Talk About Tennis 2.0

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 5:22 pm

Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:44 am Indeed, Rybakina shouldn't have been among "others" anymore.

She won't be anymore. Although her performances are still a bit wobbly (her early loss at the USO was a surprise) she is showing up for the big matches.
In my defense, choosing which of the top 10 to NOT put in a poll is becoming very hard, and which of the lower players to put in also. The final four says it: Linette and Azarenka came truly out of nowhere (despite Vika being a two time former champion).

Please see my note below...the finalists were in my top 4 at the start of the AO..where is this 'other' player?!

OTHER has to be included because we can't make polls of more than 10 players. With the parity in the WTA, the chances of a lower ranked player winning a slam is always there.
And, as you challenge me to retire OTHER. She has won several slams in recent history: Rybakina (you called it , nobody else), Raducanu, Kenin, Andreescu, Krejcikova, and even when Naomi won her first slam, it came as a surprise.
Much more successful than her brother.

That is my point..this 'parity' is a myth.

Ah. I don't recall you saying so.
I'll make you a deal. For Roland Garros, you choose the players to include in the poll, rankings be damned. How about that?

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:55 am Ah. I don't recall you saying so.
I'll make you a deal. For Roland Garros, you choose the players to include in the poll, rankings be damned. How about that?

You had made a similar offer for the AO and i won! but you don't seem to remember it, so I am not taking any of your offers!

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:48 pm OTHER has to be included because we can't make polls of more than 10 players. With the parity in the WTA, the chances of a lower ranked player winning a slam is always there.
And, as you challenge me to retire OTHER. She has won several slams in recent history: Rybakina (you called it , nobody else), Raducanu, Kenin, Andreescu, Krejcikova, and even when Naomi won her first slam, it came as a surprise.
Much more successful than her brother.

I think that was an unusual period, not the norm..we won't see it again..the leaders are flrmly established now..Swiatek Sabalenka, Rybakina, maybe Garcia.

Out of curiosity: why not accept picking the entries for the poll? You always post your favorites and the percentages you assign them. This would simply be choosing 9 options, as opposed to stating the percentages for 5-6.
But, sure. If you don't want to, fine.

About parity. Of course I am talking about the recent years. There was NO parity during the Serena dominance, and the Steffi dominance. A brief interlude when Seles dominated, and before that, Martina and Chrissie ruled. The WTA has always been a tour of 2-3 players on top, everybody else as supporting cast.
But, since 2016, out of 28 slams there have been 16 slam winners. If Sabalenka wins tomorrow, it will be 17 in 29. That is the sole reason I say there is parity, NOW. Historically, no.

Yes, but to someone who follows and understands the game, many of those 16 were predictable...as I have said before, 2022 winners were all predictable - Barty, Swiatek, Rybakina, Swiatek..only Rybakina was a bit of a surprise to some people..

The period 2020 to 21 was marred by Covid, and was what historians call an interregnum..that wasn't the norm

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:48 pm OTHER has to be included because we can't make polls of more than 10 players. With the parity in the WTA, the chances of a lower ranked player winning a slam is always there.
And, as you challenge me to retire OTHER. She has won several slams in recent history: Rybakina (you called it , nobody else), Raducanu, Kenin, Andreescu, Krejcikova, and even when Naomi won her first slam, it came as a surprise.
Much more successful than her brother.

Yeah... other has won 5, maybe 6 of the last 15 Slams. Can't get rid of it just because other didn't win the last two

I agree that Ashkor should set the entries until an "other" wins again and see how long it goes

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:09 am Yes, but to someone who follows and understands the game, many of those 16 were predictable...as I have said before, 2022 winners were all predictable - Barty, Swiatek, Rybakina, Swiatek..only Rybakina was a bit of a surprise to some people..

I am admittedly confused by all this.

10 picks would be more than half of the OLD seeding before they went to 32.
It's a healthy percentage of the field.
So yeah, it's somewhat known who contenders would be.

Changing course - it depends on definition of both parity and predictability.

You can have them simultaneously...or separate.

Big 4 era of ATP - predictable, not parity

WTA now - I could make what I feel is a solid case there is predictable parity...depending on how you define predictability. Is it winner? Finals? SF? QF? If Rybakina wins - the last 4 were won by 2 people.

Fastbackss wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:00 pm

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:09 am Yes, but to someone who follows and understands the game, many of those 16 were predictable...as I have said before, 2022 winners were all predictable - Barty, Swiatek, Rybakina, Swiatek..only Rybakina was a bit of a surprise to some people..

I am admittedly confused by all this.

10 picks would be more than half of the OLD seeding before they went to 32.
It's a healthy percentage of the field.
So yeah, it's somewhat known who contenders would be.

Changing course - it depends on definition of both parity and predictability.

You can have them simultaneously...or separate.

Big 4 era of ATP - predictable, not parity

WTA now - I could make what I feel is a solid case there is predictable parity...depending on how you define predictability. Is it winner? Finals? SF? QF? If Rybakina wins - the last 4 were won by 2 people.

Very subtle and important explanation. Uhm.
I wonder how come none of us is a commentator. We make much more interesting points than any of the tennis talking heads I hear.

ptmcmahon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:47 pm

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:48 pm OTHER has to be included because we can't make polls of more than 10 players. With the parity in the WTA, the chances of a lower ranked player winning a slam is always there.
And, as you challenge me to retire OTHER. She has won several slams in recent history: Rybakina (you called it , nobody else), Raducanu, Kenin, Andreescu, Krejcikova, and even when Naomi won her first slam, it came as a surprise.
Much more successful than her brother.

Yeah... other has won 5, maybe 6 of the last 15 Slams. Can't get rid of it just because other didn't win the last two

I agree that Ashkor should set the entries until an "other" wins again and see how long it goes

Thanks, but I am not biting...it is not about how clever I am..it is about parity, and the idea that 'anyone can win'..I believe only a small number of players (3?) can win any given tournament, and if we know our tennis, we should know who they are. ,'Other' is just a cop-out..

"Anyone can win" is not the same as "a lot of players can win". Nobody was believing that Cami Osorio could win it.
And, collectively, we gave chances to at least 6 players. Guess we don't know our tennis.

Well... Ashkor himself was saying that Leylah could win the Aussie Open.
He was the only one here who felt that Leylah could win it.
Leylah obviously belongs to the 'Other' category.
So...