by ti-amie TOP HALF

I. Swiatek 1
vs J. Niemeier
P. Udvardy vs C. Osorio
Qualifier vs Qualifier
B. Andreescu vs M. Bouzkova 25

E. Rybakina 22 vs E. Cocciaretto
K. Juvan vs Qualifier
Qualifier vs K. Muchova
A. Kalinskaya vs D. Collins 13

P. Badosa 11 vs C. McNally
K. Rakhimova vs K. Baindl
A. Bondar vs A. Bogdan
D. Yastremska vs J. Ostapenko 17

Q. Zheng 29 vs D. Galfi
B. Pera vs M. Uchijima WC
E. Raducanu vs T. Korpatsch
K. Siniakova vs C. Gauff 7


J. Pegula 3 vs J. Cristian
Qualifier vs A. Sasnovich
Qualifier vs O. Gadecki WC
M. Kostyuk vs A. Anisimova 28

B. Krejcikova 20 vs Qualifier
T. Gibson WC vs Qualifier
Qualifier vs A. Kalinina
A. Van Uytvanck vs P. Kvitova 15

M. Keys 10 vs A. Blinkova
X. Wang vs S. Hunter WC
A. Tomljanovic vs N. Podoroska
S. Kenin vs V. Azarenka 24

J. Teichmann 32 vs H. Dart
L. Zhu vs R. Marino
K. Kucova vs Qualifier
Y. Yuan vs M. Sakkari 6

BOTTOM HALF

D. Kasatkina 8
vs V. Gracheva
Qualifier vs T. Maria
S. Cirstea vs Y. Putintseva
X. Wang vs K. Pliskova 30

S. Zhang 23 vs P. Tig
P. Martic vs V. Golubic
Qualifier vs E. Rodina
M. Zanevska vs V. Kudermetova 9

A. Kontaveit 16 vs J. Grabher
M. Sherif vs M. Linette
D. Parry WC vs T. Townsend WC
Y. Bonaventure vs E. Alexandrova 19

I. Begu 27 vs S. Zheng
L. Bronzetti vs L. Siegemund
L. Fernandez vs A. Cornet
Qualifier vs C. Garcia 4


A. Sabalenka 5 vs T. Martincova
Qualifier vs S. Rogers
L. Davis vs D. Kovinic
G. Muguruza vs E. Mertens 26

M. Trevisan 21 vs Qualifier
A. Pavlyuchenkova vs C. Giorgi
C. Liu vs M. Brengle
V. Tomova vs B. Bencic 12

B. Haddad Maia 14 vs N. Parrizas Diaz
S. Stephens vs A. Potapova
D. Vekic vs Qualifie
J. Paolini vs L. Samsonova 18

K. Kanepi 31 vs K. Birrell WC
L. Fruhvirtova vs J. Fourlis WC
A. Riske-Amritraj vs M. Vondrousova
T. Zidansek vs O. Jabeur 2

by JTContinental Maybe a little top loaded, but overall a nice draw

by ashkor87 Vika versus Kenin is hard on both! andreescu is my pick for upset of the day...i suppose technically not even an upset since Bouzkova is ranked higher

by ashkor87 Swiatek has a very tough draw after the first round - Rybakina, Collins, Coco one after the other.. Pegula has a nice clear path to the quarters or so...
Sabalenka Garcia semifinal is looming..

by Suliso I voted for Garcia so most likely 1st or 2nd round exit for her. :)

by Deuce Bencic beat Garcia last night in a close 3 set match that was well played by both.

by dave g Hmm, I meant to vote for Pegula, but it is showing as Jabeur. But, that might have been my error.

by ponchi101
dave g wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:09 am Hmm, I meant to vote for Pegula, but it is showing as Jabeur. But, that might have been my error.
Just change it. Click again on Pegula and submit.

by dave g
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:15 am
dave g wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:09 am Hmm, I meant to vote for Pegula, but it is showing as Jabeur. But, that might have been my error.
Just change it. Click again on Pegula and submit.
I can't. Since I have already voted, I am not getting a second chance to vote.

by jazzyg I made a shaky vote for Pegula.

I'm not sure she'll ever win a slam, but if she does, this will be the one.

