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.
21 - 40 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,760 Posts
Funnily enough, Puig's Olympic win was uploaded yesterday on YouTube.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,191 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.
Exactly. Puig has dealt with injuries but her best results since then is a final at Luxembourg, 4R at Miami, and QF at Wuhan. Ostapenko has done far more.

Puig being one of the last players to qualify for the Olympics that year at RG, then totally dominating the field at the event while barely losing games before outclutching and outplaying far more accomplished players in Kvitová and Kerber is one of the most shocking things I've witnessed.

Ostapenko who barely missed out on an RG seeding outhitting Bacsinszky and Halep when she'd been doing the same thing to Wozniacki that entire clay season was surprising, but not as random as Puig's victory — especially since it's backed up by the fact Puig has never come close to displaying that level since (and I say this as a fan of Puig who wished and hoped she would be a consistent Top 20 by now).

Funnily enough, Puig's Olympic win was uploaded yesterday on YouTube.

Her level that final was insane. And her tactics were absolutely spot on - Kerber couldn't believe it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,204 Posts
Definitely Puig. Ostapenko also has two titles, Miami final, decent results at Wimbledon, and still a potentially bright future while Puig seems to have disappeared. You can't even attribute Puig's win to the draw though because she beat a series of the best players. Ostapenko beat Halep in the final, who is clearly the best clay courter of this generation but was nervous as all hell that day and the rest of her opponents were not the most difficult.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,385 Posts
Definitely Puig. Ostapenko also has two titles, Miami final, decent results at Wimbledon, and still a potentially bright future while Puig seems to have disappeared. You can't even attribute Puig's win to the draw though because she beat a series of the best players. Ostapenko beat Halep in the final, who is clearly the best clay courter of this generation but was nervous as all hell that day and the rest of her opponents were not the most difficult.
She did beat Puig in Paris funnily enough. Beating Stosur, Wozniacki, Bacsinszky and Halep back-to-back is quite impressive for the current era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,823 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
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).
It's inferred in some of the comments.

I can see the arguments for both. I think Ostapenko was more of an unknown quantity with some hype than Puig, who was more of a known quantity even without big results beforehand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,191 Posts
It's inferred in some of the comments.

I can see the arguments for both. I think Ostapenko was more of an unknown quantity with some hype than Puig, who was more of a known quantity even without big results beforehand.
I agree with the bolded, but that's precisely why I (and a lot of others) think Puig's win was much more random. Puig was 22 when she won the Olympics but had never had a YE Top 50 season by that point, despite being a top junior prospect. In fact, 2016 remains her only YE Top 50 season. Her only Top 10 win before the event was against Errani on grass and she spent the hard court lead up to the Olympics losing to Broady, Begu, and Lauren Davis before beating Pavlyuchenkova, Muguruza, Kvitova, and Kerber (all far better players) at the OLYMPICS. She was basically a midranked journeywoman slowly getting better results (reached the Sydney F and Eastbourne SF that year + 3R at both AO + RG) but that didn't explain why she was suddenly beating top players to win the 5th biggest event that year.

Ostapenko was inconsistent but also extremely young and had shown glimpses of her big game when she blew past Top 10 CSN at Wimbledon, reached the Doha P5 F, and then finally the Charleston F just weeks before winning RG. She also nearly beat #5 Pliskova at the AO that year before choking.

This is an imperfect comparison but it would be like Swiatek winning the USO or RG this year for her first title, and Alexandrova winning the Olympics. I know personally, I'd be more shocked by a ballbasher who had been a mid ranked journeywoman for the longest time suddenly stringing wins together against elite opposition when they never displayed they had the aptitude or court craft for that before, than I would by a younger talent who had shown sparks and had always been pegged down as a future Slam champion winning a big title a little early. Both are random but one egregiously more so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,949 Posts
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.
Yeah, Liverpool-Kerber is a good comparison. :LOL:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
Ostapenko was not a shock. She could win more but I expect the motivation went after winning so young and she'll probably be ranked between 15 and 75 for the rest of her career. Puig was a shock and not expected and she disappeared as quickly as she arrived.
 

·
Art & Futures
Joined
·
20,461 Posts
Ostapenko, because her win was 7 matches in a row versus Puig's 6.

Also, the court in Rio was unique. If more courts were like that, then maybe Puig would have a higher ranking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
Puig is nothing special in the WTA. And even overall, without injuries, Ostapenko is far more gifted. Even with those errors.

Puig was heavily supported then by the fans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
939 Posts
I feel like you're more likely to get a surprise win at the Olympics as there will be some top players missing for various reasons. Halep and Pliskova missed Rio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,438 Posts
despite all what's been said in this thread, Ostapenko was such an enormous WTF win that I can't vote against that ..

maybe also because I have always rooted for Puig and saw potential in her whereas Ostapenko really has a "meh" effect on me at best

+ FO is a Slam... Olympics are not that tough to win.I mean, Dementieva won the Olympics too (and despite her Slam final, I never thought of her as favorite to win a Slam) ... (sorry ... couldn't help it )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,854 Posts
Last week Kerber mentioned on a German podcast that she is still happy for Puig and her country but she also admitted, that Puig played the tournament of her life.

Both victories were surprises but Puig was the bigger „shock“. Puig qualified as one of the last players for the Olympics. IIRC her victory against Goerges in Paris was her last minute ticket for Rio. Before the Olympics she played overall a good season for her standards, reached the final in Sydney and the semifinal in Eastbourne, but she also had some tough losses. Even two weeks before the Olympics she lost to Broady in Canada :LOL: (I like Broady but her game is weird).

IMO she played her best Tennis in Rio 2016 for some reason but couldn’t play that level again. She will be the eternal talent with this huge victory but unfortunately not more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
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.
Ostapenko, no doubt.
I don´t think Tennis is even an olympic sport. GS are a much bigger deal.

At the Olmpics there are always random, surprising winners every 4 years (pre Corona), who vanish and then fall into oblivion.

Ostapenko at the French Open:

2016 R1
2017 Winner
2018 R1
2019 R1

That is the definition of random.
 

·
Milk and honey
Joined
·
3,595 Posts
As the question is which was more random, rather than which was more epic - for randomness, Puig without question. Did anyone go into the 2017 French Open seriously picking Ostapenko, 19 at the time before turning 20 mid event, to win it all? No. But her promising results beforehand and consistent (for a while) results afterwards make it far less random than Puig, who was having a career best year in 2016 but outside of a Syndey final IIRC and some other decent results, was a very shocking winner of such a prestigious event in the Olympics where every player was giving it their all.

Which was more epic/crazy/fun? In some ways it's Ostapenko because of quite a few matches being total rollercoasters, where really until the semifinal stage of her Olympic run Puig was swatting girls aside like no tomorrow (which in some respects makes Puig's run even more impressive given the players she beat and the scoreline with which she beat them by).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Ostapenko, no doubt.
I don´t think Tennis is even an olympic sport. GS are a much bigger deal.

At the Olmpics there are always random, surprising winners every 4 years (pre Corona), who vanish and then fall into oblivion
Tennis was one of the original 8 Olympic sports in 1896.

The modern slams only became proper global slams long after this date.

Olympics has not produced random winners either apart from Puig.

Serena won in 2012, Dementieva won Beijing - 2x slam finalist and career high 5th, Henin won in Athens, Venus, Davenport, Capriati, Graf before that.

That's pretty high calibre.
In the men's as well, Murray twice, Nadal, Agassi, Kafelnikov.
Massu and Rosset former top 10 players

Where are all these random Olympic winners you speak off ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,760 Posts
Tennis was one of the original 8 Olympic sports in 1896.

The modern slams only became proper global slams long after this date.

Olympics has not produced random winners either apart from Puig.

Serena won in 2012, Dementieva won Beijing - 2x slam finalist and career high 5th, Henin won in Athens, Venus, Davenport, Capriati, Graf before that.

That's pretty high calibre.
In the men's as well, Murray twice, Nadal, Agassi, Kafelnikov.
Massu and Rosset former top 10 players

Where are all these random Olympic winners you speak off ?
Massu and Rosset were kinda random, and Kafelnikov is one of the worst Slam champions ever even if he won two. Agree about the women but I don't think male players cared that much before 2008, for some reason. Well, Federer did but he choked in both 2004 and 2008.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Tennis was one of the original 8 Olympic sports in 1896.

The modern slams only became proper global slams long after this date.

Olympics has not produced random winners either apart from Puig.

Murray twice(*)

Where are all these random Olympic winners you speak off ?
You're just making my point for me.

Laura Robson(*)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Massu and Rosset were kinda random, and Kafelnikov is one of the worst Slam champions ever even if he won two. Agree about the women but I don't think male players cared that much before 2008, for some reason. Well, Federer did but he choked in both 2004 and 2008.
Federer won Gold in 2008.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,760 Posts
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
Top