to be frank I don't see anything wrong in this at all. Clay is a great surface for players developing their groundstrokes, far more than what we have in GB where young players "specialise" on grass, a surface that requires far fewer groundstrokes and is only used on the tour for a month a year. Is it any wonder players from countries where players start out of clay actually tend to produce more players and generally more successful players. Perhaps the predominence of clay in this part of the world is one of the reasons why so many players are emmerging from Western, Central and Eastern Europe, compared to parts of the world where players grow up more on hardcourts like the US and Australia.

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2010, 07:11 PM
C'mon Agnes!!

Gregorio87
Jul 12th, 2010, 08:10 PM
And when has it ever been any different? When have the summer Continental European events ever been played on anything but clay? When have the majority of European ITFs taking place between April and October ever been primarily on anything but clay. This is nothing new nor is the development of players from Europe who begin their careers much more comfortable on clay than any other surface some remarkable new trend.

And to be frank I don't see anything wrong in this at all. Clay is a great surface for players developing their groundstrokes, far more than what we have in GB where young players "specialise" on grass, a surface that requires far fewer groundstrokes and is only used on the tour for a month a year. Is it any wonder players from countries where players start out of clay actually tend to produce more players and generally more successful players. Perhaps the predominence of clay in this part of the world is one of the reasons why so many players are emmerging from Western, Central and Eastern Europe, compared to parts of the world where players grow up more on hardcourts like the US and Australia.

:yeah:

Corswandt
Jul 18th, 2010, 11:58 PM
And when has it ever been any different? When have the summer Continental European events ever been played on anything but clay? When have the majority of European ITFs taking place between April and October ever been primarily on anything but clay. This is nothing new nor is the development of players from Europe who begin their careers much more comfortable on clay than any other surface some remarkable new trend.

What I meant was that this 3-week post-English Open clay MM season is a recent development - it's an innovation of the Roadkill 2010 Plan, and it's only been in place since last year. Before that, the US hardcourt events began earlier (mid-July), and there were only Euro clay tournaments for two weeks, held simultaneously with US hardcourt tournaments.

I'd like to know why exactly you disagree with the commonly held view that this part of the season doesn't make any sense and serves no useful purpose. The players who have been seeded at these clay MM events should be either resting or getting some match practice on fast hardcourts, not going from clay to grass and again to clay and finally to hardcourts, risking injury and burnout. And for the lower ranked (#60-120) players there were already enough upper tier clay challengers. As they stand, these clay events are merely an invitation to pointless hogging.

Another reason I disagreed with the creation of this mini clay MM season was that it was a step towards making the WTA calendar similar to the ATP's, in which, if you count both lower tier ATP events and upper tier challengers, it's possible, even for top 100 players, to spend the whole year playing nearly exclusively on clay. On the ATP calendar alone there's clay from the first week of February to late September almost without interruptions.

The creation of a breed of WTA claycourt experts who would be ranked fairly high (maybe even inside the top 50), but could yet be safely disregarded on any surface other than clay, either because they genuinely suck on them or because they can't be arsed to even try, would be a most unwelcome development as far as I'm concerned.

And having so many, if not most, of the Euro Generation Suckers being claycourt grinders, or grinders period, is indeed also a recent development. On whether that is good or bad, I believe that the careers of Szavay, Cibulkova or Cornet speak for themselves.

And to be frank I don't see anything wrong in this at all. Clay is a great surface for players developing their groundstrokes

If anything, clay is more forgiving to players with flawed technique.

The way I see it, with three Slams being played on fast surfaces and one on slow, anyone who aims to be an all-time great (or even a top 50 pro) would do better to develop a game more suited to the former. Others may settle for mediocrity by becoming clay experts and still earn a more than decent livelihood - and there's nothing wrong with that, of course.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 19th, 2010, 01:49 AM
What I meant was that this 3-week post-English Open clay MM season is a recent development - it's an innovation of the Roadkill 2010 Plan, and it's only been in place since last year. Before that, the US hardcourt events began earlier (mid-July), and there were only Euro clay tournaments for two weeks, held simultaneously with US hardcourt tournaments.

I'd like to know why exactly you disagree with the commonly held view that this part of the season doesn't make any sense and serves no useful purpose. The players who have been seeded at these clay MM events should be either resting or getting some match practice on fast hardcourts, not going from clay to grass and again to clay and finally to hardcourts, risking injury and burnout. And for the lower ranked (#60-120) players there were already enough upper tier clay challengers. As they stand, these clay events are merely an invitation to pointless hogging.

Another reason I disagreed with the creation of this mini clay MM season was that it was a step towards making the WTA calendar similar to the ATP's, in which, if you count both lower tier ATP events and upper tier challengers, it's possible, even for top 100 players, to spend the whole year playing nearly exclusively on clay. On the ATP calendar alone there's clay from the first week of February to late September almost without interruptions.

