PDA

View Full Version : WTA Player Awards: Robson is Newcomer Of The Year


Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:44 AM
NID. Congrats :yeah:

Since winning the Wimbledon junior title as a 14-year-old in 2008, she had been touted as one of the next big things in the pros - and in the second half of 2012 she came through on that promise in a big way with a string of big results, most notably a run to the second week of the US Open. And with that, Laura Robson is the WTA's Newcomer Of The Year.

Though she had played some close matches with top players for years, Robson left Wimbledon this year without having converted on any of those, and having never won back-to-back matches at the WTA level - but something clicked on the clay of Palermo the week after Wimbledon, as Robson made her first WTA semifinal, scoring her first Top 30 win along the way against Roberta Vinci.

Two more huge results followed at the end of the summer, as Robson made it all the way to the fourth round of the US Open, the first Brit in 14 years to make the second week of a Grand Slam, then the final of Guangzhou, the first Brit in 22 years to reach a WTA final. Her US Open run was of particular note as she beat Kim Clijsters in the former No.1's last pro match in the second round, as well as beating Li Na in the third round, the first Top 10 win of her career.

Robson finished the year with another WTA quarterfinal over in Osaka.

Having gone into Palermo in July ranked No.113, Robson went as high as No.52 in October, then finished at No.53 on the November 5 year-end rankings.

Robson commented on being the WTA's Newcomer Of The Year.

"It's a huge honor to have won the 2012 WTA Newcomer Of The Year award," Robson commented. "I looked at the list of past winners and it's certainly a very impressive line-up that includes many of my idols growing up - I hope that I can go on to achieve close to what many of the past winners have achieved in their careers. 2012 has been a very enjoyable year for me and I look forward to building on the progress that I have made in 2012 and the season ahead."

And what were Robson's personal highlights from her breakthrough season?

"There have been a few great moments this past year; making the Olympic team and coming away with a silver medal in the mixed doubles, partnering Andy Murray, was a very special moment for me and gave me the extra bit of confidence that helped me play some of my best tennis at the US Open. I reached my first WTA semifinal in Palermo earlier in the year along with my first WTA final in Guangzhou and finished the year with a career-high ranking.

"I am working hard and it's nice that the hard work is paying off!"

http://www.wtatennis.com/news/20121127/wta-player-awards-newcomer-of-the-year_2256076_2992615

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:45 AM
Not surprised.

NashaMasha
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:48 AM
one more wise decision , let's hope WTA won't fail again with fan-favourite this year

andyjason
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:54 AM
one more wise decision , let's hope WTA won't fail again with fan-favourite this year

Fan favourite will be Aga again~;)

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:58 AM
Two more huge results followed at the end of the summer, as Robson made it all the way to the fourth round of the US Open, the first Brit in 14 years to make the second week of a Grand Slam

They need to put first Brit woman unless they are dumping Murray back to Scotland and counting Robson as England.

sweetadri06
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:37 AM
No surprise, that doesn't mean she deserves it.

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:38 AM
YESSS!!!

Now work your butt off in 2013 girl! Or haters are gonna be on your back.

I need good results from your Laura, I know you can do it!!!! :D :D

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:39 AM
No surprise, that doesn't mean she deserves it.

Why doesn't she deserve it?? She's had the biggest wins out of all the girls nominated.
Haters gone hate. As usual though. :rolleyes:

faboozadoo15
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:41 AM
:facepalm:

Kəv.
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:41 AM
But Robson wasn't really a newcomer :shrug:

BlueTrees
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:42 AM
What a shocker :yawn: They give it to the white girl over the two black girls. Interesting ;)

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:44 AM
But Robson wasn't really a newcomer :shrug:

Oh pleaseeee, she was doing nothing till the last half of this year. So she got herself noticed therefore she IS the newcomer. :wavey:

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:46 AM
Why doesn't she deserve it?? She's had the biggest wins out of all the girls nominated.

The nomination itself is flawed.

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:47 AM
What a shocker :yawn: They give it to the white girl over the two black girls. Interesting ;)

Lmaoo. Sweetie don't even try and bring racism into this. The other girls were doing well from last year. Laura was doing nothing last year. She finally got it together at the end of this year. She deserves this fair and square.

So you can get your hating backside outta here. :wavey:

Sombrerero loco
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:52 AM
NID. well done laura

Miracle Worker
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:13 AM
The Newcomer of the 2013 - Michelle Larcher de Brito :o

Yarden
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:14 AM
Well deserved :)


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Arthur.
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:27 AM
I would have given it to Sloane Stephens but Laura is ok ;)

JustAileen
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:32 AM
Yes Laura:bounce:

paul_masterton
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:43 AM
Well done Laura. I guess the WTA value the slam run higher than the titles, but on paper she has had the biggest wins so I don't see a problem with it.

An injury free 2013 with some strong steps in the right direction will be great. First title, maybe a slam seeding and helping GB win promotion to World Group II :)

sweetadri06
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:44 AM
Why doesn't she deserve it?? She's had the biggest wins out of all the girls nominated.
Haters gone hate. As usual though. :rolleyes:

Because she's not really a newcomer, she's been on the scene for awhile and is already well-known from a young age atleast in Britain and in tennis circles. This year is when she finally got the best result of her career but i'd like to see it awarded to someone who was a real unknown before 2012. Watson/Stephens arguably had better years than Robson and were relatively less known than her.

Doully
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:53 AM
Were people this seething when Kvitova won the award in '10 despite having won a title and making a R4 at the USO in '09? :lol:

Daniel
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:05 AM
Well done :clap2:

Chrissie-fan
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:05 AM
YESSS!!!

Now work your butt off in 2013 girl! Or haters are gonna be on your back.

Haters are gonna be on her back regardless of her results. Doesn't matter if she drops out of the top 200 or if she wins the calender year grand slam.

Anyway, congrats Laura. :yeah:

bobito
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:11 AM
Haters are gonna be on her back regardless of her results. Doesn't matter if she drops out of the top 200 or if she wins the calender year grand slam.

Anyway, congrats Laura. :yeah:

They already are. Exhibit A ↓

What a shocker :yawn: They give it to the white girl over the two black girls. Interesting ;)

Pathetic :rolleyes:

Well done Laura. Well deserved.

Trickle
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:11 AM
Big wins on a big stage > small wins on a small stage.

I agree with this choice.

paul_masterton
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:14 AM
Hev was runner up apparently.

VIKANADAL01
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:24 AM
deserved!

Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:26 AM
Hev was runner up apparently.

Where did you find that information?

It'd be interesting if the WTA published full results and not only who won the awards.

jetglo
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:40 AM
She deserved to win, her USO performance was the tournament highlight for me. Go Laura :)

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:49 AM
Because she's not really a newcomer, she's been on the scene for awhile and is already well-known from a young age atleast in Britain and in tennis circles. This year is when she finally got the best result of her career but i'd like to see it awarded to someone who was a real unknown before 2012. Watson/Stephens arguably had better years than Robson and were relatively less known than her.

Woah. That's where you make no sense. This award is for a newcomer who has produced big wins this year and as you've said Sloane and Heather have had better years, which is why they didn't win as they haven't had a massive wins this year like Laura has. And this is Laura's improvement year, Sloane and Heather should have won last year if you're stating they've had better years.

Just give up sweetie, she's won and that's that. :)

watercat
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:57 AM
Love Laura!!!!See u in Shenzhen~~~~~

Dawson.
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:12 AM
Thoroughly deserved. Well done to Laura and to the WTA :yeah:

And a serious :facepalm: for the idiot poster who brought up the race card. Pathetic.

paul_masterton
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:16 AM
Where did you find that information?

It'd be interesting if the WTA published full results and not only who won the awards.

Neil Harman - Times tennis journalist

Elwin.
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:20 AM
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/5644/misaicant.gif

homogenius
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:21 AM
Barthel says hello

Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:23 AM
Neil Harman - Times tennis journalist

Thanks!

duhcity
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:24 AM
Because she's not really a newcomer, she's been on the scene for awhile and is already well-known from a young age atleast in Britain and in tennis circles. This year is when she finally got the best result of her career but i'd like to see it awarded to someone who was a real unknown before 2012. Watson/Stephens arguably had better years than Robson and were relatively less known than her.

In that vein, a lot of people will know Stephens and to a lesser extent Watson as well - they've been on the radar for years, though less than Laura.

Maybe it's because of my American bias, but a true astounding, out of nowhere, newcomer would have been Donna Vekic. But that's not how this award always works.

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:30 AM
No surprise, that doesn't mean she deserves it.Agreed.

Totally rubbish decision.

Sloane should have got it hands down (she broke into the top 50 - that's the usual reason this prize is awarded)

Laura wasn't even the best British teen of 2012 (let alone the best overall).

WTA = racist

bobito
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:30 AM
Woah. That's where you make no sense. This award is for a newcomer who has produced big wins this year and as you've said Sloane and Heather have had better years, which is why they didn't win as they haven't had a massive wins this year like Laura has. And this is Laura's improvement year, Sloane and Heather should have won last year if you're stating they've had better years.

Just give up sweetie, she's won and that's that. :)

I think sweetadri06 was suggesting that Watson and Stephens' 2012s were better than Robson's not that they had had better years than 2012. However, the comment does, as you say, make no sense but for other reasons.

Because she's not really a newcomer, she's been on the scene for awhile and is already well-known from a young age atleast in Britain and in tennis circles. This year is when she finally got the best result of her career but i'd like to see it awarded to someone who was a real unknown before 2012. Watson/Stephens arguably had better years than Robson and were relatively less known than her.

Firstly, the reason she was well known from a young age is that she won Wimbledon Juniors at 14. However, this is a WTA Newcomer Of The Year award and so any success she had on the junior tour does not make her any more or less a newcomer to the WTA tour. Going into this year Robson had played condiderably fewer WTA tour events than either Watson or Stephens. Last year for example Watson played 15 WTA tournaments, Stephens 12 and Robson 5.

Secondly, if you are going to have a strict cut-off point for who is and isn't a "Necomer" then it would logically be the year they started playing full time as a professional. Because of Age Eligibility rules, that would usually be 18 years old. In other words, Robson would qualify but Watson and Stephens would not.

That's not how it works however, so all three were nominated. Given the quality of the players she has beaten this year, Robson is a fair choice.