I considered other.

by ti-amie I refuse to jinx JPeg and pick her

by Deuce
dave g wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:09 am Hmm, I meant to vote for Pegula, but it is showing as Jabeur. But, that might have been my error.
dave g wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:31 am
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:15 am
dave g wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:09 am Hmm, I meant to vote for Pegula, but it is showing as Jabeur. But, that might have been my error.
Just change it. Click again on Pegula and submit.
I can't. Since I have already voted, I am not getting a second chance to vote.
Stay with Jabeur - it will prove to be more insightful than picking Pegula, and bordering on genius if she wins :D .
I, personally, hope it works out for both of you.👍

by ashkor87 This draw is so much more readable rhan the one on the AO site ..thank you!!

by Deuce I usually wait to see a player play one match at a tournament before choosing who I think will win the tournament.

by Owendonovan I don't think former champions should be meeting in the first round ie. Azarenka/Kenin.

by ponchi101
Owendonovan wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 11:41 pm I don't think former champions should be meeting in the first round ie. Azarenka/Kenin.
Echoes of Charlie Passarel years ago, saying that the tournament director of ALL tournaments should have the right to veto at least one match during the draw.
I agree. Just flip them with somebody else.

by ti-amie
Owendonovan wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 11:41 pm I don't think former champions should be meeting in the first round ie. Azarenka/Kenin.
I agree in principle but if both former champions are not highly ranked how do you give them a draw worthy of a former champion?

by Deuce I have absolutely no problem with any draw, as long as it's done honestly.
When you give anyone the power to pick and choose who plays who (and who doesn't play who), you're opening up a box that will result in lots of problems.
Random is random, and is by far the best system - there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

by Owendonovan I agree random is the fairest I just wish I could believe it always is random. I'm not a man of faith, I'm more suspicious though not conspiratorial. I like Ponchi's suggestion of 1 veto match, or something to that effect.

by ti-amie

by martini4me Wow. I was just watching Point Break, and after they featured last year's first-round match between Badosa and Tomljanovic, I Googled Ajla (to find out how it is she speaks with a native American accent) and was hit with a bunch of news stories that the two of them had just pulled out. Such a coincidence of timing.

by Deuce I wonder at what point Raducanu will pull out...

by ponchi101 Ok. So Badosa was not treating Adelaide as just a warm up. She was seriously injured.
Truly bad luck.

by ashkor87 Looking at the poll..the way people have voted, looks very sensible to me...

by JazzNU
martini4me wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 3:35 am Wow. I was just watching Point Break, and after they featured last year's first-round match between Badosa and Tomljanovic, I Googled Ajla (to find out how it is she speaks with a native American accent) and was hit with a bunch of news stories that the two of them had just pulled out. Such a coincidence of timing.
In what way does she speak with a native American accent? She most definitely does not, it's quite apparent she's not from the US when listening to her. She did live here when she was a teen for a few years, and her English reflects that, but nowhere near a native accent.

by ashkor87 @patrick..any specific 'other' or just 'other'?

by patrick Just other no specific player

by ponchi101 I decided against OTHER this time because the favorites looked good before the tournament. But OTHER includes, at the moment, Bencic, who has a chance.
I will not be surprised one bit if OTHER takes it.

by JTContinental FYI they haven't posted the OOP on the AO website yet. I think we can safely say that it will be the top half of the draw, but will wait until midnight PST before I make that call.

by ashkor87 I had called Samsonova a contender, but I think the court is too fast for her, here...

by ashkor87 Swiatek winning but not playing well....spraying forehands..

by ti-amie Sakkari is struggling against...checks notes - Diana Shnaider

by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:07 am Swiatek winning but not playing well....spraying forehands..
Indeed. Not the level of tennis needed to win the whole thing.
She will win today, but needs to raise her level.

by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:20 am Sakkari is struggling against...checks notes - Diana Shnaider
I went down the rabbit hole the other day looking at a few names in the draw I didn't recognize in SP and she was one of them. She was a top junior and managed to come thru qualifying, not surprising to me that she's playing well.

I think the problem seems to be how there are only a select few juniors that get attention on them and it's a lot. But it's darn near radio silent on many others. This girl was ranked higher than Linda Fruhvirtova maybe 2 years ago in juniors. But we've only heard about one of them. Not sure if that's just thinking Linda's prospects on the pro tour are considerably better or what, but we just don't hear much about some of these top juniors and it makes it seem like they came out of nowhere even though they didn't.

by ashkor87 On the other hand, Osorio is well known, I am still bitter she caused me to lose in SP two years ago! She is a fine player but all defense..

by Deuce I don't want to wait longer to pick my choice for winner of the tournament - because the longer one waits, the easier the pick becomes, of course, as players get eliminated and/or injured, etc.