The creation of a breed of WTA claycourt experts who would be ranked fairly high (maybe even inside the top 50), but could yet be safely disregarded on any surface other than clay, either because they genuinely suck on them or because they can't be arsed to even try, would be a most unwelcome development as far as I'm concerned.

And having so many, if not most, of the Euro Generation Suckers being claycourt grinders, or grinders period, is indeed also a recent development. On whether that is good or bad, I believe that the careers of Szavay, Cibulkova or Cornet speak for themselves.



If anything, clay is more forgiving to players with flawed technique.

The way I see it, with three Slams being played on fast surfaces and one on slow, anyone who aims to be an all-time great (or even a top 50 pro) would do better to develop a game more suited to the former. Others may settle for mediocrity by becoming clay experts and still earn a more than decent livelihood - and there's nothing wrong with that, of course.

Firstly, I don't actually believe developing one's game on clay leads to being a "clay expert" necessarily. Many players develop their game on clay but as they get older they develop further skills that allow them to be more successful of faster surfaces, particularly grass.

It is pretty normal, and as long as I have followed tennis it always has been, to see younger players who are more comfortable playing on clay, who as they get older become better on surfaces like grass. This has to me always seemed a natural progression and the players who start out on clay do tend to have better careers than those who started on other surfaces. If it is so much better to start on faster surfaces than why are we seeing so few successful players coming from the States where there grow up on hard.

As long as I have followed the game the players from Continental Europe have always honed their games on clay. Even Mauresmo, who as she became older obviously developed a very nice fast court game. Heck, even Novotna grew up on clay courts and this didn't prevent her from becoming a fine grasscourt player. Graf, Seles, Hingis, Martinez, Majoli, Dragomir, Huber, Paulus, Wiesner, Bunge, Temesvari, Reggi, Habsudova, Sanchez Vicario, the list goes on and on, but the thing all these players had in common is that they all learnt to play tennis on clay. And most of those mentioned would still say clay was their favourite surface. And at least half those listed could be called "clay specialists" if you wish. I haven't even mentioned South American players like Sabatini who also grew up on clay.

Sure, the game is different in several respects tho the to 80s and 90s. Back then America was a much more dominant force in tennis than it is now and hence we did have substantially more players emerging who were growing up on hard courts. But clearly, over the last decade and a half, with the Williams sisters being the standout exceptions, the decline in US tennis has been pronounced and those who have grown up on hard courts more and more do not seem to be developing as successfully as those who grow up on clay. That is just a fact that can't be evaded or ignored.

I also have to disagree with the concept you have that today's players are somehow less aggressive than in generations past. Certainly there are numerous players who don't hit with great power and prefer to rally from the baseline retrieving as many balls as they can. But this is nothing new. It has always been like this and I can't honestly believe if you have been following tennis for as long as I believe you have you don't know this. Fact is graphite rackets have resulted in players hitting harder and more aggressively than even before. Perhaps it is because of this that the ones who don't and still play a game that is more similar to the one played 20 years ago stand out so much and get labeled "pushers" a term that didn't even exist 10 years ago but could have been applied to probably 80% of the players from the 1980s/ early 90s if truth be told.

I would say there are more out and out aggressive power hitters today than I can ever recall before. You have players like Kvitova, Rezai, Kleybanova, Wickmayer, Lisicki who flat out hit the ball way more aggressively than the original power hitters of the game, Seles and Pierce would have ever dreamed of. Which is fine with me. I like it that we do have a contrast of styles at the moment between the very aggressive powerhitters and the more passive retrievers.

I think you have used the word "generic" before to refer to a couple of young players developing and I have got to agree with you on that. I don't have a problem with either the aggressive power hitters or the more the retrievers but their is a tendency where a lot of the players are lacking a bit in individuality but that would be my one gripe at the moment. But their are enough exceptions there too. One think I've come to like about Kleybanova over the last couple of years, is that there is nothing generic about her, she is one of a kind and that's a good thing.

If you are a going to deride the current generation for it's lack of aggressiveness and power hitting then I really want to know who were the great power hitters of the past that you are missing. Ok there's Seles, there's Pierce, if we get a bit more recent we could add Davenport but now we are getting to players who have only just recently retired. But who are these great power hitters of years gone by from the mid 90s and before that we don't have anymore. Fact is, there aren't any. A player like Rezai hits the ball more aggressively than any player from the mid 90s would have dreamed possible. Corswandt, as a fan of one strike power hitters you should be thrilled with some of the players we have now. And yeah okay, you might not like the Wozniacki's of the current game but there were plenty of Wozniacki-like players in previous generations believe me.

