'23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

Talk and announcements about the big 4 tournaments
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: '23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

#31

Post by mick1303 »

Deuce wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:09 am I doubt very much that any true tennis people view Sabalenka as 'a huge favourite'.
Given her strong choking tendencies in the past, and the fact that she's never even played a Major Final - let alone won one... plus the fact that Rybakina has won a Major (albeit there should be an asterisk beside it)...
All of the pertinent elements reveal that the pros and cons on both sides are about even.
If Rybakina's Wimbledon run deserves an asterisk, then Nadal's AO deserves ten. Nobody of Russians/Belorussians was nowhere near the favorite the Djokovic was in Australia. IMO we are mentioning asterisks way too often. Novak's AO is a second case I can justify in Open Era. The first being Steffi's slams and #1 after Monika's stabbing. Nothing else warrants an asterisk. Rybakina's win is legit.
User avatar
ponchi101 Venezuela
Site Admin
Posts: 14722
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm
Location: New Macondo
Has thanked: 3857 times
Been thanked: 5565 times
Contact:

Re: '23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

#32

Post by ponchi101 »

mick1303 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:55 pm
Deuce wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:09 am I doubt very much that any true tennis people view Sabalenka as 'a huge favourite'.
Given her strong choking tendencies in the past, and the fact that she's never even played a Major Final - let alone won one... plus the fact that Rybakina has won a Major (albeit there should be an asterisk beside it)...
All of the pertinent elements reveal that the pros and cons on both sides are about even.
If Rybakina's Wimbledon run deserves an asterisk, then Nadal's AO deserves ten. Nobody of Russians/Belorussians was nowhere near the favorite the Djokovic was in Australia. IMO we are mentioning asterisks way too often. Novak's AO is a second case I can justify in Open Era. The first being Steffi's slams and #1 after Monika's stabbing. Nothing else warrants an asterisk. Rybakina's win is legit.
We do. But there are asterisks in the records; they are the history of the game.
Maureen Connelly has an asterisk ("she went for a horse ride")
Rod Laver has an asterisk ("Did not play 5 years of slams, at his peak")
Pancho Gonzalez has an asterisk ("Had to turn pro, to earn a living")

If you are saying we mention them in a negative way, I would side with you. And I agree that Rybakina was legit at Wimby.
Ego figere omnia et scio supellectilem
User avatar
Deuce Canada
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:52 am
Location: An unparallel universe
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 977 times

Re: '23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

#33

Post by Deuce »

Suliso wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:28 pm What about IF she doesn't choke and neither does Rybakina?
I was simply responding to the assertion that Sabalenka "should be the huge favourite". And I mentioned the reasons why I doubt very much that true tennis people would see her as a huge favourite. I feel those reasons are very legitimate.

I'm not saying that she has no chance to win, or that she won't win. I am simply challenging the assertion that she should be considered the 'huge favourite' - because she has a history of choking / beating herself.
I don't really see the point of 'what if' scenarios in situations like this.
Last edited by Deuce on Sat Jan 28, 2023 4:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
R.I.P. Amal...

“The opposite of courage is not cowardice - it’s conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow.”- Jim Hightower
User avatar
Deuce Canada
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:52 am
Location: An unparallel universe
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 977 times

Re: '23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

#34

Post by Deuce »

mick1303 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:55 pm
Deuce wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:09 am I doubt very much that any true tennis people view Sabalenka as 'a huge favourite'.
Given her strong choking tendencies in the past, and the fact that she's never even played a Major Final - let alone won one... plus the fact that Rybakina has won a Major (albeit there should be an asterisk beside it)...
All of the pertinent elements reveal that the pros and cons on both sides are about even.
If Rybakina's Wimbledon run deserves an asterisk, then Nadal's AO deserves ten. Nobody of Russians/Belorussians was nowhere near the favorite the Djokovic was in Australia. IMO we are mentioning asterisks way too often. Novak's AO is a second case I can justify in Open Era. The first being Steffi's slams and #1 after Monika's stabbing. Nothing else warrants an asterisk. Rybakina's win is legit.
I very much disagree, Mick...
I have nothing against Rybakina personally... but when quality players are prevented from playing in a tournament, it's very safe to say that their absence A) affects the outcome of the tournament throughout the tournament, and that B) it weakens the field.