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:31 AM
Heck - even Su Wei deserved it more... but I guess she wasn't WASP enough or something









.

marineblue
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:35 AM
I am not surprised she got it, I think it was not just a question of achievements but also of a high profile. It's been a good year for Robson,no doubt.

bobito
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:53 AM
Agreed.

Totally rubbish decision.

Sloane should have got it hands down (she broke into the top 50 - that's the usual reason this prize is awarded)

Radwanska was awarded it with a lower ranking than Robson's

Laura wasn't even the best British teen of 2012 (let alone the best overall).

Really? The next highest ranked British teenager is #629 Francesca Stephenson.

WTA = racist

:facepalm:

N.M.
Nov 27th, 2012, 10:56 AM
She even finished behind Watson in the ranking :facepalm: And without a title.

I'm pretty sure it's racist.

Reading the tweets I've got a feeling Robson is getting more hype, even if Watson has better results (and also won a junior slam). Can't really help impression colour of skin is an issue. Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm thinking like a foreigner who just observes from the distance.

marineblue
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:11 AM
She even finished behind Watson in the ranking :facepalm: And without a title.

I'm pretty sure it's racist.

Reading the tweets I've got a feeling Robson is getting more hype, even if Watson has better results (and also won a junior slam). Can't really help impression colour of skin is an issue. Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm thinking like a foreigner who just observes from the distance.

I think the main reason why Robson got the award is that she has a bigger name in tennis and therefore draws a bigger amount of people to follow tennis. Her team has her marketing well thought out. Heck, she is even one of the characters in Virtua Tennis game and that was made way before her success at the Olympics.:lol:

Alwaysfan
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:22 AM
Next year Tita Torro.
Congrats Laura :)

pesto
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:25 AM
I think she got it mostly because she really is more of a newcomer at WTA level than the others, no matter how well publicised her junior results were.

Hev is a 92 birth, and rose from 92 to 49 in the rankings this year
Sloane is a 93 birth, and rose from 97 to 38
Laura is a 94 birth and rose from 131 to 53

So they've all had impressive years, but Sloane and Heather are older, and were already ranked within the top 100 when the year started.

I don't think that would have made them ineligible as newcomers, if there had been no-one younger or with a better improvement, but Robson beats them on both counts.

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:44 AM
Radwanska was awarded it with a lower ranking than Robson'sBut that only makes sense if there is no one worthy in the top 50. Then and only then should they look at the players among the lower top 100.

:facepalm:Sloane.............. 0 titles..................... top 50................... not WASP
Heather............ title winner.............. top 50................... not WASP
Su Wei.............. title winner.............. top 50................... not WASP
Laura................ 0 titles..................... top 100................. WASP


3/4 = 75%

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck (WTA = WASP supremacist/racist)
.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:44 AM
The Newcomer of the 2013 - Michelle Larcher de Brito :o

De Brito has already been in top 100 in previous yrs so ineligible (thats how they used to do it)

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:45 AM
But Robson wasn't really a newcomer :shrug:

yes she is- as she hadnt been in top 100 until this year

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:23 PM
De Brito has already been in top 100 in previous yrs so ineligible (thats how they used to do it)

That's obviously not how they do it anymore with Stephens and Watson being nominated. You don't nominate a player then deny their chance to win because they don't qualify the Top 100 rule.

yes she is- as she hadnt been in top 100 until this year

...or they just made up a list so Robson can win :oh: and create hypes and controversies.

bobito
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:46 PM
But that only makes sense if there is no one worthy in the top 50. Then and only then should they look at the players among the lower top 100.

Sloane.............. 0 titles..................... top 50................... not WASP
Heather............ title winner.............. top 50................... not WASP
Su Wei.............. title winner.............. top 50................... not WASP
Laura................ 0 titles..................... top 100................. WASP

I quoted the Radwanska case to point out there is no such requirement that the player be ranked in the top 50. Given that this is the case, you are then left with three players who are ranked within 15 places of each other, with the youngest being the lowest ranked but having climbed the most places.

Your inclusion of Hseih, an 11 year tour veteren, is ridiculous.

Robson is younger than the other two, less experienced, has made more progress in 2012 and has beaten better players this year on a bigger stage. It's a perfectly reasonable award.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck (WTA = WASP supremacist/racist).

The WTA don't actually choose the winner of this award, it's voted on by the international tennis media.

thegreendestiny
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:48 PM
Polish Fan favourite will be Aga again~;)

Fixed.

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:49 PM
I'm sorry but how is this NID?

Hev actually finished ahead of her...what a bunch of bs.

Meelis
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:51 PM
De Brito has already been in top 100 in previous yrs so ineligible (thats how they used to do it)

Kvitova was top 50 in 2008 and won the newcomer award in 2010 :lol:

Chrissie-fan
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:52 PM
The WTA don't actually choose the winner of this award, it's voted on by members of the international tennis media. :rolleyes:
Blonde blue-eyed racists, the lot of 'em. :lol:

Seriously, I think that those who vote also consider the potential that each player has in their opinion. So whether they made the right or the wrong choice we will to a certain extent only find out in the future.

Simugna Help
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:56 PM
I don't think the awardee has to have had the best results among the nominees to win this award. Having that intangible something that makes the player exciting and having that promise of a great future are just as important. I'm not sure Watson or Stephens have even caused a big upset (by beating a top 10 player or however you want to define it), whereas Robson at least beat a very in-form Li Na this Summer. // edit: got beaten by Chrissie fan to make this point, I hadn't read his message before posting mine

The real crime is not including Barthel among the nominees.

I'm not sure what mentions of Su Wei Hsieh are doing in this thread. :scratch:

stromatolite
Nov 27th, 2012, 12:59 PM
Racism is still a serious problem in large parts of the world, but believe it or not, even in a non-racist world whites sometimes win.

Knee-jerk playing of the race card every time non-whites don't succeed at something is not helpful, and only makes it easier for genuine racists to get away with their despicable behaviour.

Taking into account the fact that this is an award for best newcomer (as opposed to, say, most highly ranked young player), I can't really fault the choice for Laura. Congrats to her!

saint2
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:02 PM
I don't know what to think about it...I love Laura, but kinda feel Heather deserved this, as shes the only one with the title. Never was "big wins" fan...

OK, so congrats Laura, and I hope now she (and Heather) will get their subforums. Waiting for for most exciting "friendly rivalry" since Elena-Nastya :bounce::bounce:

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:04 PM
It's another case of the WTA valuing marketability above everything else..it's so sad.

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:04 PM
I quoted the Radwanska case to point out there is no such requirement that the player be ranked in the top 50. Given that this is the case, you are then left with three players who are ranked within 15 places of each other, with the youngest being the lowest ranked but having climbed the most places. Your inclusion of Hseih, an 11 year tour veteren, is ridiculous.

Robson is younger than the other two, less experienced, has made more progress in 2012 and has beaten better players this year on a bigger stage. It's a perfectly reasonable award.

The WTA don't actually choose the winner of this award, it's voted on by the international tennis media.

Hsieh should be in the most improved player category. Since she isn't easy to market on so she is placed as a filler in the comeback player category. I don't know why she is mentioned there, though.

You can change WTA to Media and the bias/racist question wouldn't go away. Since it's voted by media, unless there's a drastic difference in terms of results between some players, we know the media will choose the player they can market on the most to win the award.

I don't know why ranking places are used as an argument now when lots of people say Hsieh's 25 or Radwanska's 31 are so over-ranked because the Top players took all the points in 2012 when compared to 2011, while they played small tournaments to rack points.

Anyways, a simply points earned comparison:

2011
Watson 719
Stephens 685
Robson 501

2012
Stephens 1418
Watson 1161
Robson 1131

Improvements
Stephens 733
Robson 630
Watson 442

I am sorry, Robson did not improve as much when compared to Stephens to be chosen as the so-called Newcomer of the Year. Robson is just easier to market by the media and she won against UE Na and retired Clijsters.

Had they change the title of the award to Media's Favorite Young Tennis Players as the award I don't think many posters on the forum would go against Robson's fan.

bobito
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:06 PM
I don't think the awardee has to have had the best results among the nominees to win this award. Having that intangible something that makes the player exciting and having that promise of a great future are just as important. I'm not sure Watson or Stephens have even caused a big upset (by beating a top 10 player or however you want to define it), whereas Robson at least beat a very in-form Li Na this Summer. // edit: got beaten by Chrissie fan to make this point, I hadn't read his message before posting mine

The real crime is not including Barthel among the nominees.

I'm not sure what mentions of Su Wei Hsieh are doing in this thread. :scratch:

I think she was overlooked largely because her best results were at the very start of the season, after which she failed to live up. Peaking late in the season is always going to increase your chances with an award like this.

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:07 PM
The real crime is not including Barthel among the nominees.Agreed.

WTA = skinist

Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:09 PM
I'm sorry but how is this NID?

Hev actually finished ahead of her...what a bunch of bs.

I don't think the winner was ever in doubt, even if the other nominees might have had arguably a more successful year (titles vs no title, ranking,...)

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:11 PM
The list of players who deserve the award much more than LR is rising.

Zamboni
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:12 PM
Blonde blue-eyed racists, the lot of 'em. :lol:

Seriously, I think that those who vote also consider the potential that each player has in their opinion. So whether they made the right or the wrong choice we will to a certain extent only find out in the future.
So why didn't Bertens (who was actually nominated) win? :p ;)
Oh right, she didn't stand a chance from the beginning since she's relatively unknown and was never hyped.


IMO, Heather should have won. Both her and Laura are more "newcomer" than Sloane, and Heather is ranked higher and won a title. (and yes I'm biased, I like Laura, but I like Heather more)
But you can't say Laura doesn't deserve it.:shrug:

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:12 PM
I don't think the winner was ever in doubt, even if the other nominees might have had arguably a more successful year (titles vs no title, ranking,...)

So you don't agree with it either? :)

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:13 PM
I don't think the winner was ever in doubt, even if the other nominees might have had arguably a more successful year (titles vs no title, ranking,...)

+1, it was NID cause we all know who will win :oh:

IMO, Heather should have won. Both her and Laura are more "newcomer" than Sloane, and Heather is ranked higher and won a title. (and yes I'm biased, I like Laura, but I like Heather more)
But you can't say Laura doesn't deserve it.:shrug:

Had Watson won I am sure 50%+ of the forum posters critics here would be gone. I would be one of them :)

Watson has a WTA title that's not really arguable.

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:16 PM
..... and having that promise of a great future are just as important. I'm not sure Watson or Stephens have even caused a big upset (by beating a top 10 player or however you want to define it), whereas Robson Total bullshit gibberish.