I know you are not a fan of long passive rallies. That's fine. But making it out that this is some new development in the game is ridiculous. I have been following this game for a good many years, I can tell you we have always had long passive rallies in women's tennis, and infact we had many more back in the days of wooden rackets.

I think it is also worth noting that almost all the young up and coming power hitters are players who have again grown up on clay. Rezai, Kleybanova, Petkovic are all played most of their formative tennis on clay. Ok Kvitova and Lapushcheckova both played a lot indoors going up but overall clay does work very well as a surface to learn to hit groundies.

Finally regarding the "creation of this mini clay MM season", I don't know what you are talking about. This is the schedule for 1998 post Wimbledon....1st week after "The English Open" as you enjoy calling it - The Piberstein Stryian Open (in Austria) and Prague, both clay. 2nd week after "The English Open" - Palermo and Warsaw, both clay. 3rd week after "The English Open" - Fed Cup. 4th week after "The English Open" Sopot (clay) and Stanford (hard). Now try to tell me how this is any different to what we have now. Really. Try. If you can.

Carotastrophe
Jul 19th, 2010, 04:55 AM
agnes :cheer:

Gregorio87
Jul 19th, 2010, 12:14 PM
And having so many, if not most, of the Euro Generation Suckers being claycourt grinders, or grinders period, is indeed also a recent development. On whether that is good or bad, I believe that the careers of Szavay, Cibulkova or Cornet speak for themselves.

Two of them are the best examples for what Shvedbarilescu wrote. But Cibulkova is not even a claycourter. Her favourite surface is hard, doesn't play clay MMs, and before her RG run she didn't have so much great results on clay.
Agi and Cornet are claycourters, but both showed before their slump that they are good on hard too. Especially Agi, whose biggest title and best grand slam result is on hard. Cornet almost reached in 2009 the QF in AO.
Both had first injuries then mental problems and went back to the surface, what they most like, and what on they learned to play, because they still have a chance to win more matches there. Then they can develop their game again on other surfaces too.

Corswandt
Jul 19th, 2010, 10:34 PM
Firstly, I don't actually believe developing one's game on clay leads to being a "clay expert" necessarily. Many players develop their game on clay but as they get older they develop further skills that allow them to be more successful of faster surfaces, particularly grass.

It is pretty normal, and as long as I have followed tennis it always has been, to see younger players who are more comfortable playing on clay, who as they get older become better on surfaces like grass. This has to me always seemed a natural progression and the players who start out on clay do tend to have better careers than those who started on other surfaces. If it is so much better to start on faster surfaces than why are we seeing so few successful players coming from the States where there grow up on hard.

As long as I have followed the game the players from Continental Europe have always honed their games on clay. Even Mauresmo, who as she became older obviously developed a very nice fast court game. Heck, even Novotna grew up on clay courts and this didn't prevent her from becoming a fine grasscourt player. Graf, Seles, Hingis, Martinez, Majoli, Dragomir, Huber, Paulus, Wiesner, Bunge, Temesvari, Reggi, Habsudova, Sanchez Vicario, the list goes on and on, but the thing all these players had in common is that they all learnt to play tennis on clay. And most of those mentioned would still say clay was their favourite surface. And at least half those listed could be called "clay specialists" if you wish. I haven't even mentioned South American players like Sabatini who also grew up on clay.

Sure, the game is different in several respects tho the to 80s and 90s. Back then America was a much more dominant force in tennis than it is now and hence we did have substantially more players emerging who were growing up on hard courts. But clearly, over the last decade and a half, with the Williams sisters being the standout exceptions, the decline in US tennis has been pronounced and those who have grown up on hard courts more and more do not seem to be developing as successfully as those who grow up on clay. That is just a fact that can't be evaded or ignored.

I also have to disagree with the concept you have that today's players are somehow less aggressive than in generations past. Certainly there are numerous players who don't hit with great power and prefer to rally from the baseline retrieving as many balls as they can. But this is nothing new. It has always been like this and I can't honestly believe if you have been following tennis for as long as I believe you have you don't know this. Fact is graphite rackets have resulted in players hitting harder and more aggressively than even before. Perhaps it is because of this that the ones who don't and still play a game that is more similar to the one played 20 years ago stand out so much and get labeled "pushers" a term that didn't even exist 10 years ago but could have been applied to probably 80% of the players from the 1980s/ early 90s if truth be told.

I would say there are more out and out aggressive power hitters today than I can ever recall before. You have players like Kvitova, Rezai, Kleybanova, Wickmayer, Lisicki who flat out hit the ball way more aggressively than the original power hitters of the game, Seles and Pierce would have ever dreamed of. Which is fine with me. I like it that we do have a contrast of styles at the moment between the very aggressive powerhitters and the more passive retrievers.

