Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[dryrunguy]

The Athletic had absolutely nothing nice to say about the latest installment of the "Battle of the Sexes"...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/692323 ... l-share-ta (shared via subscription)

[ashkor87]

The Athletic had absolutely nothing nice to say

indeed there was nothing nice to say about it..!

[ashkor87]

Of all the things that separate players like us from these guys, the ball toss is one of the most basic and most crucial little things.

very true.. and much neglected- it is not a fun thing to practice so most kids dont.. when I was growing up, I had a court and net and ball but nobody to play with, so I used to just practice the serve, especially the toss (since if I hit it, I would have to go pick up the ball again!).. looking back, I must say, I was really fortunate!

[mick1303]

Usually at the end of the year I collect the data on players prize money and then gradually incorporate them in my database. Not because I'm particularly interested in the earnings themselves, but I treat this as a source of data about new players. I have to say that the data both ATP and WTA present are far from tidy. I.e one player in ATP list is mentioned twice (second time he has zero in the singles column and only listed as a doubles player). There are couple of entries on the list that say "Alternate". Really? One would expect more from governing body...

[ashkor87]

Interesting that Sabalenka and Osaka have similar grand slam records...of course their games are a bit similar too

[mick1303]

Interesting that Sabalenka and Osaka have similar grand slam records...of course their games are a bit similar too

Well, they won 4 slams each, but this is where the similarity ends. Sabalenka is MUCH more consistent performer. She reached the finals 7 times, semis - 13 times. Osaka reached the semis only 5 times.
Sabalenka's worst Slam is Wimbledon, where she still reached semis. Osaka's worst are both RG and Wimbledon where she only managed 3rd round.
In total Sabalenka won 100 slam matches, while Osaka - only 69. And all the while Osaka played one more slam (31 vs 30)

[ashkor87]

Even the 4 slams are the same...that is what struck me.
the numbers are are very well, but I consider Osaka at her best to be a better player than Sabalenka... remember Osaka had beaten Serena in her prime.. could Sabalenka?

[mick1303]

Even the 4 slams are the same...that is what struck me.
the numbers are are very well, but I consider Osaka at her best to be a better player than Sabalenka... remember Osaka had beaten Serena in her prime.. could Sabalenka?

Beating Serena is not the ultimate metric IMO. Especially given that Serena won her last Slam at 2017 Australian while Osaka beat her at 2018 US Open. I don't think that anyone can call this Serena's prime. Maybe your "eye test" tells you that Osaka's best is better than Sabalenka's best. I don't know how to judge this. Eye test is very subjective. Numbers tell me that Sabalenka is a better player. She won 21 title, including 9 Tier I. Osaka won just 7 titles (4 slams + 2 Tier I). And Sabalenka is the same age - even slightly younger.

[mick1303]

It is unfortunate that Sabalenka engaged in this stupid battle of the sexes. I really hope that this will not hinder her Australian chances. Playing on the different court size can really mess up your perception.

[ashkor87]

Maybe your "eye test" tells you that Osaka's best is better than Sabalenka's best.

yes, that is what my 60 years of tennis experience tells me.

[ponchi101]

Osaka's career also has to be one of the strangest sports' stories ever. A massive talent that was derailed precisely by what? I know, the mental issues, but why did they kick in so suddenly when she seemed so balanced?

[Suliso]

Osaka was more one dimensional. Turned pumpkin away from hard courts... This is not even taking into account that Sabalenka is far more likely to win more Slams.

[Suliso]

It is unfortunate that Sabalenka engaged in this stupid battle of the sexes. I really hope that this will not hinder her Australian chances. Playing on the different court size can really mess up your perception.

I don't get this fascination with women playing men. Of course a man is far stronger under any comparable conditions, but so what?

If women want to compete with men they should take up something what doesn't depend on muscles much. Chess perhaps or maybe car racing.

[ponchi101]

Because we are living in an era in which people want equal outcomes? Not understanding that equal opportunity is not a synonym?
I went to the Bogota open this year. I saw Marie Bouzkova playing. At the place where I train, there is this bunch of Colombian players, training for Challengers.
They would all beat her.
And as you say: so what? Bouzkova's match was a very nice one; it was superb tennis.
But Formula 3 will never beat Formula 1, and you have to take it for what it is. It is still great racing.

[meganfernandez]

It is unfortunate that Sabalenka engaged in this stupid battle of the sexes. I really hope that this will not hinder her Australian chances. Playing on the different court size can really mess up your perception.

I don't get this fascination with women playing men. Of course a man is far stronger under any comparable conditions, but so what?

If women want to compete with men they should take up something what doesn't depend on muscles much. Chess perhaps or maybe car racing.

Gaming was supposed to be gender-neutral. Like the NBA2K leagues that the NBA launched a few years ago. But in the inaugural draft, no women were drafted. I meant to follow that story but never did.

I agree that it's obvious men and women aren't competitive with each other in physical sports, and so what? Why does anyone continue to care? I didn't think that's what the Kyrgios/Sabalenka match was supposed to be about, because it's not a question. I thought it was supposed to just be fun and entertaining. I didn't watch it but I understand it didn't deliver the showtime, either. That was the failure IMO.