Stop defending and providing half-ass excuses for WTA.

If what you were saying was even remotely true then they would have nominated Mona Barthel, who slayed much more and did much more overall by far, especially in comparison to her position before 2012.

Patrick345
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:17 PM
The real crime is not including Barthel among the nominees.



This should raise as much of a stink as the Taylor Townsend treatment. Pathetic WTA. Too bad Stacy doesn´t fire herself for being too ugly for her job. :rolleyes:

Patrick345
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:18 PM
Total bullshit gibberish.

Stop excusing WTA. If what you were saying was even remotely true then they would have nominated Mona Barthel, who slayed much more and did much more overall by far, especially in comparison to her position before 2012.

But Barthel has acne. :rolleyes:

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:22 PM
But Barthel has acne. :rolleyes:Exactly.

"Not good for business" :rolleyes:

Shame on Stacey Allaster & co.

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:27 PM
Exactly.

"Not good for business" :rolleyes:

Shame on Stacey Allaster & co.

You know it's a media award :lol:

Acnes doesn't work so well with photoshop :facepalm:

NashaMasha
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:27 PM
Total bullshit gibberish.

Stop defending and providing half-ass excuses for WTA.

If what you were saying was even remotely true then they would have nominated Mona Barthel, who slayed much more and did much more overall by far, especially in comparison to her position before 2012.

over Top 50 wins Robson - 9 Barthel - 9
including top 30 wins Robson - 6 Barthel 6
including top 10wins Robson - 1 Barthel - 1

where is much more?

Simugna Help
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:31 PM
Total bullshit gibberish.

Stop defending and providing half-ass excuses for WTA.

If what you were saying was even remotely true then they would have nominated Mona Barthel, who slayed much more and did much more overall by far, especially in comparison to her position before 2012.
Funny how you decided not to quote this part of my post:

The real crime is not including Barthel among the nominees.
:o

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:31 PM
over Top 50 wins Robson - 9 Barthel - 9
including top 30 wins Robson - 6 Barthel 6
including top 10wins Robson - 1 Barthel - 1

where is much more?Threre it is, BEYOTCH


http://images.sportinglife.com/12/01/800x600/barthel_2702151.jpg

stromatolite
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:35 PM
Barthel maybe should get some kind of award for her year, but not the newcomer award. It was already stretching it to give the newcomer award to 21-year-old Begu last year. Mona is the same age as her, i.e. she's now 22. If you want this award to mean anything, you need to put some kind of age limit on it.

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:35 PM
I think nobody can argue with the fact that Barthel is in a completely different league than Robson when it comes to raw talent.

NashaMasha
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:39 PM
I think nobody can argue with the fact that Barthel is in a completely different league than Robson when it comes to raw talent.

open a thread about it , i think Robson will be more successful

bobito
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:41 PM
Not sure what constitutes a "newcomer" but Barthel is 22, has been on the tour full time for over 4 years and started the year ranked 67.

Barthel maybe should get some kind of award for her year, but not the newcomer award. It was already stretching it to give the newcomer award to 21-year-old Begu last year. Mona is the same age as her, i.e. she's now 22. If you want this award to mean anything, you need to put some kind of age limit on it.

Beat me to it :lol:

Has she been nominated for Most Improved Player? Can't see her getting past Errani and Kerber though. Had she carried on where she left off after Stuttgart then she might be but she has a losing record since then I think.

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:41 PM
open a thread about it , i think Robson will be more successful

On court? Doubtful....

In terms of being a "celebrity" surely.. she obviously fits the mold the British press is looking for. That's why the hype is already much bigger than her results would justify. Mona obviously has a major disadvantage here, especially being from a country where nobody gives a rats ass about women's tennis.

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:42 PM
over Top 50 wins Robson - 9 Barthel - 9
including top 30 wins Robson - 6 Barthel 6
including top 10wins Robson - 1 Barthel - 1

where is much more?

Please list them one-by-one so we won't have a skewed result, thank you.

Hantuchova 40
Gajdosova 34
Cetkovska 33
Kerber 31
Wickmayer 29
Medina Garrigues 27
Jankovic 15
Ivanovic 15
Bartoli 7

Honorable headcase mention: Indian Wells - Azarenka def. Barthel 6-4 6-7(4) 7-6(6)

Martinez Sanchez 49
Peng 47
Suarez Navarro 41
Cirstea 30
Vinci 27
Cljisters 25
Safarova 23
Zheng 22
Li 8

Honorable headcase mention: Guangzhou - Hsieh def. Robson 6-3 5-7 6-4

I am not even going to take an average.

Patrick345
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:49 PM
Not sure what constitutes a "newcomer" but Barthel is 22, has been on the tour full time for over 4 years and started the year ranked 67.

Barthel played two WTA main draw matches before the 2011 French Open. She only left Europe twice before the 2011 US Open. She didn´t even have enough money to travel to Australia in 2011 and you consider her a full time pro for four years.

http://www.bolgernow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Crack-Pipe.jpg

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:53 PM
Barthel played two WTA main draw matches before the 2011 French Open. She only left Europe twice before the 2011 US Open. She didn´t even have enough money to travel to Australia in 2011 and you consider her a full time pro for four years.

I think we need to compare the number of wildcards received :lol:

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 01:59 PM
Not sure what constitutes a "newcomer" but Barthel is 22, has been on the tour full time for over 4 years and started the year ranked 67.Not at all.

Robson is acutally the older one careerwise - she actually turned pro in 2008, the year before Mona Barthel did! :wavey:

So even if you move the proverbial goalpost (invent a new criteria and start counting their pre-2012 career in consideration, even then Mona is still more of a newcomer than Laura.

There you go again........... excuse №1234567890 just blew up in your face

next

NashaMasha
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:00 PM
Barthel is just a new "Sharapova wannabe" (i speak about game ) A number of players tried this way to success , still far from it...

JamieOwen3
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:10 PM
Yas Laura snatched that Newcomer Award real good!!

http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af264/JamieOwen3/tumblr_md9dfyojgH1qiu65go2_250.gif

The voters have spoken.

http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af264/JamieOwen3/2hyzzt4.gif

Wintermute
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:35 PM
Based purely on stats (rankings rise, title won) you could argue Bertens deserved this the most.

But it's clearly not just based on that. It's probably a third on stats, a third on future potential and a third on marketability. Now that will clearly rub many people up the wrong way because those last two categories are pretty subjective.

At the end of the day what does this award mean? It's just another phrase for a journo to tag onto an article about Laura. She's popular, she has some name recognition outside of tennis, and if she continues to have success then I think she will only bring new viewers to the WTA which exactly what they want.

End da Game
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:39 PM
how do they define a 'newcomer'?

NashaMasha
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:43 PM
Laura Robson: 'It’s a huge honour. I looked at the list of past winners and it’s certainly a very impressive line-up that includes many of my idols growing up,' said Robson, who is currently in Florida doing a training block with her coaching team.

'There have been a few great moments in the past year, coming away with a silver medal in the Olympics was a very special moment and gave me a bit of extra confidence that helped me play some of my best tennis at the US Open. I am working hard and it’s nice that the hard work is paying off.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2239122/Laura-Robson-wins-WTA-Newcomer-Year-2012.html


Robson won Olympic Silver in mixed , it's a huge achivement, why posters are forgetting about it?

Wintermute
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:48 PM
Robson won Olympic Silver in mixed , it's a huge achivement, why posters are forgetting about it?

Because her detractors assume she was just hanging on Murray's coat tails.

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:55 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2239122/Laura-Robson-wins-WTA-Newcomer-Year-2012.html

Robson won Olympic Silver in mixed , it's a huge achivement, why posters are forgetting about it?

Cause it's mixed doubles, not women's singles or women's doubles.

Might as well say her F result at Guangzhou is a huge achievement as well cause Silver Medal does not mean undefeated.

Yes we know it's media based, whether it's 33% or 100%.

NashaMasha
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:56 PM
Because her detractors assume she was just hanging on Murray's coat tails.

:lol: Murray alone would have never beaten Hradecka/Stepanek

cause Silver Medal does not mean undefeated.
it's Olympics , all 3 medalists are winners , but only one of them - champion

Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 02:59 PM
So you don't agree with it either? :)

Well, not really. Sloane did much better at slams (2R|4R|3R|3R vs 1R|1R|1R|4R) and Heather won the same amount of slam matches as Laura but additionally her first WTA title. Both are ranked higher in the YE-ranking than Robson. Of course Laura had the two most impressive wins but that still only counts as two wins. It surely helped her a lot that she had a good run at the last slam of the year because had she reached the 4R at the AO and then lost three consecutive times in the first round people wouldn't have been so excited over her run at the point of voting. Let's not forget about her silver medal but that's not a result you can compare with the achievements of the other nominees, besides I think that Heather would've been quite successful as well had she played with Murray.
Bertens is probably the "truest" newcomer of all of them but that's apparently not what the WTA is looking for anyway.

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2012, 03:06 PM
it's Olympics , all 3 medalists are winners , but only one of them - champion

Might as well award 3 of the same medals then :oh: and it's still mixed doubles.

Going to stop for the night since I know my Dubai result already.

I'll be back later to read more :lol::help::confused: posts.

C. Drone
Nov 27th, 2012, 03:18 PM
Good for WTA. They have to hype the crap out of her. And hopefully with a little help she can win Birmingham or Eastbourne next year. Money talks. And IMO others weren't more deserving.

Roookie
Nov 27th, 2012, 03:19 PM
Gangnam style video sealed it.

Raiden
Nov 27th, 2012, 03:40 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2239122/Laura-Robson-wins-WTA-Newcomer-Year-2012.html


Robson won Olympic Silver in mixed, it's a huge achivement, why posters are forgetting about it?The "W" in WTA stands for women......

Or are you gonna tell me that it also stands for some obscure Cyrillic reverse "M" (like in the category of "И" and so forth)?

sweetadri06
Nov 27th, 2012, 04:27 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2239122/Laura-Robson-wins-WTA-Newcomer-Year-2012.html


Robson won Olympic Silver in mixed , it's a huge achivement, why posters are forgetting about it?

We're talking about an award for singles not mixed doubles. If yu want to discuss doubles, there is a separate award for that.

Sammo
Nov 27th, 2012, 04:29 PM
I would have given it to Sloane but whatever, congratulations.