I think you have used the word "generic" before to refer to a couple of young players developing and I have got to agree with you on that. I don't have a problem with either the aggressive power hitters or the more the retrievers but their is a tendency where a lot of the players are lacking a bit in individuality but that would be my one gripe at the moment. But their are enough exceptions there too. One think I've come to like about Kleybanova over the last couple of years, is that there is nothing generic about her, she is one of a kind and that's a good thing.

If you are a going to deride the current generation for it's lack of aggressiveness and power hitting then I really want to know who were the great power hitters of the past that you are missing. Ok there's Seles, there's Pierce, if we get a bit more recent we could add Davenport but now we are getting to players who have only just recently retired. But who are these great power hitters of years gone by from the mid 90s and before that we don't have anymore. Fact is, there aren't any. A player like Rezai hits the ball more aggressively than any player from the mid 90s would have dreamed possible. Corswandt, as a fan of one strike power hitters you should be thrilled with some of the players we have now. And yeah okay, you might not like the Wozniacki's of the current game but there were plenty of Wozniacki-like players in previous generations believe me.

I know you are not a fan of long passive rallies. That's fine. But making it out that this is some new development in the game is ridiculous. I have been following this game for a good many years, I can tell you we have always had long passive rallies in women's tennis, and infact we had many more back in the days of wooden rackets.

I think it is also worth noting that almost all the young up and coming power hitters are players who have again grown up on clay. Rezai, Kleybanova, Petkovic are all played most of their formative tennis on clay. Ok Kvitova and Lapushcheckova both played a lot indoors going up but overall clay does work very well as a surface to learn to hit groundies.

Finally regarding the "creation of this mini clay MM season", I don't know what you are talking about. This is the schedule for 1998 post Wimbledon....1st week after "The English Open" as you enjoy calling it - The Piberstein Stryian Open (in Austria) and Prague, both clay. 2nd week after "The English Open" - Palermo and Warsaw, both clay. 3rd week after "The English Open" - Fed Cup. 4th week after "The English Open" Sopot (clay) and Stanford (hard). Now try to tell me how this is any different to what we have now. Really. Try. If you can.

Relevance of all of this to what was originally being discussed (the usefulness of the post English Open clay MM miniseason) = none.

I'll still do some multiquote nitpicking, not because I feel there's any use to this debate (there isn't), but because I feel like it.

Sure, the game is different in several respects tho the to 80s and 90s. Back then America was a much more dominant force in tennis than it is now and hence we did have substantially more players emerging who were growing up on hard courts. But clearly, over the last decade and a half, with the Williams sisters being the standout exceptions, the decline in US tennis has been pronounced and those who have grown up on hard courts more and more do not seem to be developing as successfully as those who grow up on clay. That is just a fact that can't be evaded or ignored.

It's not a fact, it's opinion.

I also have to disagree with the concept you have that today's players are somehow less aggressive than in generations past.

Rephrase that as the Top Tier Generation Suck vs the early to mid noughties elite and hopefuls up until 2006 or so, put up a poll on GM and see what answer you'll get.

Perhaps it is because of this that the ones who don't and still play a game that is more similar to the one played 20 years ago stand out so much and get labeled "pushers" a term that didn't even exist 10 years ago but could have been applied to probably 80% of the players from the 1980s/ early 90s if truth be told.

Of course if you go back to the days of Suzanne Lenglen or whatever you'll find top players who didn't/couldn't hit as hard as today's. Which means nothing. I find Generation Suck passive, defensive and underpowered by the standards of today's game, not when compared to the halcyon days of Evert.

I think it is also worth noting that almost all the young up and coming power hitters are players who have again grown up on clay. Rezai, Kleybanova, Petkovic are all played most of their formative tennis on clay. Ok Kvitova and Lapushcheckova both played a lot indoors going up but overall clay does work very well as a surface to learn to hit groundies.

They could have learned to play on cow dung courts for all I care as long as they play tennis and not whatever shit it is that say Groeneveld makes his charges play.

Finally regarding the "creation of this mini clay MM season", I don't know what you are talking about. This is the schedule for 1998 post Wimbledon....1st week after "The English Open" as you enjoy calling it - The Piberstein Stryian Open (in Austria) and Prague, both clay. 2nd week after "The English Open" - Palermo and Warsaw, both clay. 3rd week after "The English Open" - Fed Cup. 4th week after "The English Open" Sopot (clay) and Stanford (hard). Now try to tell me how this is any different to what we have now. Really. Try. If you can.

I don't need to "try" anything as I only compared the calendar immediately before Roadkill to what we got post-Roadkill.