Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[dave g]

If players follow Andy's racquet smash advice, it would ruin our racquet smashing contest thread.

Note that that is Andy's racquet throwing advice, not necessarily Andy's racquet smashing advice. You can smash a racquet without throwing it.

[ponchi101]

Let's FWD that message to all ATP/WTA players.
"Remember, just don't let go of the handle. But smash away!"

[Deuce]

Interestingly, Kyrgios and Daniela Hantuchova played doubles together once upon a time, about 8 years ago...
And Hantuchova was critical of Kyrgios a few years ago, saying that he “needs help” after Nick’s 2019 'meltdown' in Cincinnati.

Kyrgios shows his ignorance of even fairly recent tennis history in saying that Raducanu is a ‘bigger name’ than Hantuchova ever was. That’s simply not even close to being true. Hantuchova was a very well known and well respected player for over a decade.

I see nothing wrong with what Hantuchova stated about Raducanu. I find what she said to be quite accurate...

Kyrgios Defends Raducanu from Hantuchova, Clijsters Comments...

.

[ponchi101]

Oh my god, a former professional player talking about the new gen. How disrespectful! How unfair! How dare them talk about something that they did for almost all their lives!!!!
Reminds me of a comment I read from a Vennie writer. He called this group "Generation Crystal". They shatter at the slightest touch.
And if those are the quotes from Hantuchova, they are perfectly normal statements seeing how Raducanu has been playing since the USO.
---0---
Although I agree that reporters are simply doing their job, sometimes the choice of words are less than desirable. Clijsters did not "take aim". She was simply doing her commentating job. "Take Aim" sounds malicious.

[meganfernandez]

Although I agree that reporters are simply doing their job, sometimes the choice of words are less than desirable. Clijsters did not "take aim". She was simply doing her commentating job. "Take Aim" sounds malicious.

Characterization is a huge part of good journalism and my personal crusade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ti-amie]

Interestingly, Kyrgios and Daniela Hantuchova played doubles together once upon a time, about 8 years ago...
And Hantuchova was critical of Kyrgios a few years ago, saying that he “needs help” after Nick’s 2019 'meltdown' in Cincinnati.

Kyrgios shows his ignorance of even fairly recent tennis history in saying that Raducanu is a ‘bigger name’ than Hantuchova ever was. That’s simply not even close to being true. Hantuchova was a very well known and well respected player for over a decade.

I see nothing wrong with what Hantuchova stated about Raducanu. I find what she said to be quite accurate...

Kyrgios Defends Raducanu from Hantuchova, Clijsters Comments...

.

But what Hantuchova said is true. After a win like she had at the US Open of course the locker room was going to be afraid of her potential. They're not now though and Siniakova, who looked as if she was going to retire hung on to beat Raducanu and retired the next match.

There is something going on with the Raducanu camp. It was talked about during her search for a coach especially when none of the big names who were available expressed at interest, at least publicly. The issues seem to be physical and mental. We'll see.

[Deuce]

It seems that the Raducanu family march to the beat of their own drum, and prefer to do things their way, rather than to give too much control over to a coach. And that's fine.
Leylah's dad is quite like that, as well.
Obviously, the parents know their kids psychologically and emotionally better than any coach would. And the psychological element is a major element of pro tennis.

I don't think Emma's on-court problems are related to the path the family has taken.
It's tough to say what the reason is, though, because she won a big tournament right at the beginning of her career. We hadn't seen enough of her before the U.S. Open to accurately assess the quality of her game. Was her U.S. Open success a fluke - is she just a 'flash in the pan'? Does she have a solid game, and her results since New York are because she's been too distracted by the attention, endorsements, and expectations?
Personally, I think, based on what I've seen, that Emma's 'proper' place is somewhere between, say, 20 and 35 in the rankings, and that her performances have been significantly affected by the attention, endorsements, and expectations which have followed New York.

Yes, Hantuchova's assessment of the current situation for Emma is quite accurate. It's unfortunate that in this age of 'political correctness', such comments are perceived by some as being 'unjustly critical'. I don't see them as being critical at all - they are simply the (I feel accurate and constructive) perspective of a person who possesses lots of experience in the area of discussion, and who seems to genuinely feel bad for Emma.

