Talk About Tennis 2.0

jazzyg wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 1:25 am Jabeur is spectacular and an incredible shotmaker.

I see no similarities between the two other than the two slam finals you referenced.

I expressly said that neither are overpoweringly spectacular - meaning that they're not going to blow anyone off the court.
They both rely on their court smarts to win, which includes moving their opponents all around the court, shot selection and nicking and carving their opponents up, rather than bludgeoning them to death.
And, as I mentioned, they both come in 'under the radar'.

Watching the mixed doubles..presuming the woman is the weaker partner, should one expect the doubles team with the better woman player to win? Of course, it isn't easy to tell who is the better player..Flipkens or Sanders? What is the theory on this?

That has always been the theory. Hit to the woman, as in theory she would be the weakest.
Of course, Martina Navratilova flipped that script ("yeah, please, hit that volley RIGHT AT ME. Let's see how that works out for YOU!") so it is not a fail safe recipe.

Well, well, so much for 'other,' winning, parity et al..
3 things we saw
1. Parity is a myth
2. Winning tuneup events doesn't mean anything
3. Form is temporary, class is permanent..
I am certainly surprised and impressed with Jabeur though, she lived up to her high ranking ...hope she gets a major title one of these days

It must be nice to be able to say that based on only one piece of data.
1. Parity. In 11 slams this decade, we have had 7 different winners. But sure, Iga has separated herself. The rest of the tour remains completely even.
2. It means nothing. You could go on to win, you could go on to lose. So, do you even play them?
3. So, Ons has no class? Two straight Slam finals, and you still only say it is form?