MrProdigy555
Nov 27th, 2012, 04:30 PM
You people keep saying Sloane is more experienced than the rest, but didn't Sloane turn pro in 2009?

....and Laura in 2008?

JoPova
Nov 27th, 2012, 04:48 PM
Congrats, Laura! Well deserved!

hingis-seles
Nov 27th, 2012, 04:48 PM
Shouldn't this go under Most Improved and not Best Newcomer? I mean, she came 4 years ago. That'd be like Hingis winning Best Newcomer in 1998 or Seles winning Best Newcomer in 1993.

Doully
Nov 27th, 2012, 05:04 PM
So much seething over something so insignificant. Glorious.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/Gainsy/tumblr_m6pqmzIr8O1ranhnao1_250.gif

KeysisGOAT
Nov 27th, 2012, 05:06 PM
You people keep saying Sloane is more experienced than the rest, but didn't Sloane turn pro in 2009?

....and Laura in 2008?

When they turned pro is fairly irrelevant here. In both cases they were playing on a restricted schedule as juniors until this year (Laura) or last year (Sloane). She also ended last year in the top 100, so she doesn't really count as a newcomer in that respect. Last year she was a newcomer, this year she was one of the elite players and it was on her to justify that assertion. She had the best year of anyone up for the award, which is why she's in the top 40 and the others aren't (it's also why I'd have voted for her if I was polled), but to claim that she's less of a newcomer than Robson is misleading in the extreme. Although Laura did turn pro a year or so before her. She's been playing less than 10 events a year until this year, hence her being a newcomer.

Also, people implying that Robson won because of racism need a reality check (unless you're saying it in jest). The award was voted on by journalists... The same journalists who are responsible for her earning the nickname Hypson. When someone they've been pushing since 2008 has a great* year and they've handed a golden opportunity to push her some more, they'll take it. Don't get me wrong, Laura made a very strong case for herself winning (hence why there are people able to defend it). So did Heather (3 WTA titles say hi), Sloane (top 40 ranking says hi) and Bertens (a WTA title and multiple top 50 players defeated say hi). However, Laura's biggest success coming at just the right time (Olympics and USO) helped her a lot.

*as far as anyone will remember/care at the start of next year

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 05:27 PM
The list of players who deserve the award much more than LR is rising.

PRESSED. Sweetie get your hating backside outta here. Laura won the award and there's nothing you can do about it. :wavey:

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 05:29 PM
You people keep saying Sloane is more experienced than the rest, but didn't Sloane turn pro in 2009?

....and Laura in 2008?

Sweetie she WON the award over yor fave, DEAL with it. Why are you such a pressed stan? Lmao. :lol:

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 05:31 PM
So many pressed bitches in this thread, I can't be bothered to reply to all of you. Laura won the award over your faves?! DEAL with it. :wavey: :wavey:

Cosmic Voices
Nov 27th, 2012, 05:53 PM
LethalLaura fighting to the bitter end :sobbing:

Arthur.
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:01 PM
By the way winning this award won't make her a great player.. in the same way Sharapova won't become better than Williams or Azarenka and the same can be said for Goerges, who is I think less liked than players in Top 5-10.

Stonerpova
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:01 PM
You guys can't see, but I'm making my surprised face.

Cosmic Voices
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:04 PM
By the way winning this award won't make her a great player.. in the same way Sharapova won't become better than Williams or Azarenka and the same can be said for Goerges, who is I think less liked than players in Top 5-10.

call me back when Vika gets a career slam

deboraski
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:26 PM
What the hell has Julia to do with this? :rolleyes:

I love attacking game styles, so I only wish Laura very the best. :bounce:

Arthur.
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:28 PM
call me back when Vika gets a career slam

I forgot to write the word: currently.
Currently, Sharapova is not a better player than Williams and Azarenka :)

Arthur.
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:29 PM
What the hell has Julia to do with this? :rolleyes:



It was an example... I have nothing against Julia, I took her as example to state that these Awards basically mean nothing, beside giving the winners and their fans a moment of joy :)

MrProdigy555
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:45 PM
When they turned pro is fairly irrelevant here. In both cases they were playing on a restricted schedule as juniors until this year (Laura) or last year (Sloane). She also ended last year in the top 100, so she doesn't really count as a newcomer in that respect. Last year she was a newcomer, this year she was one of the elite players and it was on her to justify that assertion. She had the best year of anyone up for the award, which is why she's in the top 40 and the others aren't (it's also why I'd have voted for her if I was polled), but to claim that she's less of a newcomer than Robson is misleading in the extreme. Although Laura did turn pro a year or so before her. She's been playing less than 10 events a year until this year, hence her being a newcomer.

Also, people implying that Robson won because of racism need a reality check (unless you're saying it in jest). The award was voted on by journalists... The same journalists who are responsible for her earning the nickname Hypson. When someone they've been pushing since 2008 has a great* year and they've handed a golden opportunity to push her some more, they'll take it. Don't get me wrong, Laura made a very strong case for herself winning (hence why there are people able to defend it). So did Heather (3 WTA titles say hi), Sloane (top 40 ranking says hi) and Bertens (a WTA title and multiple top 50 players defeated say hi). However, Laura's biggest success coming at just the right time (Olympics and USO) helped her a lot.

*as far as anyone will remember/care at the start of next year
Thank you for an actual ANSWER to my question. That other chick is an idiot, but anyway.

I disagree that Sloane was an "elite" player this year. She was definitely still a newbie, but we all know (most of us, I guess) that she has the goods to get somewhere in tournaments.

I also disagree that Sloane has/had more experience. They are both considered newcomers, hence why they were both up for the award (so, making Laura out to be a 'true' newcomer and Sloane an 'elite' doesn't make much sense).

Congrats to Laura though. The award is hers, and I hope she does really well in the future. I actually like her game.

MrProdigy555
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:46 PM
Sweetie she WON the award over yor fave, DEAL with it. Why are you such a pressed stan? Lmao. :lol:
You feel the need to respond to every person that disagrees with you. You're the only pressed soul in this thread, bitch.

KeysisGOAT
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:57 PM
Thank you for an actual ANSWER to my question. That other chick is an idiot, but anyway.

I disagree that Sloane was an "elite" player this year. She was definitely still a newbie, but we all know (most of us, I guess) that she has the goods to get somewhere in tournaments.

LethalLaura? Yeah, he/she's just been added to my ignore list.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're in the top 100 you are elite. Being one of the 100 best of anything makes you elite. Is she an elite player in the same way Serena Williams is? No, but that doesn't change the fact that Sloane started and ended the year among the 100 best tennis players in the world.

I also disagree that Sloane has/had more experience. They are both considered newcomers, hence why they were both up for the award (so, making Laura out to be a 'true' newcomer and Sloane an 'elite' doesn't make much sense).

At a WTA level, Sloane does have more experience than Robson, there's no way around that. But you're right, the "Laura's more of a newcomer" argument is pretty shit because whether or not Sloane should have been included, she was. If the list is about who's the best, she probably should have won it, but c'est la vie.

Cosmic Voices
Nov 27th, 2012, 06:58 PM
I forgot to write the word: currently.
Currently, Sharapova is not a better player than Williams and Azarenka :)

well I understand that point, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic?
shouldn't we be comparing the new generation of players like watson, robson, stephens and genie?

Arthur.
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:13 PM
well I understand that point, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic?
shouldn't we be comparing the new generation of players like watson, robson, stephens and genie?

No problems with Sharapova, I just quoted her to give some arguments for my idea: in the same way Sharapova does not deserve this year that Award (Serena Williams was the player who should have got it in my opinion) and the Award does not make her better than the other two players I have talked about, Laura and her Award don't make her better than Stephens and Watson for now.
Bouchard is behind them at the moment, next year is going to be important to see her progresses.

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:32 PM
LethalLaura? Yeah, he/she's just been added to my ignore list.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're in the top 100 you are elite. Being one of the 100 best of anything makes you elite. Is she an elite player in the same way Serena Williams is? No, but that doesn't change the fact that Sloane started and ended the year among the 100 best tennis players in the world.



At a WTA level, Sloane does have more experience than Robson, there's no way around that. But you're right, the "Laura's more of a newcomer" argument is pretty shit because whether or not Sloane should have been included, she was. If the list is about who's the best, she probably should have won it, but c'est la vie.

You made a thread about Laura in the player forums and now you're saying she doesn't deserve the award??
Hypocrite much.

And you're British, so unpatrotic as usual. We finally have some British girls doing well and you're not willing to support them.

lovethegame
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:39 PM
Well done WTA...Really well done Laura. Exciting tennis is rewarded.
Keep the results coming in 2013.

Londoner
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:45 PM
Lmaoo. Sweetie don't even try and bring racism into this. The other girls were doing well from last year. Laura was doing nothing last year. She finally got it together at the end of this year. She deserves this fair and square.

So you can get your hating backside outta here. :wavey:

This. Before I opened the thread I knew someone would try and bring up race!

Londoner
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:48 PM
You made a thread about Laura in the player forums and now you're saying she doesn't deserve the award??
Hypocrite much.

And you're British, so unpatrotic as usual. We finally have some British girls doing well and you're not willing to support them.

Quoting you again! I agree, and her being British probably helped sway the award in her favour as it is a rarity to have a player with her potential.

Doully
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:48 PM
You made a thread about Laura in the player forums and now you're saying she doesn't deserve the award??
Hypocrite much.

And you're British, so unpatrotic as usual. We finally have some British girls doing well and you're not willing to support them.

Don't come at people with that. That's ridiculous.

As a Scot I loathe the expectation of having to support Murray (a player who's game and attitude I have no time for).

Our nationality does not have to reflect who we support.

KeysisGOAT
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:52 PM
Also, patriotism paid no part of my decision. Sloane performed better this year than Laura. She has the ranking points to prove it. Therefore, I would have voted for her. This has been my thought process ever since the list was announced. Just because I'm a fan of Laura and have no strong opinion about Sloane doesn't mean I'm blind or willing to judge them in a non-objective manner.

I dislike Serena Williams. However, I consider her to be the best player on tour by a considerable margin.

TL;DR I do my best to be a fan, not a fool.

Cosmic Voices
Nov 27th, 2012, 07:54 PM
Don't come at people with that. That's ridiculous.

As a Scot I loathe the expectation of having to support Murray (a player who's game and attitude I have no time for).

Our nationality does not have to reflect who we support.