Saying that there should be an asterisk DOES NOT mean that I'm saying that one of the players who was not permitted to play would have won the tournament if they'd been allowed to play.
What it DOES mean is that the draw would very, very likely have played out differently if the banned players had played. And that means that Rybakina's draw would have been different - and likely more difficult.

Of course, no-one can say whether or not Rybakina would have won it without the ban on Russians and Belarusians. But I know, for example, that there are some Sabalenka fans here who would say that she would have had a legitimate shot at it had she been allowed to play.
The same could be said of Kasatkina... Kudermetova... Azarenka... Samsonova... Alexandrova...
At the very least, the draw would have almost certainly played out differently if those players had participated. These players were replaced in the draw by lower ranked players. If the Russian and Belarusian players would have been in the draw, this would have likely affected who Rybakina played...

Definitely an asterisk here - on both the men's and the women's side.
The notable and significant FORCED absences may also be part of the reason why Rybakina herself has said that winning Wimbledon didn't feel like she had just won a Major.

That said, I think that players should have been awarded half the regular points for Wimbledon, rather than no points.
R.I.P. Amal...

“The opposite of courage is not cowardice - it’s conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow.”- Jim Hightower
User avatar
mick1303 Ukraine
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:39 pm
Location: Ukraine
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: '23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

#35

Post by mick1303 »

Deuce wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:32 am
mick1303 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:55 pm
Deuce wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:09 am I doubt very much that any true tennis people view Sabalenka as 'a huge favourite'.
Given her strong choking tendencies in the past, and the fact that she's never even played a Major Final - let alone won one... plus the fact that Rybakina has won a Major (albeit there should be an asterisk beside it)...
All of the pertinent elements reveal that the pros and cons on both sides are about even.
If Rybakina's Wimbledon run deserves an asterisk, then Nadal's AO deserves ten. Nobody of Russians/Belorussians was nowhere near the favorite the Djokovic was in Australia. IMO we are mentioning asterisks way too often. Novak's AO is a second case I can justify in Open Era. The first being Steffi's slams and #1 after Monika's stabbing. Nothing else warrants an asterisk. Rybakina's win is legit.
I very much disagree, Mick...
I have nothing against Rybakina personally... but when quality players are prevented from playing in a tournament, it's very safe to say that their absence A) affects the outcome of the tournament throughout the tournament, and that B) it weakens the field.

Saying that there should be an asterisk DOES NOT mean that I'm saying that one of the players who was not permitted to play would have won the tournament if they'd been allowed to play.
What it DOES mean is that the draw would very, very likely have played out differently if the banned players had played. And that means that Rybakina's draw would have been different - and likely more difficult.

Of course, no-one can say whether or not Rybakina would have won it without the ban on Russians and Belarusians. But I know, for example, that there are some Sabalenka fans here who would say that she would have had a legitimate shot at it had she been allowed to play.
The same could be said of Kasatkina... Kudermetova... Azarenka... Samsonova... Alexandrova...
At the very least, the draw would have almost certainly played out differently if those players had participated. These players were replaced in the draw by lower ranked players. If the Russian and Belarusian players would have been in the draw, this would have likely affected who Rybakina played...

Definitely an asterisk here - on both the men's and the women's side.
The notable and significant FORCED absences may also be part of the reason why Rybakina herself has said that winning Wimbledon didn't feel like she had just won a Major.

That said, I think that players should have been awarded half the regular points for Wimbledon, rather than no points.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. The combined achievements of the players you mentioned are 50 times less than that of one Novak Djokovic. But you prefer to concentrate on 2022 Wimbledon rather than 2022 AO.
User avatar
meganfernandez United States of America
Posts: 4881
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:04 pm
Has thanked: 2473 times
Been thanked: 1684 times

