ATP M1000 WTA 1000 Cincinnati 8/13 - 8/20 2023

[skatingfan]

btw, Chris Evert referred to this 'peaking at the wrong time' concept too so I am in good company. Does anyone here think she doesnt know whereof she speaks?

I'm not always sure Evert knows what she's saying - not that's she's not knowledgeable, but that she does say things that make absolutely no sense.

[meganfernandez]

btw, Chris Evert referred to this 'peaking at the wrong time' concept too so I am in good company. Does anyone here think she doesn't know whereof she speaks?

I think it's a real thing but not universal or applicable to the very top players, who compete through their off days and win anyway.

[Suliso]

The concept of peaking too early is widely used in track and field. I think it's harder to apply in track and field because one gets so many chances in tennis. As opposed to those three tries in say javelin through every four years.

[ashkor87]

btw, Chris Evert referred to this 'peaking at the wrong time' concept too so I am in good company. Does anyone here think she doesnt know whereof she speaks?

I'm not always sure Evert knows what she's saying - not that's she's not knowledgeable, but that she does say things that make absolutely no sense.

yes, you can say that.. I dont agree but it is a fair riposte

[ashkor87]

As always, I'd widen the scope of any analysis to doing well in both events, not winning both. Going deep should be the marker.

good point, but does anyone play the USO aiming to 'go deep'? top players, I mean? maybe the ones who 'go deep' at the lesser tournament? let me do some digging and report on that.

[ashkor87]

just a data point: (on going deep)
last year's finalists at the USO were Ruud and Alcaraz.. Ruud lost in the second round of Cincy, Alcaraz in the QFs
women: Swiatek and Jabeur were USO finalists - Jabeur was beaten in the third rund of Cincy, so was Swiatek.

interpret as you wish! I personally think they didnt bother to try too hard, saving their best for the USO.

[ashkor87]

Well, I want to play well, but no so well, because if I play too well in THIS tournament, I will not play THAT WELL in a tournament that starts TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. So, do I play just at 90% of what I can play, meaning I will run at 90% and hit my shots at 90%? Or do I NOT HIT a few certain shots, meaning I will not practice them, but I will save them for that other tournament?"

well, that seems a pretty fair description of what Jabeur and Swiatek actually did do last year! Lost in the third round of Cincy, and Alcaraz and Ruud too (quarters and second round respectively).. you were being sarcastic, but it may in fact be pretty close to the truth!

[ponchi101]

The concept of peaking too early is widely used in track and field. I think it's harder to apply in track and field because one gets so many chances in tennis. As opposed to those three tries in say javelin through every four years.

It is one of the many sports' cliches that have become part of the vocabulary. I find them all dumb.
"I'm going to play it one point at a time". As opposed to what? Your opponent is going to play TWO points at a time?
"I'm going out there and play my game". Actually, if you can choose, go out there and play Federer's game. Or Nadal's game. Or Novak's, Serena's or Steffi's.
"A series does not start until the visiting team wins a game". So, technically, a series could be over and never started (the home team always won).
"Player A is the more experienced, so s/he has an advantage". Despite all the evidence against that (Jordan was a powerhouse the moment he came to the NBA, Lebron came straight from High School, and let's not start counting all the 17 yo tennis prodigies that beat plenty of more experienced players in slam finals).

All these sayings and jargons are because, in the end, sports are simple. The better player that day wins. But the talking heads need to make it sound deep because how do you justify their existence otherwise?
To use you as an example: this is NOT chemistry. It is just a (almost silly) game.

[ponchi101]

Well, I want to play well, but no so well, because if I play too well in THIS tournament, I will not play THAT WELL in a tournament that starts TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. So, do I play just at 90% of what I can play, meaning I will run at 90% and hit my shots at 90%? Or do I NOT HIT a few certain shots, meaning I will not practice them, but I will save them for that other tournament?"

well, that seems a pretty fair description of what Jabeur and Swiatek actually did do last year! Lost in the third round of Cincy, and Alcaraz and Ruud too (quarters and second round respectively).. you were being sarcastic, but it may in fact be pretty close to the truth!

Nope, I was not being sarcastic. It is a serious question. How do you NOT peak early? how do players make that approach?
And of course, you will find your examples; it is indeed frequent that people that win one week will not win the next because, as we also know, keeping streaks going is very difficult. Look at Dan Evans: winner at DC last week, 1R this week at TOR. Peaked too early? No, he is simply Dan Evans and he is not going to win every week.
Iga peaked too early at Wimby? Nope, she played very little before that and grass is simply her weakest surface. You will always be able to find a complicated narrative to fit any theory.

[ti-amie]

Kostyuk just lost in under an hour to Jasmine Paolini 2 & 1.

Potapova is losing to Naef 5-1 first set.

Berrettini vs FAA going three

[ti-amie]

Naef takes the first set 6-1 in less than 30m.

[JTContinental]

btw, Chris Evert referred to this 'peaking at the wrong time' concept too so I am in good company. Does anyone here think she doesnt know whereof she speaks?

Ummmm….have you watched her commentary?

[JTContinental]

Hooray, a straight sets victory for Venus over Kudermetova--she came back from 1-4 down in the first set and 2-5 down in the second set for her first top 20 win since 2019

[skatingfan]

And Felix won as well - must be the latest signs of the apocalypse.

[ptmcmahon]

The concept of peaking too early is widely used in track and field. I think it's harder to apply in track and field because one gets so many chances in tennis. As opposed to those three tries in say javelin through every four years.

It is one of the many sports' cliches that have become part of the vocabulary. I find them all dumb.
"I'm going to play it one point at a time". As opposed to what? Your opponent is going to play TWO points at a time?
"I'm going out there and play my game". Actually, if you can choose, go out there and play Federer's game. Or Nadal's game. Or Novak's, Serena's or Steffi's.
"A series does not start until the visiting team wins a game". So, technically, a series could be over and never started (the home team always won).
"Player A is the more experienced, so s/he has an advantage". Despite all the evidence against that (Jordan was a powerhouse the moment he came to the NBA, Lebron came straight from High School, and let's not start counting all the 17 yo tennis prodigies that beat plenty of more experienced players in slam finals).

All these sayings and jargons are because, in the end, sports are simple. The better player that day wins. But the talking heads need to make it sound deep because how do you justify their existence otherwise?
To use you as an example: this is NOT chemistry. It is just a (almost silly) game.

I like when teams are in best of seven series and after splitting the first two games they say that was their goal (especially the road team) - as if they weren't actually trying to win both games.