Very true, at Wimbledon I cringe when the crowd are literally sobbing at Baltacha having mp after 3 hours on the tennis court playing the first round against a player she should legitimately beat :sobbing:

but as a Brit I sometimes support Heather + Laura, and especially in 2012 Murray. Though he isn't top on my list of ATP players I support, but I think it was important for him to breakthrough in the top 4

Setsuna.
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:27 PM
Barthel is just a new "Sharapova wannabe" (i speak about game ) A number of players tried this way to success , still far from it...

:facepalm:

BS as usual from you. I wouldn't be a big fan of her if that was the case since I dislike Maria's game. Mona plays nothing like her.

Setsuna.
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:31 PM
I think nobody can argue with the fact that Barthel is in a completely different league than Robson when it comes to raw talent.

+1.

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:36 PM
Don't come at people with that. That's ridiculous.

As a Scot I loathe the expectation of having to support Murray (a player who's game and attitude I have no time for).

Our nationality does not have to reflect who we support.

Why not??

The English have always been unpatrotic, Americans will always support their own. This is a big thing for a Brtish female tennis player right now and some of the British are saying Laura doesn't deserve the award which is ridiculous.

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:39 PM
Also, patriotism paid no part of my decision. Sloane performed better this year than Laura. She has the ranking points to prove it. Therefore, I would have voted for her. This has been my thought process ever since the list was announced. Just because I'm a fan of Laura and have no strong opinion about Sloane doesn't mean I'm blind or willing to judge them in a non-objective manner.

I dislike Serena Williams. However, I consider her to be the best player on tour by a considerable margin.

TL;DR I do my best to be a fan, not a fool.

You're clearly a fool then. I don't think you should even bother posting in Laura's players forum. You clearly don't support her and wish her well in her career. :rolleyes:

KournikovaFan91
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:42 PM
This thread :rolleyes: The forum will be so unbearable if Laura starts doing well :tape:

Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:43 PM
:baby: :baby: :baby:

nazzac
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:47 PM
:lol:

LOL at some of the crap in this thread

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:48 PM
This is a big thing for a Brtish female tennis player right now and some of the British are saying Laura doesn't deserve the award which is ridiculous.

First off, just because they're British doesn't mean they should agree with this. Labeling them unpatriotic is even more stupid if we consider the fact that the player who should have won this award is British as well... :rolleyes:

Olórin
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:50 PM
I am already loving Laura's capacity to evoke strong emotions on this forum :hearts:
Keep people going back and forth Miss. Robson! :yeah:

Brad[le]y.
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:51 PM
First off, just because they're British doesn't mean they should agree with this. Labeling them unpatriotic is even more stupid if we consider the fact that the player who should have won this award is British as well... :rolleyes:

Does it really matter? :spit:

It's not like Heather did anything that Robson didn't do besides win a title. Robson beat much bigger names as well. It's not like this award means anything; I mean Begu won it last year :rolls:

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:55 PM
"besides win a title.." That's what counts, isn't it? Winning a title, keeping your head cool in a final etc. is simply worth much more than just 1-2 big matches.

But it's not about that. The British press is obviously trying hard to hype Robson which is understandable because that's what the media does...what pisses me off is that the WTA validates this kind of stuff with decisions like these. This should purely be about sport and if it would, Robson would simply not be the logical choice.

JamieOwen3
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:57 PM
And here's to you, Miss. Robson,
TF loves you more than you will know. Hey, Hey, Hey

:oh:

http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af264/JamieOwen3/133287714653605.gif

KeysisGOAT
Nov 27th, 2012, 08:59 PM
"besides win a title.." That's what counts, isn't it? Winning a title, keeping your head cool in a final etc. is simply worth much more than just 1-2 big matches.

But it's not about that. The British press is obviously trying hard to hype Robson which is understandable because that's what the media does...what pisses me off is that the WTA validates this kind of stuff with decisions like these. This should purely be about sport and if it would, Robson would simply not be the logical choice.

In the WTA's defence, they didn't choose the winner. Journalists did.

saint2
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:00 PM
How about stop that nonsense bullshit talk (both sides makes no sence tbh), and just give all three nominated girls their subforums instead.

Brad[le]y.
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:01 PM
"besides win a title.." That's what counts, isn't it? Winning a title, keeping your head cool in a final etc. is simply worth much more than just 1-2 big matches.

But it's not about that. The British press is obviously trying hard to hype Robson which is understandable because that's what the media does...what pisses me off is that the WTA validates this kind of stuff with decisions like these. This should purely be about sport and if it would, Robson would simply not be the logical choice.

Robson made the 4R of a slam beating Clijsters who hadn't lost at the USO in over a decade and Li Na who was one of the more in form players in the USO series.

I'd argue that an MM title is of less importance than Robson's impressive slam run but that's just me :shrug:

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:03 PM
y.;22524405']Robson made the 4R of a slam beating Clijsters who hadn't lost at the USO in over a decade and Li Na who was one of the more in form players in the USO series.



As much as I like Kim but she was on her way out this year and never played close to her peak. Beating her sounds more impressive on paper than it actually was.

Mr.Sharapova
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:04 PM
Very well deserved :yeah:.

Setsuna.
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:06 PM
"besides win a title.." That's what counts, isn't it? Winning a title, keeping your head cool in a final etc. is simply worth much more than just 1-2 big matches.

But it's not about that. The British press is obviously trying hard to hype Robson which is understandable because that's what the media does...what pisses me off is that the WTA validates this kind of stuff with decisions like these. This should purely be about sport and if it would, Robson would simply not be the logical choice.

Can't goodrep you again. Well said.

Brad[le]y.
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:06 PM
As much as I like Kim but she was on her way out this year and never played close to her peak. Beating her sounds more impressive on paper than it actually was.

Sure she was no where near her peak but she was still showing the world that she was the best defender in the women's game. Kim didn't play that badly in that match imo.

I'm nowhere near a fan of Laura but give credit where it's due. :lol:

Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:08 PM
In the WTA's defence, they didn't choose the winner. Journalists did.

But then again, it's the WTA's choice to let journalists vote. Just to point that out.

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:11 PM
First off, just because they're British doesn't mean they should agree with this. Labeling them unpatriotic is even more stupid if we consider the fact that the player who should have won this award is British as well... :rolleyes:

The poster i'm referring to said SLOANE should have won who is American. They did not mention Heather. :rolleyes:

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:12 PM
The poster in referring to said SLOANE should have won who us American. They did not mention Heather. :rolleyes:

Still, the whole idea of being in favor of someone just because they share your nationality is nuts.

KeysisGOAT
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:13 PM
But then again, it's the WTA's choice to let journalists vote. Just wanted to point that out.

Very true, but they had no influence on the actual outcome. A list of talented newcomers for this year would have been incomplete without Laura, especially in light of her USO run.

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:15 PM
Very true, but they had no influence on the actual outcome. A list of talented newcomers for this year would have been incomplete without Laura, especially in light of her USO run.

Still, letting the jounralists vote when one of the players is a major press pet is simply a disadvantage for the other players in the running.

It's another small puzzle piece of the global problem that the WTA ultimately cares more about marketability, media and hype then the actual sport.

Natural Joe
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:15 PM
The poster in referring to said SLOANE should have won who us American. They did not mention Heather. :rolleyes:

Who cares? It's his opinion and he elaborated it objectively (at least that's my impression) so there's no need to attack him just because he's British. :o

cn ireland
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:18 PM
Congrats Laura, well deserved:yeah:

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:19 PM
y.;22524417']Sure she was no where near her peak but she was still showing the world that she was the best defender in the women's game. Kim didn't play that badly in that match imo.

I'm nowhere near a fan of Laura but give credit where it's due. :lol:

Exactly!! :yeah:

So many damn haters in this thread. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bitches need to realise Laura won and they have to get over it. :wavey:

KeysisGOAT
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:24 PM
Still, letting the jounralists vote when one of the players is a major press pet is simply a disadvantage for the other players in the running.

It's another small puzzle piece of the global problem that the WTA ultimately cares more about marketability, media and hype then the actual sport.

Would you have preferred a public vote? It's not like the outcome would have been very different. One of the things that arises from being a press pet is that the general public is more likely to be aware/be a fan of you.

Also, the WTA's apparent crusade against the ITF concerns me more than them pushing the marketable people rather than the more 'talented' ones. You need a mix of both to succeed. A charisma free robot who plays great tennis isn't going to draw a crowd like someone with charisma going spare but not a great deal of talent, while the inverse is true with regards to watchable matches.

Royals.
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:25 PM
Still, letting the jounralists vote when one of the players is a major press pet is simply a disadvantage for the other players in the running.

It's another small puzzle piece of the global problem that the WTA ultimately cares more about marketability, media and hype then the actual sport.

I don't blame them, Laura can actually speak proper English which is better than what half of the girls in the Top 100 can do.

It's all about money, and Laura has the ability to make WTA more widely known. What's wrong with that? It'll be a good thing for WTA.

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:27 PM
I don't blame them, Laura can actually speak proper English which is better than what half of the girls in the Top 100 can do.

It's all about money, and Laura has the ability to make WTA more widely known. What's wrong with that? It'll be a good thing fir WTA.

Lets hear your second-langauge skills before you start ripping into other people...what an ignorant statement.

And no, it's not a good thing. The last thing we need are more hyped-up media darlings, the current ones really suffice imo.

C. Drone
Nov 27th, 2012, 09:45 PM
"besides win a title.." That's what counts, isn't it? Winning a title, keeping your head cool in a final etc. is simply worth much more than just 1-2 big matches.

But it's not about that. The British press is obviously trying hard to hype Robson which is understandable because that's what the media does...what pisses me off is that the WTA validates this kind of stuff with decisions like these. This should purely be about sport and if it would, Robson would simply not be the logical choice.

Naivety is cute, once.
Nobody cares about the sport. Money talks. Therefore Robson IS the logical choice.

dsanders06
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:03 PM
:spit: at people seriously trying to claim Watson had a better season than Laura. Even Heather probably would admit that she would trade in her Guangzhou title for Laura's US Open run. You guys do actually realise that, even going by the WTA's ranking system, Heather's title and Laura's USO 4R get EXACTLY THE SAME POINTS? :rolls: And that's not even taking into account that most would agree Laura's run saw her beat more quality players than a standard run to the 4R at a Slam. So much for Heather's title being infinitely better.

And :rolls: at the desperation of people again trying to claim Heather is the victim of racism by the British press, even though she has long since got much more press coverage than Elena Baltacha for example, despite Baltacha being indisputably more accomplished than Watson up until 2 months ago.