And so... I picked 'OTHER', and my 'other' pick is kind of a 'sleeper pick' - Anett Kontaveit.
I know she hasn't done much lately - but she did have that very hot streak at the end of 2021, proving that she has the physical game to beat the best players... and I think she's mature and experienced enough now to hold it together and be consistent enough to win this thing.
She won't have any pressure or expectations on her, so that won't be a factor even if she would find it difficult to deal with.
At this point, she's the kind of player who, if she makes the semi-finals here, people will be saying "Where did she come from? How did she get here?" It would be very subtle...

My second pick would probably Bencic, who is at a similar point in her career as Kontaveit - mature and experienced enough now to win a Major. And she's been playing well of late. I just think that she's a little more psychologically fragile and erratic than Kontaveit right now.

by Suliso I don't have a clear idea who'll win (picked Garcia just for fun)... We collectively are picking lots of unproven players. It will be funny if at the end just another GS title for Swiatek.

by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:48 am I don't have a clear idea who'll win (picked Garcia just for fun)... We collectively are picking lots of unproven players. It will be funny if at the end just another GS title for Swiatek.
Maybe. But she did not look like GS material yesterday Vs Osorio. She won because she broke serve almost every time (I think Cami won two service games) bur she was also broken several times. That works against a player like Camila, but will not work against a Garcia, Ons or Sabalenka on a good day.
I picked Aryna also slightly in jest and because I would like her to win, but Iga is not assured of this.

by ashkor87 Leylah versus Garcia is the most intriguing matchup yet .between two players who both have a chance of going all the way ...Garcia probably has a 60% chance..Rybakina versus Collins is another good one I am looking forward to ..again, both could win the whole thing ...I think the court is a bit too quick for Rybakina .

by Suliso
ponchi101 wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 4:18 pm I picked Aryna also slightly in jest and because I would like her to win, but Iga is not assured of this.
Certainly not, but it's a conceivable outcome. Sabalenka is not a wild pick either.

by ti-amie I picked Pegula

by ashkor87 Huge upset brewing..Volynets about to beat Kudermetova..who IS this young lady?!

by ti-amie
ashkor87 wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:15 am Huge upset brewing..Volynets about to beat Kudermetova..who IS this young lady?!

by Deuce Volynets is a perennial qualifier. Her name is seen frequently - but very, very rarely in circumstances like this (having match points against a seeded player).
And with a name like Volynets, she was obviously born to play tennis...

And she just beat Kudermetova.

by Deuce Somehow I feel that if her name was Netsvoly instead of Volynets, she may still play tennis, but we never would have heard of her...
:)

by ashkor87 Sabalenka has been the most impressive player thus far.. Rogers is known for her big game on big court, but Saba made light work of her.. Swiatek has been good, but has struggled a bit sometimes.. should be a great second week..

by ashkor87 Volynets has the worst serve I have ever seen, a mere apology of an action, but she is winning!

by ti-amie

by ashkor87 Now that QZ is out (suprisingly), Coco has a nice easy path to the Quarters, where Swiatek or Rybakina or Collins will arrive.. looking forward to that, especially if it is not Swiatek (Swiatek vs Coco would be boringly predictable 6-1,6-3)

by jazzyg Not that easy if she has to play Ostapenko.

Obviously Ostapenko can lose to anyone, but she also can beat just about anyone.

by nelslus
ashkor87 wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:34 am Volynets has the worst serve I have ever seen, a mere apology of an action, but she is winning!
....Please let me introduce you to Sara Errani. :gorgeous:

by ashkor87
nelslus wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:07 pm
ashkor87 wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:34 am Volynets has the worst serve I have ever seen, a mere apology of an action, but she is winning!
....Please let me introduce you to Sara Errani. :gorgeous:
True...but somehow, I don't think of Errani as an active player..I am wrong, of course..she is still playing..

by ponchi101 She is an active nuisance....

by ashkor87 Waiting for Rybakina vs Collins now..should be a great match

by ti-amie
ashkor87 wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:39 am Waiting for Rybakina vs Collins now..should be a great match
I hope so!

by Deuce
Deuce wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 3:21 am
dave g wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:09 am Hmm, I meant to vote for Pegula, but it is showing as Jabeur. But, that might have been my error.
dave g wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:31 am
ponchi101 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:15 am