[ponchi101]

Although I agree that reporters are simply doing their job, sometimes the choice of words are less than desirable. Clijsters did not "take aim". She was simply doing her commentating job. "Take Aim" sounds malicious.

Characterization is a huge part of good journalism and my personal crusade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please expand. What do you mean, technically (you are a journalist) as characterization, and is your crusade to get more of it or less?
I find no fault at all in any of the comments. But as Nick is irked (what gall) I wonder if the "take aim" statement is part of that.

[meganfernandez]

Although I agree that reporters are simply doing their job, sometimes the choice of words are less than desirable. Clijsters did not "take aim". She was simply doing her commentating job. "Take Aim" sounds malicious.

Characterization is a huge part of good journalism and my personal crusade.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please expand. What do you mean, technically (you are a journalist) as characterization, and is your crusade to get more of it or less?
I find no fault at all in any of the comments. But as Nick is irked (what gall) I wonder if the "take aim" statement is part of that.

What I meant is that proper, fair, substantiated characterization is a huge part of good journalism, and I'm a hard ass about it as a writer and editor. Often, I see uncertainty, opinion, disingenuousness, exaggeration, or laziness wallpapered over with an assertion that the writer or reporter is not in a position to make - a mischaracterization. Drives me crazy. It is often excused as the reporter's perspective, but that's BS. Reporters exercise judgment, but there should be a solid basis for it. I guess it's a professional crusade, not a personal one.

Edit: I just clicked on the article, and Raducanu's "alarming form slump" since the US Open is a joke of a characterization. An "alarming slump" was Djokovic in 2016-17 after winning the French and then going on a walkabout. Sabalenka's yips were probably alarming (critically worrisome). Raducanu still hasn't even played a full year on tour, and she lost 7-5 in the third, a close match. Who's alarmed? Alarming slump. Whatever.

"Taking aim" sounds pretty fair to me about Clijsters, if she was talking about Raducanu. I just read her quotes (but don't have all the context). Hantuchova's comments were more objective about her observations of the current dynamic. Clijsters's comments were more personal and judgmental.

[Deuce]

There's also the unfortunate fact that the authors of an article are rarely responsible for the headline of the article.
So you could have a genuinely solid article with a sensationalistic over-the-top headline.

I know that the headline was sensationalistic in the Kyrgios/Hantuchova/Clijsters article I linked to - yahoo Australia tends to be that way - but it was the best one out of the 4 or 5 articles I looked at about this subject. The others had several spelling and/or grammatical errors, which really turns me off.

I didn't find that the phrase "taking aim" was bad - I had more of a problem with the headline.

For what it's worth, he's another article which focuses on what Clijsters allegedly said... (Again, I don't particularly like the headline - but it's better than the other one)...

Clijsters' Comments...

.

[meganfernandez]

There's also the unfortunate fact that the authors of an article are rarely responsible for the headline of the article.
So you could have a genuinely solid article with a sensationalistic over-the-top headline.

Yeah, clickbait. Sometimes the writer is involved in writing the headline or the other "display copy," as it's called - what might appear on social media, for example. Coverlines, headlines, deks (subheads), and their cousins. They can (and should) speak up if they think the display is misleading. They might not win the argument, though. And everyone picks their battles. But if a digital editor or copy editor wrote that Clijsters "took aim" when nothing in the story credibly substantiated her intention or motivation, that is a mischaracterization and it's bad work. There's pressure to be fast in posting stories, of course, but that's no excuse, and you can revise things online.

[meganfernandez]

Thiem is up next today in the OOP.

[ti-amie]

[Fastbackss]

I put on TC and was replay of the Alcaraz match.

Out of reflex I put on ESPN2. It was their daily sports betting show. The first topic was "best bet of the day" and I was surprised to see it was a tennis one. Normally it's more mainstream sports.

(It was Swiatek to win 6 more games than Kvitova for what it's worth)

[3mlm]

I put on TC and was replay of the Alcaraz match.

Out of reflex I put on ESPN2. It was their daily sports betting show. The first topic was "best bet of the day" and I was surprised to see it was a tennis one. Normally it's more mainstream sports.

(It was Swiatek to win 6 more games than Kvitova for what it's worth)

That would have been a good bet.