Post of the thread is Jimmie48 claiming Barthel is guaranteed to have a better career than Robson.

Nicolás89
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:11 PM
Laura was the youngest player to defeat a top ten this year. :)

lovethegame
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotre
Also, patriotism paid no part of my decision. Sloane performed better this year than Laura. She has the ranking points to prove it. Therefore, I would have voted for her. This has been my thought process ever since the list was announced. Just because I'm a fan of Laura and have no strong opinion about Sloane doesn't mean I'm blind or willing to judge them in a non-objective manner.

I dislike Serena Williams. However, I consider her to be the best player on tour by a considerable margin.

TL;DR I do my best to be a fan, not a fool.


Kotre: you put Laura on your hate list.....what sort of fan are you? One that Laura doesnt need...

Laura has done really well but I am proud of both British players...so nice to read about our girls doing so well

Jimmie48
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:44 PM
Post of the thread is Jimmie48 claiming Barthel is guaranteed to have a better career than Robson.

Which I of course never said but don't you let facts stop you from making up your ramblings... :)

MrProdigy555
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:49 PM
Which I of course never said but don't you let facts stop you from making up your ramblings... :)
You know he never does. :lol:

Julian.
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:50 PM
Well deserved :yeah:

JarkaFish
Nov 27th, 2012, 11:54 PM
Laura was the youngest player to defeat a top ten this year. :)

Li Na beat herself.

Pops Maellard
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:14 AM
She's not even remotely a newcomer though. She won junior Wimbledon in 2008 and since then has been a struggling pro, only just getting some success this year, 4 years later.

I don't mind Laura (hype aside) but these awards are never given to those who actually fit the description.

I think it kinda shows there's a lack of truly good newcomers, so they give it to those who are young but still been around a few years.

Jeffery
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:18 AM
Congrats Robson!

You deserve it.

JarkaFish
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:25 AM
She's not even remotely a newcomer though. She won junior Wimbledon in 2008 and since then has been a struggling pro, only just getting some success this year, 4 years later.

I don't mind Laura (hype aside) but these awards are never given to those who actually fit the description.

I think it kinda shows there's a lack of truly good newcomers, so they give it to those who are young but still been around a few years.

I'd say Donna Vekic is a truly good newcomer.

16 years old, reached a WTA final, and is just outside the top 100.

Of course she's Croatian so she can be ignored though.

Pops Maellard
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:27 AM
I'd say Donna Vekic is a truly good newcomer.

16 years old, reached a WTA final, and is just outside the top 100.

Of course she's Croatian so she can be ignored though.
3 years or so from now she'll get the award :p

KeysisGOAT
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:30 AM
She's not even remotely a newcomer though. She won junior Wimbledon in 2008 and since then has been a struggling pro, only just getting some success this year, 4 years later.

I don't mind Laura (hype aside) but these awards are never given to those who actually fit the description.

I think it kinda shows there's a lack of truly good newcomers, so they give it to those who are young but still been around a few years.

...If Laura doesn't count as a newcomer, nobody on the list does. Sloane turned pro in '09 and ended last year in the top 100. Heather turned pro in 2010 and also ended the year in the top 100. Bertens, like Sloane turned pro in 2009. So yes, Robson's been a pro longer than any of them, having turned pro in 2008. But unlike them, this is her first year where she doesn't have the junior restrictions. Which is why she still counts as a newcomer.

JarkaFish
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:34 AM
Newcomer of the Year Second-Half of the Year US Open

binky-GOAT
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:37 AM
Newcomer of the Year Second-Half of the Year US Open beating erratic Li and retiring Kim

:lol:

Fixed.

coolfish1103
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:48 AM
Newcomer of the Year Second-Half of the Year US Open

It's Media Hype of the Year.

...If Laura doesn't count as a newcomer, nobody on the list does. Sloane turned pro in '09 and ended last year in the top 100. Heather turned pro in 2010 and also ended the year in the top 100. Bertens, like Sloane turned pro in 2009. So yes, Robson's been a pro longer than any of them, having turned pro in 2008. But unlike them, this is her first year where she doesn't have the junior restrictions. Which is why she still counts as a newcomer.

The name of the award is wrong, the nomination is wrong, and the election process is wrong.

Just change it to Media Hype of the Year and there would be 0 question on Robson winning it :lol:

I'd say Donna Vekic is a truly good newcomer.

16 years old, reached a WTA final, and is just outside the top 100.

Of course she's Croatian so she can be ignored though.

Donna Vekic +1. There are enough talented players that the WTA and Media can find, they are probably just not marketable (like Barthel acne).

KeysisGOAT
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:57 AM
It's Media Hype of the Year.

Wait, you mean an award voted on by journalists went to the player that journalists have been hyping for years? Well I never.

The name of the award is wrong, the nomination is wrong, and the election process is wrong.

If it's wrong, what's your solution. How would you pick a "newcomer of the year"? It's all very well to say it's shit, but unless you've got a better way to do things, sit down.

Just change it to Media Hype of the Year and there would be 0 question on Robson winning it :lol:

There would. Unless you're new to the internet you'd realise that no matter how sensible the opinion, there's always going to be people who vocally disagree. Though the idea of someone trying to sell the idea that Robson isn't hyped to hell and back would be funny to watch.

Donna Vekic +1. There are enough talented players that the WTA and Media can find, they are probably just not marketable (like Barthel acne).

If Vekic doesn't win next year, I riot. Unless she has a thoroughly mediocre year while some other young player has a spectacular showing. I'm fickle like that.

coolfish1103
Nov 28th, 2012, 01:52 AM
If it's wrong, what's your solution. How would you pick a "newcomer of the year"? It's all very well to say it's shit, but unless you've got a better way to do things, sit down.

Why do I have to sit down when others hype like this? I am not your kids, go lecture your own.

You didn't see our solution? Change the name of the award, simple.

Patrick345
Nov 28th, 2012, 02:56 AM
It's Media Hype of the Year.



The name of the award is wrong, the nomination is wrong, and the election process is wrong.

Just change it to Media Hype of the Year and there would be 0 question on Robson winning it :lol:



Donna Vekic +1. There are enough talented players that the WTA and Media can find, they are probably just not marketable (like Barthel acne).

Vekic will win this award in the near future. 100% guarantee. The point of the award is to pick a player that have shown the ability to hang with the elite players, so you can expect the player to stay relevant in the near future. Barthel was the player that fit the criteria most besides Robson and to not even nominate her due to her acne should be a big deal.

But they are not giving this award to players like Pervak, Bertens or Watson, whose peak is around 25-30 in the world (if that), just because they got hot and ran through a very weak international that nobody besides us hardcore fans cares about. That´s why Begu won over Pervak last year, although McHale should have won based on upside and quality of opposition defeated.

JarkaFish
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:02 AM
..

NashaMasha
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:17 AM
2012 Laura Robson United Kingdom
2011 Irina-Camelia Begu Romania
2010 Petra Kvitová Czech Republic
2009 Melanie Oudin United States
2008 Caroline Wozniacki Denmark
2007 Ágnes Szávay Hungary
2006 Agnieszka Radwańska Poland
2005 Sania Mirza India
2004 Tatiana Golovin France
2003 Maria Sharapova Russia
2002 Svetlana Kuznetsova Russia
2001 Daniela Hantuchová Slovakia
2000 Dája Bedáňová Czech Republic
1999 Kim Clijsters Belgium
1998 Serena Williams United States
1997 Venus Williams United States
1996 Anna Kournikova Russia
1995 Martina Hingis Switzerland
1994 Irina Spîrlea Romania
1993 Iva Majoli Croatia
1992 Debbie Graham United States
1991 Andrea Strnadová Czechoslovakia
1990 Jennifer Capriati United States
1989 Conchita Martínez Spain
1988 Natalia Zvereva Soviet Union
1987 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario Spain
1986 Stephanie Rehe United States
1985 Gabriela Sabatini Argentina
1984 Manuela Maleeva Fragniere Bulgaria
1983 Carling Bassett Seguso Canada
1982 Zina Garrison United States
1981 Kathy Rinaldi United States
1980 Andrea Jaeger United States
1979 Kathy Jordan United States
1978 Pam Shriver United States
1977 Tracy Austin United States

checking this list i don't see any problems with Robson being newcomer of 2012, it's not an award given for absolutely unknown players in their first-second pro season, It's more an award for players who show potential to be on par against top players, WTA's prediction of a new star

Patrick345
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:24 AM
checking this list i don't see any problems with Robson being newcomer of 2012, it's not an award given for absolutely unknown players in their first-second pro season, It's more an award for players who show potential to be on par against top players, WTA's prediction of a new star

Exactly. And it makes perfect sense. From 1993 onwards the list worked out pretty well.

Cajka
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:58 AM
I'd say Donna Vekic is a truly good newcomer.

16 years old, reached a WTA final, and is just outside the top 100.

Of course she's Croatian so she can be ignored though.

Vekić should've won this totally. Only few months ago she was barely a top 500 player, but you know what? I think it's good for her that she didn't win this award, she's not hyped at all, she was making her progress silently and that's how it should remain. If we take a look at the bigger picture, this award is meaningless if you don't back it up with good results in future and I have a really good feeling about Donna.

MrProdigy555
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:23 AM
Newcomer of the Year Second-Half of the Year US Open

:lol:

Fixed.

D.E.A.D.

Harry.
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:27 AM
Annika Beck should have gotten nominated at least. She's had such a breakout year. :o

coolfish1103
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:42 AM
I should probably use points instead of rankings but there's different ranking system in place in the past.


2012 Laura Robson United Kingdom 131 -> 53 R1|R1|R1|R4
2011 Irina-Camelia Begu Romania 214 -> 40 Q3|R2|R1|R1
2010 Petra Kvitová Czech Republic 62 -> 34 R2|R1|SF|R3
2009 Melanie Oudin United States 177 -> 49 R1|R1|R4|QF

2008 Caroline Wozniacki Denmark 64 -> 12 R4|R3|R3|R4 + Stockholm/New Haven/Tokyo W
2007 Ágnes Szávay Hungary 207 -> 20 Q2|R2|R2|QF + Beijing/Palermo W
2006 Agnieszka Radwańska Poland 381 -> 57 --|--|R4|R2
2005 Sania Mirza India 206 -> 31 R3|R1|R2|R4 + Hyderbad W
2004 Tatiana Golovin France 354 -> 27 R4|R1|R4|R3


I should probably tag ITF 100k results in there and it will go even more lopsided.


checking this list i don't see any problems with Robson being newcomer of 2012, it's not an award given for absolutely unknown players in their first-second pro season, It's more an award for players who show potential to be on par against top players, WTA's prediction of a new star

I feel sorry for Barthel and her acne if this is the case. She wasn't even nominated :help:

faboozadoo15
Nov 28th, 2012, 06:26 AM
Robson is like the 4th most deserving player for this. But it's relatively insignificant.