Just change it. Click again on Pegula and submit.
I can't. Since I have already voted, I am not getting a second chance to vote.
Stay with Jabeur - it will prove to be more insightful than picking Pegula, and bordering on genius if she wins :D .
I, personally, hope it works out for both of you.👍
I'm sorry, Dave...
:oops:

by ashkor87 Rybakina justifying my confidence in her..pulled away at the end.. Collins was probably out of gas by then.

by ashkor87 next up - Swiatek.. Rybakina has the game to trouble Iga-

by ashkor87
jazzyg wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:23 pm Not that easy if she has to play Ostapenko.

Obviously Ostapenko can lose to anyone, but she also can beat just about anyone.
that is true.. Ostapenko has a 40% chance at least against Coco.. maybe more

by ashkor87 Saba looking more and more like a champion! Hope she can do it this time..had her at 15% ...now I think 25% chance

by ashkor87 Updated probabilities-
Swiatek 50%
Sabalenka 25
Garcia 15
Rybakina 5
Field 5 - mostly Pegula

by ashkor87 Alexandrova playing horrendously...too bad

by ponchi101 Yesterday the ESPN crew mentioned that in her previous match, Aryna DID NOT serve a single Df. That is considerable, especially because even the very best of servers serve one or two during a regular match.
She is indeed looking very good, and she is crushing the ball. 25% sounds about right, I still say Iga at 50% is a bit high. Give Bencic (who goes against Aryna) a few percentage points there.

by Suliso Indeed, seems like Sabalenka is at least 2nd favorite at this stage

by Deuce Sabalenka has no middle gear. Her good is very good, and her bad is very bad. Even through all the double faults and beating herself, etc., she often 'looks really good' and 'looks like she will win the tournament' until she falls apart completely. She has disappointed many people who've fallen for it over and over.
She'll have to actually win a couple before I become a believer.

I like what I've seen from Garcia. She believes in herself now. She's come through a couple of tough matches where she was strongly challenged. In the past, she had a lot of trouble winning those matches. But now, when the going gets tough, she rises to the challenge and wins. Rather than getting scared when she's challenged, she now bears down and becomes even more aggressive. And it's working.

by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 6:11 pm Yesterday the ESPN crew mentioned that in her previous match, Aryna DID NOT serve a single Df. That is considerable, especially because even the very best of servers serve one or two during a regular match.
She is indeed looking very good, and she is crushing the ball. 25% sounds about right, I still say Iga at 50% is a bit high. Give Bencic (who goes against Aryna) a few percentage points there.
Statistically speaking, 50% is exactly the proportion of tournaments, and majors, Swiatek wins..hence 50% probability

And, much as I love Bencic, I feel her time to win majors has come and gone...

by Deuce Bencic is 25 years old.
Sabalenka is 24 years old.

I don't understand how one can see Bencic as being past her prime, and see Sabalenka as being in her prime. Doesn't make much sense to me.

by ashkor87
ashkor87 wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:17 am next up - Swiatek.. Rybakina has the game to trouble Iga-
And so it proved..awesome, flawless Rybakina

by ashkor87
jazzyg wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 2:23 pm Not that easy if she has to play Ostapenko.

Obviously Ostapenko can lose to anyone, but she also can beat just about anyone.
Good call!

by ashkor87 so now?
Probabilities:

Sabalenka 50%
Garcia 30%
Rybakina 10%
field 10% (Pegula, Krejcikova, Ostapenko et al)

by ponchi101 Sabalenka 20
Garcia 20
Pegula 20
Rybakina 10
Pliskova 10
The rest splits the last 20%. It is that close.

by Suliso I'd give no more than 0.5% to Pliskova. Bencic and Ostapenko is more likely than that (not very likely).

by Suliso As for Gauff she has an admirable consistency, but not enough game to challenge the best when it counts the most. For now anyway. Someone her age is still expected to improve considerably.

by ashkor87
Suliso wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 7:40 am I'd give no more than 0.5% to Pliskova. Bencic and Ostapenko is more likely than that (not very likely).
Agree

by ashkor87 Pliskova in particular, doesn't really belong at this level, she has not played well the last couple years..

by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:26 am Sabalenka 20
Garcia 20
Pegula 20
Rybakina 10
Pliskova 10
The rest splits the last 20%. It is that close.
Rybakina half of Pegula?! how many wimbledons does she have to win to show us she is a champion? what has Pegula won?

