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.
41 - 60 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 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.
Kafelnikov was not random, he was in the top 5 in the rankings at Sydney 2000, he was runner up in Australia that year and US Open semi finalist less than 12 months before his gold. And also won nearly 30 titles in his career, how many players today have near 15 let alone near 30.

Agassi won Gold before 2008 so he cared. I guess Massu and Rosset would have been close to favs but they are hardly in Puig's randomness league imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
The key word is random.

Serena gave Maria the Silver medal. Under an hour.
Random would be, if Maria won 2 games, or a set in that final.
For the whole world to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
She was fighting for it.. Just like Kerber, the multi GS-winner, when Serena wasn't present.
And it was YOU who said Murray twice. So what is your point?
what are you talking about, you said the following "At the Olmpics there are always random, surprising winners every 4 years (pre Corona), who vanish and then fall into oblivion"

But Robson did not win the Olympics, therefore she was not a random winner, Murray won it twice. So not sure what your point is ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
If Puig had won a slam instead of the olympics, the difference would be too obvious, but olympics tend to have more random winners, that being said, Puig winning the olympics is still more random, I don´t remember Puig doing anything special before (or after) that win, while Ostapenko was inside the group of promising young players when she won RG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danars

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,150 Posts
If Puig had won a slam instead of the olympics, the difference would be too obvious, but olympics tend to have more random winners, that being said, Puig winning the olympics is still more random, I don´t remember Puig doing anything special before (or after) that win, while Ostapenko was inside the group of promising young players when she won RG
???

Only Olympic Random Winner (since all best pros started to attending) was Puig herself, while there was a shitload of random slam winners...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
???

Only Olympic Random Winner (since all best pros started to attending) was Puig herself, while there was a shitload of random slam winners...
Maybe because there are 16 slams for every olympic game? to give an idea, since return of tennis to olympics in 1998, only 2 "slam years" have passed, that is 8 olympics medals. Puig was the most random so far, but olympics, both men and women, tend to be more random, at least inside the top athletes. In general It´s also less predictable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,509 Posts
As someone who would cheer on both players:love: I have to agree with the consensus.

Pica's win was much more surreal. Beautiful, but surreal. Sadly I think she has never come close to that level before or since.

But with Penko I think there has always been that sense of danger. Sometimes the danger is only to herself (or her doubles partner), but on occasion it can be to her opponent....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,761 Posts
But with Penko I think there has always been that sense of danger. Sometimes the danger is only to herself (or her doubles partner), but on occasion it can be to her opponent....
Ballboys too...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Ostapenko, in my eyes, had slam winning potential, even when hitting ball boys with her racket.

Her winning at RG over other slams was perhaps surprising, but I for one thought she'd win a slam, or at least had the potential.

Puig was in career best form and I didn't see her winning a slam/YEC/Olympics, especially as, apart from a couple of matches, she did it convincingly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,385 Posts
Puig and Molik are the only two singles medalists never ranked inside the top 4 (Alicia's CHR is #8).

Puig has the lowest career high ranking of any GS, PM or P5 winner since 2009 and only Pironkova (#31, 2014 Sydney) and Zheng SaiSai (#34, 2019 San Jose) have a lower one than hers at the Premier 470 level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,639 Posts
Puig.
Penko should have 3 FO by now, underachieved till now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,766 Posts
Puig by far. Ostapenko had already made a P5 final the year before (and a clay Premier final a few months before) winning RG, and had recently beaten a couple of top 10 players. Puig's only top 10 win prior to the Olympics happened in 2013... against Errani... on grass.
 

·
King
Joined
·
28,667 Posts
Ostapenko, in my eyes, had slam winning potential, even when hitting ball boys with her racket.

Her winning at RG over other slams was perhaps surprising, but I for one thought she'd win a slam, or at least had the potential.

Puig was in career best form and I didn't see her winning a slam/YEC/Olympics, especially as, apart from a couple of matches, she did it convincingly.
She also should have beaten Pliskova in Australia that year, and she could have made a deep run there already pre RG, so I do think that there were signs that she could do big things.

Plus, her 13 months following RG 2017 were actually very solid, including a slam QF and SF, a Miami F, Beijing and Wuhan SF, made the YEC that year and won a MM title. This is really no comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Monica Puig's win at the Olympics in 2016 came out of no where, and she has not made results since to match up with olympic gold medal.

Jelena Ostapenko has made some great results since here win at Roland Garros including the SF at Wimbledon. I am however surprised with how much her level has dropped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
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.
In all fairness to Alexandrova she really stepped it up in the past 12 months and has shown the ability to be somewhat of a threat for a deep run. If we’d compare it to anyone I’d compare it to Linette winning the Olympics with Swiatek/Gauff winning a slam. But the point still stands obviously.
 
41 - 60 of 71 Posts
Top