I'll enjoy seeing Sloane beat the cocky shit out of her in 2013.

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 07:35 AM
Robson is like the 4th most deserving player for this. But it's relatively insignificant.

I'll enjoy seeing Sloane beat the cocky shit out of her in 2013.

WTF?! They've never played each other, and I'm sure Laura will be ready for her.

How is Laura cocky?! She is so humble, if you don't know her personality shut the fuck up.:wavey:

andyjason
Nov 28th, 2012, 08:34 AM
Why not??

The English have always been unpatrotic, Americans will always support their own. This is a big thing for a Brtish female tennis player right now and some of the British are saying Laura doesn't deserve the award which is ridiculous.

Didn't you see how the British crowd in Wim cheer for the British players??????

Chrissie-fan
Nov 28th, 2012, 08:42 AM
So many damn haters in this thread. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bitches need to realise Laura won and they have to get over it. :wavey:
Brace yourself. If she already gets this much crap now you know what you can expect when she really gets going, and the better she'll do the worse it will get.

andyjason
Nov 28th, 2012, 08:46 AM
Anyone knows did Oudin got much praise when she beat Dementieva, Sharapova and Petrova in 2009 USO?
I think Robson just being the same as Oudin beating top players in Slam.
You know Slam is over everything.
R4 in slam got 280 points and a winner of MM got 280 points.
Which one do you pick???

Raiden
Nov 28th, 2012, 09:24 AM
I don't blame them, Laura can actually speak proper English which is better than what half of the girls in the Top 100 can do.

It's all about money, and Laura has the ability to make WTA more widely known. What's wrong with that? It'll be a good thing for WTA.In other words it's merit-less phony hype.

There you heard it folks - straight from Robson's most rabid stan.

Raiden
Nov 28th, 2012, 09:27 AM
It's Media Hype of the Year.

(...) The name of the award is wrong, the nomination is wrong, and the election process is wrong.

Just change it to Media Hype of the Year and there would be 0 question on Robson winning it :clap2:

StoneRose
Nov 28th, 2012, 09:57 AM
It's Media Hype of the Year.
The name of the award is wrong, the nomination is wrong, and the election process is wrong.
This, it's a meaningless award.

stromatolite
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:19 AM
I'm a firm believer in the old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That probably applies to an award like this more than to most things. Looking at the past recipients, I'd say the WTA hasn't done a bad job of spotting future talent.

1977 Tracy Austin
1978 Pam Shriver
1979 Kathy Jordan
1980 Andrea Jaeger
1981 Kathy Rinaldi Stunkel
1982 Zina Garrison
1983 Carling Bassett-Seguso
1984 Manuela Maleeva-Fragničre
1985 Gabriela Sabatini
1986 Stephanie Rehe
1987 Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario
1988 Natasha Zvereva
1989 Conchita Martínez
1990 Jennifer Capriati
1991 Andrea Strnadova
1992 Debbie Graham
1993 Iva Majoli
1995 Martina Hingis
1996 Anna Kournikova
1997 Venus Williams
1998 Serena Williams
1999 Kim Clijsters
2000 Daja Bedanova
2001 Daniela Hantuchova
2002 Svetlana Kuznetsova
2003 Maria Sharapova
2004 Tatiana Golovin
2005 Sania Mirza
2006 Agnieszka Radwanska
2007 Agnes Szavay
2008 Caroline Wozniacki
2009 Melanie Oudin
2010 Petra Kvitova
2011 Irina-Camelia Begu
2012 Laura Robson


A few duds to be sure, but they got it right a lot more often than not.

Raiden
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:31 AM
I'm a firm believer in the old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That probably applies to an award like this more than to most things. Looking at the past recipients, I'd say the WTA hasn't done a bad job of spotting future talent.

1977 Tracy Austin
1978 Pam Shriver
1979 Kathy Jordan
1980 Andrea Jaeger
1981 Kathy Rinaldi Stunkel
1982 Zina Garrison
1983 Carling Bassett-Seguso
1984 Manuela Maleeva-Fragničre
1985 Gabriela Sabatini
1986 Stephanie Rehe
1987 Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario
1988 Natasha Zvereva
1989 Conchita Martínez
1990 Jennifer Capriati
1991 Andrea Strnadova
1992 Debbie Graham
1993 Iva Majoli
1995 Martina Hingis
1996 Anna Kournikova
1997 Venus Williams
1998 Serena Williams
1999 Kim Clijsters
2000 Daja Bedanova
2001 Daniela Hantuchova
2002 Svetlana Kuznetsova
2003 Maria Sharapova
2004 Tatiana Golovin
2005 Sania Mirza
2006 Agnieszka Radwanska
2007 Agnes Szavay
2008 Caroline Wozniacki
2009 Melanie Oudin
2010 Petra Kvitova
2011 Irina-Camelia Begu
2012 Laura Robson


A few duds to be sure, but they got it right a lot more often than not.No, they are getting it wrong more and more (they're degenerating - their rate/propensity to pick 'duds' as you called them, has actually increased in recent years):

1977 Tracy Austin
1978 Pam Shriver
1979 Kathy Jordan
1980 Andrea Jaeger
1981 Kathy Rinaldi Stunkel
1982 Zina Garrison
1983 Carling Bassett-Seguso
1984 Manuela Maleeva-Fragničre
1985 Gabriela Sabatini
1986 Stephanie Rehe
1987 Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario
1988 Natasha Zvereva
1989 Conchita Martínez
1990 Jennifer Capriati
1991 Andrea Strnadova
1992 Debbie Graham
1993 Iva Majoli
1995 Martina Hingis
1996 Anna Kournikova
1997 Venus Williams
1998 Serena Williams
1999 Kim Clijsters
2000 Daja Bedanova
2001 Daniela Hantuchova
2002 Svetlana Kuznetsova
2003 Maria Sharapova
2004 Tatiana Golovin
2005 Sania Mirza
2006 Agnieszka Radwanska
2007 Agnes Szavay
2008 Caroline Wozniacki
2009 Melanie Oudin
2010 Petra Kvitova
2011 Irina-Camelia Begu
2012 Laura Robson

sweetadri06
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:35 AM
I agree with the quality decreasing as years go by. The only newcomer they picked in the last 8 years that has a chance to rack up many slams is Kvitova.

Chrissie-fan
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:40 AM
Wrong.

Your own list contradicts your point: clearly, WTA's propensity to pick 'duds' as you called them, has actually increased in recent years.

Depends on who the other candidates were in the years when they picked a 'dud.' Not every year produces a newcomer that will become a worldbeater. And how do you know that Robson will be one of those 'duds' anyway?

KeysisGOAT
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:41 AM
Isn't it a bit soon to judge whether Robson and Begu are duds?

Chrissie-fan
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:47 AM
I agree with the quality decreasing as years go by. The only newcomer they picked in the last 8 years that has a chance to rack up many slams is Kvitova.
If that's the standard that's required they should only choose a newcomer every five years and they can't do that because the imaginary newcomer today who is expected to win "many slams" may already have done that by the time the five year cycle for which she'd be eligable is over.

stromatolite
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:47 AM
Wrong.

Your own list contradicts your point: clearly, WTA's propensity to pick 'duds' as you called them, has actually increased in recent years.

1977 Tracy Austin
1978 Pam Shriver
1979 Kathy Jordan
1980 Andrea Jaeger
1981 Kathy Rinaldi Stunkel
1982 Zina Garrison
1983 Carling Bassett-Seguso
1984 Manuela Maleeva-Fragničre
1985 Gabriela Sabatini
1986 Stephanie Rehe
1987 Arantxa Sánchez-Vicario
1988 Natasha Zvereva
1989 Conchita Martínez
1990 Jennifer Capriati
1991 Andrea Strnadova
1992 Debbie Graham
1993 Iva Majoli
1995 Martina Hingis
1996 Anna Kournikova
1997 Venus Williams
1998 Serena Williams
1999 Kim Clijsters
2000 Daja Bedanova
2001 Daniela Hantuchova
2002 Svetlana Kuznetsova
2003 Maria Sharapova
2004 Tatiana Golovin
2005 Sania Mirza
2006 Agnieszka Radwanska
2007 Agnes Szavay
2008 Caroline Wozniacki
2009 Melanie Oudin
2010 Petra Kvitova
2011 Irina-Camelia Begu
2012 Laura Robson

You are so obsessed it's actually quite funny. Leaving aside the fact that a few of those you are already labeling duds (including Robson:facepalm:) have most of their careers still ahead of them, the percentage of duds in any given period proves nothing more than the fact that some periods have more obvious winners than others. Despite that, 6 out of 10 non-duds in the ten year period 2001-2010 is still pretty good in my book.

It can't be denied that the choice for Laura is less obvious than was, say, the choice for Serena or Maria when they won, but that doesn't make it a bad choice. None of this year's candidates (or those some think should have been candidates) are hugely obvious future stars like Serena was when she burst on the scene. But they had to choose somebody, and whether you like it or not, Laura fits the bill (young, improved, some big wins against high-ranked opponents) as well or better than the others. It wouldn't have been a huge shock if one of the others had won, but for fuck's sake stop trying to portray the choice for Laura as some kind of travesty.

sweetadri06
Nov 28th, 2012, 10:54 AM
If that's the standard that's required they should only choose a newcomer every five years and they can't do that because the imaginary newcomer today who is expected to win "many slams" may already have done that by the time the five year cycle for which she'd be eligable is over.

Well i was just commenting on the decline of talent pool. It's a real difference from picking Serena/Venus and Kim to Oudin and Szavay.

JamieOwen3
Nov 28th, 2012, 11:06 AM
1995-1999 :sobbing: quite a run of great names.

Viktymise
Nov 28th, 2012, 11:27 AM
Why the fuck did Kvitova win in 2010? She won a title and made the 4th Round of the USO in 09. Not to mention the 4th round of RG in 08.... :facepalm: :SEWTA:

Dawson.
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:05 PM
1981 Kathy Rinaldi Stunkel
1983 Carling Bassett-Seguso
2004 Tatiana Golovin

:facepalm: Any point you make about tennis from here on is automatically invalid.

JarkaFish
Nov 28th, 2012, 12:40 PM
Robson is like the 4th most deserving player for this. But it's relatively insignificant.

I'll enjoy seeing Sloane beat the cocky shit out of her in 2013.Sloane vs Robson? I'd love to watch that one.

Beat
Nov 28th, 2012, 01:20 PM
"Robson finished the year with another WTA quarterfinal over in Osaka."

that kinda made me laugh :lol: no offence.

No, they are getting it wrong more and more (they're degenerating - their rate/propensity to pick 'duds' as you called them, has actually increased in recent years):

that's silly, this award is not called "brightest hope for WTA's future", it's simply about who was - supposedly - the best newcomer that year. you can't honestly blame anyone for picking mirza and szavay for example?

dsanders06
Nov 28th, 2012, 02:16 PM
Which I of course never said but don't you let facts stop you from making up your ramblings... :)

Then what did you mean when you said Barthel was in another league talentwise? :lol:

Ollie.
Nov 28th, 2012, 02:28 PM
Well done Laura. :yeah:

KournikovaFan91
Nov 28th, 2012, 02:51 PM
:facepalm: Any point you make about tennis from here on is automatically invalid.

Yeah Tati should be added to the dud pile but he is pretty much spot on with the rest of the list.

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:26 PM
Depends on who the other candidates were in the years when they picked a 'dud.' Not every year produces a newcomer that will become a worldbeater. And how do you know that Robson will be one of those 'duds' anyway?

Yeah, very early to judge. That bitch thinks she can predict the future. :rolleyes:

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:28 PM
You are so obsessed it's actually quite funny.Leaving aside the fact that a few of those you are already labeling duds (including Robson:facepalm:) have most of their careers still ahead of them, the percentage of duds in any given period proves nothing more than the fact that some periods have more obvious winners than others. Despite that, 6 out of 10 non-duds in the ten year period 2001-2010 is still pretty good in my book.

It can't be denied that the choice for Laura is less obvious than was, say, the choice for Serena or Maria when they won, but that doesn't make it a bad choice. None of this year's candidates (or those some think should have been candidates) are hugely obvious future stars like Serena was when she burst on the scene. But they had to choose somebody, and whether you like it or not, Laura fits the bill (young, improved, some big wins against high-ranked opponents) as well or better than the others. It wouldn't have been a huge shock if one of the others had won, but for fuck's sake stop trying to portray the choice for Laura as some kind of travesty.

Yes she is! Laura sure does attract the psycho haters. :help: :help:

Jimmie48
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:46 PM
Then what did you mean when you said Barthel was in another league talentwise? :lol:

Uh, it means just that. But talent doesn't necessarily result in a successful career nor did I "guarantee" anything. Your statement is simply false..

But yes, Barthel has obviously much more talent and I don't think you'll find any serious experts who would argue with that.

Jimmie48
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:48 PM
Yes she is! Laura sure does attract the psycho haters. :help: :help:

Please, stop this cringeworthy nonsense. She isn't even significant enough to have haters.... aside from the British press nobody cares. So please stop this attention-seeking behavior and stop looking to stir up drama to make her (and you) look more significant than she actually is.

MrProdigy555
Nov 28th, 2012, 03:49 PM
I don't think Laura deserves to be shat on by everyone. :lol:

Each candidate was worthy, in my opinion.

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:20 PM
Please, stop this cringeworthy nonsense. She isn't even significant enough to have haters.... aside from the British press nobody cares. So please stop this attention-seeking behavior and stop looking to stir up drama to make her (and you) look more significant than she actually is.

LMAO. You're the one who keeps posting in here saying Laura does not deserve the award and blah blah blah. So she CLEARLY is significant enough for your hating backside to be on her case non stop. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Chrissie-fan
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:21 PM
Please, stop this cringeworthy nonsense. She isn't even significant enough to have haters.... aside from the British press nobody cares. So please stop this attention-seeking behavior and stop looking to stir up drama to make her (and you) look more significant than she actually is.
Quite at odds with your claim that she's constantly hyped, ain't it?

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:22 PM
I don't think Laura deserves to be shat on by everyone. :lol:

Each candidate was worthy, in my opinion.

Thanks hunny. At least you're being fair. :)

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:23 PM
Quite at odds with your claim that she's constantly hyped, ain't it?

Oh yes! Chrissie I love you so much! :D

Jimmie is a hypocritical fool, clearly. :)

MrProdigy555
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:23 PM
Thanks hunny. At least you're being fair. :)
You attacked me earlier in this thread...bitch. :lol:

:p

Jimmie48
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:27 PM
Quite at odds with your claim that she's constantly hyped, ain't it?

Er no..not really. Often times the media tries to hype up stuff people are supposed to care about but don't really.

Again, please don't feed LethalLaura's need for attention by validating his behavior. There's no hating in here, the people who disagreed with the award being given to her clearly formulated why they feel this way.

BlueTrees
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:33 PM
I love it how we're "pathetic haters" for disagreeing with this choice, yet LethalLaura is bitching in the other thread where Errani got the "Most improved player of the year" award, saying that Kerber deserved it :yawn:

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:45 PM
Er no..not really. Often times the media tries to hype up stuff people are supposed to care about but don't really.

Again, please don't feed LethalLaura's need for attention by validating his behavior. There's no hating in here, the people who disagreed with the award being given to her clearly formulated why they feel this way.

You still cant answer Chrissie's question. You claim Laura's hyped then you say no one cares about her and she's not significant. Yet you can't stop posting on this thread about her success. :lol: :lol:

Lmao. I can't with TF sometimes. :tape: :tape:

BlueTrees
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:46 PM
^Can you just GTFO already? Thanks.

Mr.Sharapova
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:48 PM
^Can you just GTFO already? Thanks.

This.

Royals.
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:50 PM
^Can you just GTFO already? Thanks.

Erm, how about no?

This is a Discussion forum and I'm allowed to post my thoughts. How about you GTFO? Seeing as no one was talking to you. :wavey:

Patrick345
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:52 PM
Yes she is! Laura sure does attract the psycho haters. :help: :help:

Also seems to attract a lot of psycho fans. :lol: Didn´t you call people bitches for disagreeing with the choice of Robson as the Newcomer of the Year. It´s not like you cannot make an argument for a lot of other players this year.

Start da Game
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:53 PM
i am going with jimmie48 on this one......laura robson is not yet big enough to even be hated, let alone be cared and pampered like a queen......

Start da Game
Nov 28th, 2012, 04:54 PM
^Can you just GTFO already? Thanks.

no need to say so.....let her say what she thinks......just deal with what she says.....

Doully
Nov 28th, 2012, 05:01 PM
i am going with jimmie48 on this one......laura robson is not yet big enough to even be hated, let alone be cared and pampered like a queen......

And yet here we are on page 16 over her receiving a WTA Newcomer Award.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mczvcvGDHw1r4t7nto1_250.gif

Start da Game
Nov 28th, 2012, 05:04 PM
And yet here we are on page 16 over her receiving a WTA award.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mczvcvGDHw1r4t7nto1_250.gif

probably everybody said the same in all 16 pages? i haven't read back....

Deestruction
Nov 28th, 2012, 05:28 PM
I dont agree with this choice at all. Mixed dubs she won the olympics not W dubs. And secondly yes shes the youngest in the top 100 but that doesn't mean that she deserves the title just because shes the youngest in the top 10, im a fan of Laura and Heather and all the other girls but this choice wasn't right at all.

And LethalLaura, no one said that they hate Laura, they just doesn't think that she deserves the title. So please calm down. :o

JarkaFish
Nov 28th, 2012, 05:30 PM
I dont agree with this choice at all. Mixed dubs she won the olympics not W dubs. And secondly yes shes the youngest in the top 100 but that doesn't mean that she deserves the title just because shes the youngest in the top 10, im a fan of Laura and Heather and all the other girls but this choice wasn't right at all.

And LethalLaura, no one said that they hate Laura, they just doesn't think that she deserves the title. So please calm down. :o

Actually, Annika Beck is the youngest in the top 100. ;)

Deestruction
Nov 28th, 2012, 05:47 PM
Actually, Annika Beck is the youngest in the top 100. ;)

Oh sorry about that thanks for correcting me :)

KeysisGOAT
Nov 28th, 2012, 06:26 PM
I love it how we're "pathetic haters" for disagreeing with this choice, yet LethalLaura is bitching in the other thread where Errani got the "Most improved player of the year" award, saying that Kerber deserved it :yawn:

Personally, I love how I'm also a pathetic Robson hater. :lol:

Oh LethalLaura, never change. And by never change I mean get banned.

Raiden
Nov 28th, 2012, 07:08 PM
laura robson is not yet big enough to even be hated, let alone be cared and pampered like a queen......Who claimed to hate LR? :lol:

Yer not seeing the forest through the trees, SdG. You're being taking for a ride by the trolls if you think this is about whether we like her or not. That's not the issue here - she didn't give the award to herself, did she? So no one is blaming her for anything.

She's not even the subject. This is about the corrupt, racist, skinist mentality of WTA which has a narrow, airbrushed, sanitized and homogenized concept of marketing. THAT is the issue at hand.

saint2
Nov 28th, 2012, 07:14 PM
1. LethalLaura should calm down. He/she is not helping Laura to winning fans on TF.

2. Can those crackheads who bring race issue here, instead of spreading their BS here, go to "Player Forum Request" and support idea of subforum for either Sloane or Heather...? So far looks like only person who would wish Heather subforum is me- right wing, racist idiot :o

Raiden
Nov 28th, 2012, 07:39 PM
Why not??

The English have always been unpatrotic, Americans will always support their own. This is a big thing for a Brtish female tennis player right now and some of the British are saying Laura doesn't deserve the award which is ridiculous.Forget the Yanks, you rancid little-Englander. Yanks have no king or queen so they'd had to wrap themselves around in something else - that ended up being the flag.

Anyway, so that is what this is all about? Bloody patriotism?

Am I disloyal because I'm not a rabid stan of Misa Krajicek? Am I a traitor because I supported Kim instead of Arantxa Rus? Hell no! Bugger off - go wipe the crumpet off the Union Jack imprint on your tea cup.

Zamboni
Nov 28th, 2012, 07:44 PM
Enough.