'23 USO Day 13 OoP & Discussion

[ponchi101]

More data points for my "Experience is overrated" theory.

Because a Slam winner and Slam finalist made the final? I think it’s data for the opposite. All four semifinalista were previous Slam finalists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Because Coco is 19. Sure, she was a slam's finalist, but she is still very young. AND, her slams final was when she was 18, so, again, you don't need "experience" to play great tennis. You need talent.
Great champions start winning early, as have done Carlos, Iga and now Coco. Aryna is actually a bit of an exception; she was 24 when she won her Aussie this year. Marketa is also a bit older, but her RG final was when she was 19.
Fine players that we were expecting to mature and win slams have not done so. For example, Belinda has not done so, despite many, many people (myself included) thinking she would. Sinner keeps accruing experience (by definition), and we are waiting. Shelton is very young and already reached the semis of a slam, where he lost to Djokovic, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
If experience were really a critical matter, the tour would be dominated by 25+ yo players. The dominant player in the ATP is Novak, but he is also a proof of my theory: he won his first slam at 20. On the women's side, notice how Pegula remains without a slam's final. Yet, by definition, her experience by now should be enough to carry her to one.

[nelslus]

More data points for my "Experience is overrated" theory.

Because a Slam winner and Slam finalist made the final? I think it’s data for the opposite. All four semifinalista were previous Slam finalists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Because Coco is 19. Sure, she was a slam's finalist, but she is still very young. AND, her slams final was when she was 18, so, again, you don't need "experience" to play great tennis. You need talent.
Great champions start winning early, as have done Carlos, Iga and now Coco. Aryna is actually a bit of an exception; she was 24 when she won her Aussie this year. Marketa is also a bit older, but her RG final was when she was 19.
Fine players that we were expecting to mature and win slams have not done so. For example, Belinda has not done so, despite many, many people (myself included) thinking she would. Sinner keeps accruing experience (by definition), and we are waiting. Shelton is very young and already reached the semis of a slam, where he lost to Djokovic, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
If experience were really a critical matter, the tour would be dominated by 25+ yo players. The dominant player in the ATP is Novak, but he is also a proof of my theory: he won his first slam at 20. On the women's side, notice how Pegula remains without a slam's final. Yet, by definition, her experience by now should be enough to carry her to one.

In singles, Pegula hasn't yet made a Slam SF. AND she's 29. So......

[ponchi101]

As I say. Experience is an overrated quality. If you are interested (and have the time):
http://blogs.talkabouttennis2.com/index ... xperience/

[meganfernandez]

More data points for my "Experience is overrated" theory.

Because a Slam winner and Slam finalist made the final? I think it’s data for the opposite. All four semifinalista were previous Slam finalists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Because Coco is 19. Sure, she was a slam's finalist, but she is still very young. AND, her slams final was when she was 18, so, again, you don't need "experience" to play great tennis. You need talent.
Great champions start winning early, as have done Carlos, Iga and now Coco. Aryna is actually a bit of an exception; she was 24 when she won her Aussie this year. Marketa is also a bit older, but her RG final was when she was 19.
Fine players that we were expecting to mature and win slams have not done so. For example, Belinda has not done so, despite many, many people (myself included) thinking she would. Sinner keeps accruing experience (by definition), and we are waiting. Shelton is very young already reached the semis of a slam, where he lost to Djokovic, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
If experience were really a critical matter, the tour would be dominated by 25+ yo players. The dominant player in the ATP is Novak, but he is also a prove of my theory: he won his first slam at 20. On the women's side, notice how Pegula remains without a slam's final. Yet, by definition, her experience by now should be enough to carry her to one.

Are you talking about experience late in Slams specifically, big matches? I think it's a big advantage and can't be overrated, but I don't think it's critica nor a guarantee of anything. It's not always the most critical factor, but it can be. It's so circumstantial. It wasn't a critical factor in Gauff-Sabalenka. The experience gap wasn't huge. I'd say Coco is experienced. She has been playing the best players on big stages for 4 years. You make a Slam final, you're experienced. Leylah Fernandez is an experienced player. Anyway, if Sabalenka had won (as she should have), it wouldn't have been because she had the experience to handle the situation better. She had more chances. She had control of more rallies. She made too many sloppy mistakes.

Stats for thought: the tours are dominated by mid-career players. Of the WTA Top 20, only five are younger than 25, and on the ATP, eight are. As of 2018, the average age of a male Slam champion in the Open Era was 25. Only 5% were won by teenagers, and half of those went on to become all-time greats.