Re: '23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

#36

Post by meganfernandez »

ashkor87 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:00 am
meganfernandez wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:46 pm
ashkor87 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:40 pm much as I love Rybakina, I dont think she is going to beat Sabalenka on Saturday.. I will be happy either way, but my bet is on Saba.
I'm keeping the faith with Sabalenka, but I think whoever serves better wins. At one point, quarterfinal think, Rybakina was at 50% unreturned first serves for the tournament. That's nearly unplayable. She is also is super calm but Sabalenka has been holding her nerve.
You had been pulling for Sabalenka for years..finally, she is about to justify your confidence in her! (Mine too). Hope she does it. As she showed against Bencic, she can run anyone off the court so long as she does not self-destruct...only Sabalenka cab actually beat Sabalenka! This time, she seems to have mastered herself...
I watched Rybakina yesterday and she isn't really as zen-like as people say..I thought she was about to burst into tears towards the end of the first set, especially with her coach's antics..ahe should fire him now.
Hey, I'm glad someone remembered! Thanks! Yeah, I've always said Sabalenka was more likely than not to win some Slams, even throughout last year. Too much game, too much power, too close to the finish line already (before this year) ... and I'm an optimist. I think she have been unfairly defined by a few big-match losses and not her incredible accomplishments. I am so glad she came through AND in super tight circumstances. Now she should have the "choker" monkey off her back for good, at least reputationally.

I just feel so great for her. And she was my pre-tournament pick. :)
User avatar
Deuce Canada
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:52 am
Location: An unparallel universe
Has thanked: 336 times
Been thanked: 977 times

Re: '23 AO Day 11 OoP & Discussion

#37

Post by Deuce »

mick1303 wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 4:40 pm
Deuce wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:32 am
mick1303 wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:55 pm

If Rybakina's Wimbledon run deserves an asterisk, then Nadal's AO deserves ten. Nobody of Russians/Belorussians was nowhere near the favorite the Djokovic was in Australia. IMO we are mentioning asterisks way too often. Novak's AO is a second case I can justify in Open Era. The first being Steffi's slams and #1 after Monika's stabbing. Nothing else warrants an asterisk. Rybakina's win is legit.
I very much disagree, Mick...
I have nothing against Rybakina personally... but when quality players are prevented from playing in a tournament, it's very safe to say that their absence A) affects the outcome of the tournament throughout the tournament, and that B) it weakens the field.

Saying that there should be an asterisk DOES NOT mean that I'm saying that one of the players who was not permitted to play would have won the tournament if they'd been allowed to play.
What it DOES mean is that the draw would very, very likely have played out differently if the banned players had played. And that means that Rybakina's draw would have been different - and likely more difficult.

Of course, no-one can say whether or not Rybakina would have won it without the ban on Russians and Belarusians. But I know, for example, that there are some Sabalenka fans here who would say that she would have had a legitimate shot at it had she been allowed to play.
The same could be said of Kasatkina... Kudermetova... Azarenka... Samsonova... Alexandrova...
At the very least, the draw would have almost certainly played out differently if those players had participated. These players were replaced in the draw by lower ranked players. If the Russian and Belarusian players would have been in the draw, this would have likely affected who Rybakina played...

Definitely an asterisk here - on both the men's and the women's side.
The notable and significant FORCED absences may also be part of the reason why Rybakina herself has said that winning Wimbledon didn't feel like she had just won a Major.

That said, I think that players should have been awarded half the regular points for Wimbledon, rather than no points.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. The combined achievements of the players you mentioned are 50 times less than that of one Novak Djokovic. But you prefer to concentrate on 2022 Wimbledon rather than 2022 AO.
I never mentioned the 2022 Aussie Open, Mick. I'm referring only to Wimbledon 2022. It's not a competition between the two tournaments to see which one was affected most by the absences. It's apples and oranges - at Wimbledon, SEVERAL PLAYERS COULD NOT PLAY because they were (unjustifiably) banned. At the Aussie Open ONE PLAYER could not play because of a PERSONAL DECISION HE MADE.
Again - it's apples and oranges.

Also, as I said, it's not about who would have WON these two tournaments if all the players in question had played... it's about HOW THE DRAW WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED if they had played. And, obviously, the Wimbledon draw was more affected because of the absence of the banned players - because there were SEVERAL top players who would have been scattered throughout the draw, and -, than the Aussie Open draw was affected because of ONE PERSON'S absence.
R.I.P. Amal...

“The opposite of courage is not cowardice - it’s conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow.”- Jim Hightower
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests