Tennis Forum banner

Which was more random - Puig winning the Olympics or Ostapenko winning RG?

  • Puig winning the Olympics

  • Ostapenko winning RG


Results are only viewable after voting.
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Self-explanatory title.

Both were incredibly random moments from players with a lot of potential but no indication that they were close to achieving such big results at that point in their careers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,544 Posts
Always thought Ostapenko had slam winning potential. I'm more surprised that she failed to build on that success. I've never thought Puig had the potential to touch greatness, so of course I'd say her Olympics win was far more random.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,752 Posts
Puig, and it's not even close. Ostapenko win wasn't as random as some people think it was.

For example, Liverpool just won the Premier League with a gigantic difference to the second place. Someone may say it was extremely random, for a team that didn't win the title in more than 30 years to win it 7 rounds before the end. But what is actually weird, is them staying all that time without a title. Ostapenko is a bit similar, her staying all that time without great achievements is random, her winning a big title is not random.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113,600 Posts
Puig by far. Ostapenko was playing some good tennis then, off and on. She had played well in spurts before that. And played okay at 2 Wimbledons, was top 5 once
I dont understand the Puig win at all. That might be the wackiest big title of this century. I think Puig has only 1 slam match win after round 2 and thats for all 4 majors. Once she went past round 3 and then lost that match
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,410 Posts
Puig by a long mile! Ostapenko actually made a Wimbledon QF and SF after that run. She also won titles in Seoul and Luxembourg.

Whereas Monica has only once made the 2nd week of a slam - Wimbledon 2013!!! I don't understand how Puig has never matched the tennis of the Olympics on a consistent basis since.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,899 Posts
Agree that Puig was more... inexplicable. Puig is a very good ballstriker when she's on, but she doesn't have a world-beating peak like Ostapenko does. In the off chance that everything falls into place for Ostapenko, in seven consecutive matches, there's very few that can stop her.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
39,363 Posts
Nothing random about both. They played their game and won. Their success was, for both, to go for their shots when their opponents could not. That's the moral of the sroty, and it's fine.

In short, many other successes of that kind could happen to any player going for her shots. The biggest champions would be those who, against such opponents, would find a superior solution to show that going for the shots may be not enough. Which usually explains why you're a big champion, means, a regular winner. It's finding a solution to any kind of opponent (when you're not just superior in every department).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,375 Posts
Not the best comparison...

Puig by a country mile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Conjoshruk

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,949 Posts
For example, Liverpool just won the Premier League with a gigantic difference to the second place. Someone may say it was extremely random, for a team that didn't win the title in more than 30 years to win it 7 rounds before the end. But what is actually weird, is them staying all that time without a title. Ostapenko is a bit similar, her staying all that time without great achievements is random, her winning a big title is not random.
This comparison is very strange. :LOL::LOL:

Wouldn't Liverpool be more like..someone like Venus Williams? Ostapenko is probably more like Leicester City.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
Puig. At the Olympics she beat 3 GS champions and routined her way through the field until the SF where she then went on to outclutch Kvitová and Kerber in 3-setters. She never displayed that kind of Slam-winning form before or after the event. She has a CHR of #27 (in part contributed by no points at the Olympics), hasn't won a Singles title since the Olympics, and hasn't reached a WTA final since 2017. She has never made a Slam QF and has not reached the 2nd week of a Slam since 2013. She's had 4 Top 10 wins since her Olympics victory.

The year before Ostapenko won RG, she reached a Tier I final. The clay season she won the French Open, she reached the Charleston F, Prague SF, and took the defending RG champion to 3 sets at Rome. She had also beaten Wozniacki twice that clay season, hitting like over 100 winners past her in just two matches, and even if Wozniacki sucks on clay she was having a resurgent year and was in good form. Since winning RG, Ostapenko reached the Top 5, reached a Wimbledon QF and SF, and also reached another PM final. She also won two more titles. Ostapenko has posted 8 Top 10 wins since her RG win.

The answer is pretty obvious and clear, in my opinion.

Puig, and it's not even close. Ostapenko win wasn't as random as some people think it was.

For example, Liverpool just won the Premier League with a gigantic difference to the second place. Someone may say it was extremely random, for a team that didn't win the title in more than 30 years to win it 7 rounds before the end. But what is actually weird, is them staying all that time without a title. Ostapenko is a bit similar, her staying all that time without great achievements is random, her winning a big title is not random.
The defending CL champions who finished last season with 97 points winning the PL early was shocking? :oops:🤣
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,761 Posts
Definitely Puig, people had been tipping Ostapenko as a potential GS champion for some time when she won RG, but nobody thought Puig had it in her to win a tournament of the magnitude of the Olympics.

Agree that Puig was more... inexplicable. Puig is a very good ballstriker when she's on, but she doesn't have a world-beating peak like Ostapenko does. In the off chance that everything falls into place for Ostapenko, in seven consecutive matches, there's very few that can stop her.
Yes, she does; if anything she hadn't shown it before the Olympics but that tournament (far more impressive than Ostapenko's RG win, if you ask me) absolutely proves she does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OscarJ

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,600 Posts
puig for sure... what a feel good win to watch honestly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,752 Posts
This comparison is very strange. :LOL::LOL:

Wouldn't Liverpool be more like..someone like Venus Williams? Ostapenko is probably more like Leicester City.
That's funny, a while ago actually, I used to think Liverpool is a bit like Angie Kerber. While the German never won a Premier 5 or PM, the Reds never won the Premier League. Both have however won much more desired CL and Slams. They both have this incredible fighting spirit, not to mention the most lethal counter attack on their sports. They also are very fit, can grind wins and outrun their opponents, while having a Germanic discipline. Svitolina and Pliskova are like PSG and Manchester City.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54,079 Posts
Puig for sure

That was a complete shock
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I understand people choosing Puig, but all these comments acting like it was guaranteed that Ostapenko was going to win RG are a bit surprising!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
I understand people choosing Puig, but all these comments acting like it was guaranteed that Ostapenko was going to win RG are a bit surprising!
Literally nobody is saying this. You asked which one was more random, and based on what each player did before and after their biggest title wins, people are saying it's Puig (which it definitely is).
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
63,748 Posts
Puig by a country mile. She has done absolutely NOTHING since that run. Literally nothing.

Ostapenko has potential to win a GS title. She had some good results before and after the tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrs.Delaney
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top