[meganfernandez]

Because a Slam winner and Slam finalist made the final? I think it’s data for the opposite. All four semifinalista were previous Slam finalists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. Because Coco is 19. Sure, she was a slam's finalist, but she is still very young. AND, her slams final was when she was 18, so, again, you don't need "experience" to play great tennis. You need talent.
Great champions start winning early, as have done Carlos, Iga and now Coco. Aryna is actually a bit of an exception; she was 24 when she won her Aussie this year. Marketa is also a bit older, but her RG final was when she was 19.
Fine players that we were expecting to mature and win slams have not done so. For example, Belinda has not done so, despite many, many people (myself included) thinking she would. Sinner keeps accruing experience (by definition), and we are waiting. Shelton is very young and already reached the semis of a slam, where he lost to Djokovic, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
If experience were really a critical matter, the tour would be dominated by 25+ yo players. The dominant player in the ATP is Novak, but he is also a proof of my theory: he won his first slam at 20. On the women's side, notice how Pegula remains without a slam's final. Yet, by definition, her experience by now should be enough to carry her to one.

In singles, Pegula hasn't yet made a Slam SF. AND she's 29. So......

Not yet, but she has steadily progressed with experience.

[meganfernandez]

I think my problem is that when she first came on the scene, she was hyped up so much. And yeah, she was obviously good, but still only 15. I just can't usually buy into someone being a future slam champ at that age.

Now, from last year when she made the French final, yeah, future slam champ status achieved even though the loss to Swiatek was pretty lopsided.

Also, given her first round loss as Wimbledon (to Kenin), winning the USO less than 3 months later is a bit of a surprise, outstanding summer or not.

Her defense and movement are astounding. But her offensive groundstrokes I still am not sold on. On faster courts, with opponents who hit harder and deeper, she might not be able to get more balls back.

Then again, she is still only 19 now and will continue to improve. So I do think she will win more.

So am I surprised by this result? Well, yes. and no.

Agree about Coco’s offense. Nothing that special to me. I hope she keeps developing her net game and plays all-court tennis.

I’m not surprised by Coco. I figured she would win a Slam at some point but not at this tournament. But I’m not surprised. Clearly talented enough and a better player than she was at Wimbledon (where she didn’t play poorly at all - Kenin was fabulous).

Perhaps if you had seen this live, you'd have been more impressed with the great offensive shots that Coco made? And, again- she's 19. At least, for 19, IMO her offense skills are certainly impressive. Albeit, her defensive skills certainly are a bigger strength.

Possibly if I'd seen it live. I'm comparing it to the tennis I've seen on TV for decades. Maybe thinkg like speed and mixing it up don't translate to TV. She's great and a worthy champion, but I thought she paled in comparison to Sabalenka offensively. Sabalenka had a ton of chances and just didn't execute. Coco played a ton of balls back to the middle of the court (with some depth). If that was the strategy, it was risky. Sabalenka has 46 unforced errors and served poorly. I think she lost the match more than Coco won it. Coco did what she had to do, but it wasn't an offensive performance I'd bank on over and over. But what do I know, she won 3 out of 4 tournaments and beat Iga and Sabalenka along the way. Maybe she's doing something I don't see. Maybe just getting into position better and making better decisions over the course of the match.

[ponchi101]

...

Are you talking about experience late in Slams specifically, big matches? I think it's a big advantage and can't be overrated, but I don't think it's critica nor a guarantee of anything. It's not always the most critical factor, but it can be. It's so circumstantial. It wasn't a critical factor in Gauff-Sabalenka. The experience gap wasn't huge. I'd say Coco is experienced. She has been playing the best players on big stages for 4 years. You make a Slam final, you're experienced. Leylah Fernandez is an experienced player. Anyway, if Sabalenka had won (as she should have), it wouldn't have been because she had the experience to handle the situation better. She had more chances. She had control of more rallies. She made too many sloppy mistakes.

Stats for thought: the tours are dominated by mid-career players. Of the WTA Top 20, only five are younger than 25, and on the ATP, eight are. As of 2018, the average age of a male Slam champion in the Open Era was 25. Only 5% were won by teenagers, and half of those went on to become all-time greats.

I am talking about EXPERIENCE, period. It is the second most overrated human quality, especially in the work environment.

[meganfernandez]

...

Are you talking about experience late in Slams specifically, big matches? I think it's a big advantage and can't be overrated, but I don't think it's critica nor a guarantee of anything. It's not always the most critical factor, but it can be. It's so circumstantial. It wasn't a critical factor in Gauff-Sabalenka. The experience gap wasn't huge. I'd say Coco is experienced. She has been playing the best players on big stages for 4 years. You make a Slam final, you're experienced. Leylah Fernandez is an experienced player. Anyway, if Sabalenka had won (as she should have), it wouldn't have been because she had the experience to handle the situation better. She had more chances. She had control of more rallies. She made too many sloppy mistakes.

Stats for thought: the tours are dominated by mid-career players. Of the WTA Top 20, only five are younger than 25, and on the ATP, eight are. As of 2018, the average age of a male Slam champion in the Open Era was 25. Only 5% were won by teenagers, and half of those went on to become all-time greats.

I am talking about EXPERIENCE, period. It is the second most overrated human quality, especially in the work environment.

Agree to disagree, friend. I hope you get an experienced doctor the next time you need one!

What is the most overrated human quality?

[ponchi101]

Intuition.