by Deuce ^ Using that very same approach during Wimbledon last year would not have yielded an accurate prediction of the winner.
Every winner wins his/her first at some point.
Just because something has never happened before does not mean that it won't happen.

by ashkor87 But it seems we all agree Sabalenka is favorite now, with Garcia a close second?

by JTContinental I'd put Pegula ahead of Garcia, and if Ostapenko keeps up her hot streak, I'd put her near the top contenders

by Suliso Sabalenka, Garcia, Rybakina, Pegula, Ostapenko, Bencic and Azarenka (with the last two being generous) in this order. Anything else would be a huge surprise for me.

by Deuce Heh... Sabalenka is never a favourite in my book. Not until she wins a couple - because she has choked so many times in big ones (often after looking very good in the matches leading up to the ultimate choke). And I, personally, doubt that she'll ever win a Major.

I'd say it's between Garcia and Bencic here, with the edge going to Garcia.
I admittedly haven't seen a Bencic match this week - but I know she's been playing well for the past few weeks (won the tournament before this, where I did see her play).
I have seen 2 full Garcia matches here, and I've been impressed - not so much with her play, which has been good - but more with her 'problem solving' abilities. I believe she is mentally stronger than Bencic.

I haven't seen Pegula play this week, either - and I am not aware of how she was playing in the weeks leading up to this (did she play any of the Australian or New Zealand lead ups?). And so my not including her is more a product of my ignorance about her current form than about anything else.

by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:00 am
ponchi101 wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:26 am Sabalenka 20
Garcia 20
Pegula 20
Rybakina 10
Pliskova 10
The rest splits the last 20%. It is that close.
Rybakina half of Pegula?! how many wimbledons does she have to win to show us she is a champion? what has Pegula won?
Nobody is saying she is not a champion; that is settled. She won her Wimby.
But Pegula is ranked higher.
Hey, if Rybakina wins this I will enjoy it. I have said it, I like her game and her demeanor. And if her M.O. is going to be "Win big, disappear for a while, win big again", fine. But she yesterday played very good tennis for most of the match, with some bad stretches too. They were in the 3rd game of the first set and she already had 12 UE's. She also had a truckload of winners, but if she comes to one match against one of the retrievers and the UE's go up, she may not make it.
The next match: Rybakina/Ostapenko. What will be the O/U for UE's? I say, at least 40. (Combined).

by patrick I take the over on UFEs in Rybakina vs Ostapenko

by ponchi101
patrick wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 7:52 pm I take the over on UFEs in Rybakina vs Ostapenko
By how much? If it goes 2 sets, I say 40 is reasonable. If it goes 3 sets, 50 is... about right?

by patrick Yes

by ashkor87 But it will be more fun to watch than, say, Pegula versus Badosa or Vika

by ponchi101 Sure.
If you are the kind of person that enjoys holding a firecracker in your hand... ;)
(it can be spectacular, it can be appalling. We will see).

by ashkor87 Being ranked higher didn't help Swiatek much, did it? Or Coco?

by ashkor87 Btw that is exactly how we light firecrackers around here!

by Suliso Garcia is gone so it's even more Sabalenka's tournament to lose. She might of course, but I have a feeling not this time.

by ponchi101 Slam champions still alive:
Ostapenko, Rybakina and Azarenka. But I would like for Pliskova to win it. I believe she "deserves" it.
(I know they pretty much all do).

by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:05 am Slam champions still alive:
Ostapenko, Rybakina and Azarenka. But I would like for Pliskova to win it. I believe she "deserves" it.
(I know they pretty much all do).
She has had her chances...against Kerber at the USO for instance, and hasn't seized them..so no, I don't agree that she deserves it...she has been #1, which is enough ...

by ponchi101 USO vs Kerber, Wimby Vs Barty.
And by now, I will not be surprised if she gets it (or not). Right before her Wimby run, I said she was finished. And then, she proved me wrong.

by ti-amie Pliskova's problem has always been and still is her movement/lack thereof. She can move but it has to be on her terms otherwise she just gets jerked around. That said I used to think she would win a Slam. I don't know if she can now.

by ponchi101 I was thinking about that, and then it hit me: if you NEVER had good movement, when you get old you can still play the same.
She compensates somehow.

by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:05 am Slam champions still alive:
Ostapenko, Rybakina and Azarenka. But I would like for Pliskova to win it. I believe she "deserves" it.
(I know they pretty much all do).
I wouldn't say she deserves it. She's had ample opportunities to win a slam as a top ranked player and more often than not managed to flame out 3rd round or earlier. That doesn't speak to deserving it to me.

by ponchi101 With that lack of mobility, I consider her an overachiever. Sure, the serve is very good, the FH is powerful. But she is, perhaps, the slowest player to make it to the top ten in ages. Certainly, the slowest #1 ever (even if she was #1 for, like, one afternoon).

by JazzNU
ti-amie wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:53 pm Pliskova's problem has always been and still is her movement/lack thereof. She can move but it has to be on her terms otherwise she just gets jerked around. That said I used to think she would win a Slam. I don't know if she can now.
I'm almost the opposite. When she couldn't stop flaming out in early rounds, and it was past the point of needing to break that trend as a top player, I assumed she wouldn't win won in her career. Like for me to believe her as a real contender, she needs to win the one to make me think she can get to 2 slam titles, I have zero faith she can get to the one.

And she's looked fantastic at this AO. Fantastic. 2nd best player from the matches I've watched though her path hasn't been as difficult as some. And still I have no belief that she'll get it done.

by Deuce ANYONE who wins a Major obviously deserves it.

by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:54 pm I was thinking about that, and then it hit me: if you NEVER had good movement, when you get old you can still play the same.
She compensates somehow.
And the serve is the one shot that doesn't deteriorate much with age....

by nelslus
ashkor87 wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:42 am
ponchi101 wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:54 pm I was thinking about that, and then it hit me: if you NEVER had good movement, when you get old you can still play the same.
She compensates somehow.
And the serve is the one shot that doesn't deteriorate much with age....
Well.....it is not uncommon for players to go through periods with the service yips. Or permanent/temporary injuries. Etc.

by ashkor87 I hear Vekic has a lopsided winning record against Sabalenka.. wonder how it will hold up..

by ashkor87 Pegula looks quicker and sharper than Vika in the early exchanges...I would expect she will win this one...

by ashkor87 Well, well, that didn't last long.. Vika firmly ahead now...

by ashkor87 Pegula coming apart at the seams now...vika up 4-1 in the second, up a set

by ashkor87 and there goes #3 Pegula..came apart completely at the end..surprising

by ashkor87 So now 60% sabalenka, 30% Rybakina, 10% the field..

by ashkor87 but, having seem the youtube higlights of some previous matches, I must give Vekic a reasonable chance of beating Sabalenka - her speed around the court, ability to return balls, and astonishing servce return - mean she has at least a 30% chance, if not more.

by ponchi101 With two semis secured:
Indeed, Sabalenka is the "favorite". But with her penchant for self destruction, that comes with caveats.
Rybakina's "hit or miss" game at second? I wonder how that holds against a very good defender like Azarenka.
Pliskova? That lack of movement is so problematic, but this is not a fast court. If she serves very, very well, she can do it.

To me:
Sabalenka: 40%
Rybakina and Azarenka: 25%
Pliskova 10%

BTW. The OTHER brigade did well. 6 of the 8 Quarterfinalists were there.
I like this parity (I have said it before)

by ashkor87 I don't see why Rybakina is 'hit or miss'..anyway, she is a higher class player than Pegula, Pliskova et al .Vika is an established champion, but I would expect Rybakina to beat her, just as she beat Halep at Wimbledon...we shall see..

by ashkor87 Pegula is another very fine player who lacks the extra something to win a major..a bit over-hyped because she is American?

by ashkor87 BTW. The OTHER brigade did well. 6 of the 8 Quarterfinalists were there.

But can any of them WIN the title? It was never about reaching the quarters .

by ponchi101 Rybakina was in the OTHER brigade at Wimby.
Remember I said that DOING WELL was reaching the QF. So many players have never done that.
Very well? Semis. Excellent? The finals.
Winning is SLAM CHAMPION. It is a simple metric.

by ashkor87 rybakina was not other for me. I had named her early in the year.
To reach the quarters is possible with some luck and a good draw... look at Pliskova for instance..

by Suliso Indeed, Rybakina shouldn't have been among "others" anymore.

by ashkor87 Overall, thus far, am most puzzled by the poor performance of Garcia and Kudermetova...was K unwell? Kasatkina too..the ones whose good performance has surprised me are Linette and Vekic..never knew Vekic was so good!

Not surprised at Pegula - she did almost exactly as I expected her to..good but not great. Coco and Samsonova were a bit below what I expected...

by Fastbackss Pegula's made the quarters at 4 of the last 5 Slams.
In the 8 WTA1000 last year she won 1, lost in final of 1, lost in semis of 2, lost in quarters of 2, lost in 3R of 2, and 2R of 1.

That's pretty consistent. She hasn't made past quarters of slam yet but also hasn't been up and down. This is her 5th year of regularly playing slams - she's getting there.

by ponchi101
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).

by ashkor87 Horrendous serving by Rybakina when it mattered the most .couldn't get a single first serve in for a long stretch to the end of the first set..only some equally shoddy play by Vika saved her..Rybakina's coach really needs to learn to be more positive!

by ashkor87 At the start of the AO. I had named 6 women contenders..you may remember the challenge you offered me @ponchi..
Two of those 6 are in the finals. Time to retire your theory about 'orher'.

by ashkor87
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?!

by ponchi101 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 :clap: , 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.

by ashkor87 That is my point..this 'parity' is a myth.

by ponchi101 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?

by ashkor87
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!

by ashkor87
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 :clap: , 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.

by ponchi101 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.

by ashkor87 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..

by ashkor87 The period 2020 to 21 was marred by Covid, and was what historians call an interregnum..that wasn't the norm

by ptmcmahon
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 :clap: , 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 :)

by Fastbackss
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.

by ponchi101
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.

by ashkor87
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 :clap: , 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..

by ponchi101 "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. ;)

by Deuce 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...

by ashkor87 6 is a good number for a grand slam event ...3 for a 1000 series maybe

by ashkor87 Well, in the end, Sabalenka was everyone's #1 or #2 pick. I rest my case

by ptmcmahon Well yes this one event. But if we’re limiting it 3 or even 6 then 6 of last 16 weren’t clear.

That would be like if an unknown win the French open and I said we never know who’s going to win ever. I rest my case :)

There are example of both sides. It’s not just black or white :)

Picking other makes sense when you don’t have a strong feeling, which often we don’t. This one slam just wasn’t an example of it.

by Suliso There will always be some GS wins by "other". How often depends on how dominant are or aren't the leading players. History of this sport clearly indicates that. Raducanu was the greatest "other" in history, but some other prominent ones from the last 30 years - Majoli, Pennetta, Costa, Kuerten (the first time), Sharapova (the first time), Rybakina...

by ashkor87 Yes, Kuerten was a real bolt from the blue, he had won only a challenger previously! Not sure about the others but remember, Penetta had won Indian Wells already ( I think)..and Rybakina was not really a surprise..Raducanu yes, certainly. Majoli had just won the German open on clay so she was clearly a force on clay already.
Sharapova was already a highly regarded young player, and had won a couple rounds at Wimbledon the previous year, when she was only 16 or something, and won a warm up event even in 2004, so not totally unexpected either..young people have a way of blazing forth like meteors!
But they are not so 'normal' that we should normalize it! You don't see a meteor every day.

by ponchi101
Suliso wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:48 pm There will always be some GS wins by "other". How often depends on how dominant are or aren't the leading players. History of this sport clearly indicates that. Raducanu was the greatest "other" in history, but some other prominent ones from the last 30 years - Majoli, Pennetta, Costa, Kuerten (the first time), Sharapova (the first time), Rybakina...
Becker (although he had won Queens two weeks before), Stich, Gaudio, Gomez, etc.
Roland Garros was the land of OTHER for a few years in the 90's.

by ponchi101
ptmcmahon wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:39 pm Well yes this one event. But if we’re limiting it 3 or even 6 then 6 of last 16 weren’t clear.

That would be like if an unknown win the French open and I said we never know who’s going to win ever. I rest my case :)

There are example of both sides. It’s not just black or white :)

Picking other makes sense when you don’t have a strong feeling, which often we don’t. This one slam just wasn’t an example of it.
Krejcikova two years ago. Not only out of the blue, she had won the week prior to RG (Strasbourg), also bucking the trend of players that win the week before a slam never win that slam.

by ptmcmahon I wouldn’t compare it to seeing a meteor. It’s more like we rolled one die and got a six … and much more frequently lately.

by JazzNU Sampras would've been listed as an "other" the first slam he won as well. Young up and coming players are the main reason there should be an Other category, they might hit a home run sooner than expected. I don't understand why this is a point of contention...

by ponchi101 I will add something else. Why do we then take "the field"? What does "the field" mean.
With @JazzNu. Sampras was the 12th seed at his 1990 USO (he was also the 12th seed at his last. A pretty coincidence). Yes, he was promising and people were talking about him. But nobody really expected him to beat Mac AND Lendl at the time. So, indeed, a major "other".
Or field.

by ashkor87 So I think we should distinguish between the Becker/Kuerten/ Sharapova and the Costa/,krejcikova cases...in the former, a great champion was winning the first of many, in the latter, it was a one-time thing..I would categorize only the second case as a true 'other,'..a sign of parity, which is the point at issue here. Agree? If Camila Osorio Serrano had won here, it might have been a 'first of many' case!

by atlpam I think it’s too soon to rule out Krejcikova winning more.

by meganfernandez
atlpam wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:30 am I think it’s too soon to rule out Krejcikova winning more.
Absolutely, considering how she played against Iga in Otrava last fall. She can play with the best of them.

by ashkor87
meganfernandez wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:42 am
atlpam wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:30 am I think it’s too soon to rule out Krejcikova winning more.
Absolutely, considering how she played against Iga in Otrava last fall. She can play with the best of them.
I agree, I love her style anyway.. smooth as silk.. hope she wins a few more!

by ashkor87 in the end,Rybakina became too cautious at the end of the third set, just hitting the ball up and down the middle of the court, waiting for the error - Sabalenka took the game into her own hands, hitting angles, changing direction - she played like a champion, Rybakina did not.

by ashkor87
ponchi101 wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:16 pm I will add something else. Why do we then take "the field"? What does "the field" mean.
With @JazzNu. Sampras was the 12th seed at his 1990 USO (he was also the 12th seed at his last. A pretty coincidence). Yes, he was promising and people were talking about him. But nobody really expected him to beat Mac AND Lendl at the time. So, indeed, a major "other".
Or field
I would classify that as 'field' - some great player can always emerge and take everyone by (pleasant) surprise.. it doesnt mean 'anyone can win', 'parity' etc.

by ashkor87 this has been an elightening discussion, for me, at least! so thanks, folks..

by ponchi101
ashkor87 wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:16 am this has been an elightening discussion, for me, at least! so thanks, folks..
Hey, you started it ;)

by Deuce 'Other' obviously means a player who COULD win the tournament - hell EVERY player in the draw has a chance to win it - but who would be a surprise winner. It has absolutely nothing to do with how successful - or not - they are AFTER they win their maiden Major!

And so Kuerten, Becker, Sharapova, Sampras, even Kenin and Swiatek, and the others mentioned, all qualified as 'other' when they won their first Major.

by ptmcmahon
ashkor87 wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:21 pm Well, in the end, Sabalenka was everyone's #1 or #2 pick. I rest my case
Having finally watched the final (for some reason I checked this thread earlier today having not watched final yet... very smart of me) - Sabalenka barely won. Rybakina very nearly won this one, and she wasn't in anyone's "top 6" that I saw in the thread. Don't know how you can rest your case when it very nearly didn't even come true this time :)

by ashkor87 She was my #2 pick.
Some of this discussion took place on the general AO thread .you may have missed that.

by ptmcmahon One week in she was your #4 pick... this was your first % probabilty I could find :)

viewtopic.php?p=74844#p74844

by Deuce It's humorous how, as time goes on in a tournament and players are eliminated, the percentage of probability for the remaining players to win keeps rising :o ...
Then, at the end, after the winner is decided, some congratulate themselves and say "I picked him/her to win!"
Yes... when there were only 2 or 4 players remaining!
But if one looks back to the beginning of the tournament, you see that the person who is proud of picking the winner had given a better chance for the win to about 5 other players.

And then when someone unexpected wins a big tournament, these people completely ignore that, and continue insisting that the winner always comes from a very small and select group.

The goalposts keep moving - sometimes daily - in order to make the person appear to be 'right'.
I can't take this kind stuff seriously - it's just humorous to me... :lol:

by ptmcmahon The funniest "stat" I heard was on the semifinal when they made a big deal about the oldest and youngest players in the draw left playing each other.
(You know when it was down to four and there was a 1/3 chance of it happening.)