ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 8:25 pm
Agree that we will not agree on Parks. No results yet that you can say that she can compete at the level to win a slam.
It surprises me that you are so high on her. You have frequently said that the players that win slams have "class". Do you believe she really has that?
Yes, I do think Parks has class..and real potential..just based on what I see when I see her playing...not data..her serve is simply beautiful to watch too..on a fast court she will do well..she did Lyon, remember, beating Garcia.. that is more than many others have accomplished yet, who are highly touted as future champions. !
Ok, decided to look her up. She is already ranked 31, at age 22. Not bad. So, I can see her do a Vondrousova. Or a Raducanu. You know my position. She will be seeded at the Aussie, and she can be in the OTHER category.
Will not be surprised if she goes higher. Or lower.
See the match against Sakkari at Ostrava
..played with poise and controlled agression- kept looking to come forward, hit many volleys to back up her big serve (if I am not mistaken, she hit the fastest serve at the USO this year)..that kind of game works well on a fast court, and she is quite athletic too, moves well. Yes, she has been up and down, but i always like to judge a player by peak performance, not average. - which is what rankings are about
Different approach.
At her peak, Yelena Ostapenko plays some of the most sublime tennis. She hits winners like they are routine.
At her average, Ostapenko plays a looney game that leads to unexplainable defeats.
And at slams, you need 7 matches full of consistency.
Judging somebody for his/her peak is like saying that the player that hit the most spectacular winner during the match was the best player, regardless of the score.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 4:19 pm
Different approach.
At her peak, Yelena Ostapenko plays some of the most sublime tennis. She hits winners like they are routine.
At her average, Ostapenko plays a looney game that leads to unexplainable defeats.
And at slams, you need 7 matches full of consistency.
Judging somebody for his/her peak is like saying that the player that hit the most spectacular winner during the match was the best player, regardless of the score.
i didnt say most spectacular winner - that is a stretch, not what I said or meant.. I guess I dont value consistency as much as others do... I still think Adriano Panatta was a great player, for instance, so was (is) DelPotro though they may not have racked up the numbers.
No disagreement on Panatta or Delpo. Great players indeed.
But they are nowhere near, for example, Mats Wilander, the one player that I say milked his talent to the most. Wilander was as entertaining and exciting as a bowl of porridge; compared to Panatta, he was precisely porridge compared to champagne.
Yet it is Wilander that holds 7 slams.
Consistency is a tremendous asset in tennis. Tony Trabert said it: master the art of getting the ball over once more than your opponent, and you will be a champion.
I don't mind a pick of Gauff as champion, but not at twice over Iga.
I say:
Coco, Elena, Rybakina and Iga at a combined 50%. And the field at the rest of the 50%.
Novak at 40%... Alright. He has that injury now. SInner as a second favorite, too good for me. I would put Daniil over him.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 2:26 pm
I don't mind a pick of Gauff as champion, but not at twice over Iga.
I say:
Coco, Elena, Rybakina and Iga at a combined 50%. And the field at the rest of the 50%.
Novak at 40%... Alright. He has that injury now. SInner as a second favorite, too good for me. I would put Daniil over him.
you really think someone other than Coco-Saba-Ryba-Swiatek has a chance? I cant see it..
(I assume that is what you meant)
I see it the other way around. You say that players such as Pegula, Ons, Vondrousova, BHM, Ostapenko (I know, the streakiness) and the likes of Kudermetova, Alexandrova and Samsonova have zero chance? We continue to disagree on the power of "other", but new winners keep popping up every year.
Hey, what about Osaka? Sure, not a great first event, but in slams she will get the time to build up on the event, with the day off in between. Too many players with a 1% chance to then give the entire field a 5% chance.
For the ATP, I'll accept Ashkor's probabilities after giving Zverev's 5% to Djokovic.
For the WTA, I'd go with Ponchi's even probabilities for Gauff, Rybakina, Sablaenka, and Swiatek, but I woul only give the field 20%. This would leave
Gauff, Rybakina, Sablaenka, and Swiatek with 20% each and the field with 20%.
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 4:42 pm
I see it the other way around. You say that players such as Pegula, Ons, Vondrousova, BHM, Ostapenko (I know, the streakiness) and the likes of Kudermetova, Alexandrova and Samsonova have zero chance? We continue to disagree on the power of "other", but new winners keep popping up every year.
Hey, what about Osaka? Sure, not a great first event, but in slams she will get the time to build up on the event, with the day off in between. Too many players with a 1% chance to then give the entire field a 5% chance.
Interesting ..I do think only BHM of the ones you named, could spring a surprise..she has the game, has lots of upside ..Samsonova, ostapenko and Vondrousova will find the court a bit too fast, and the others don't really have it in them to win a major ...so maybe 10% BHM, reduce Coco and Rybakina a bit...
Sabalenka's chances go down and Rybakina's up now. Swiatek and Gauff of course still in the running. Of course the field has some chances too, but hard to pick out anyone in particular. Right now the very top is pretty strong.
Translation
