WTA 1000 Dubai 2/18 - 2/24 2024

[ashkor87]

Saba losing makes us appreciate Sinner's feat better, doesn't it?

Never occurred to me, but Sinner is consistent. Think he's going to run the table through Miami? I don't.

Might do well in Dubai, the other courts will be too slow...till the grass season in fact!

[Suliso]

What makes you think he's for sure going to do worse than last year (SF and F) in IW and Miami?

[ashkor87]

What makes you think he's for sure going to do worse than last year (SF and F) in IW and Miami?

he will be doing great if he can replicate that..hope he does, of course. .. the mark of true class is to do well when conditions dont really suit you..

[ponchi101]

But, I am with Suliso here. Why do you say that conditions don't suit him? He has made Miami finals at least twice (I forget which final it was that he lost to Hurkacz) ad you can't say that a player that just won the Aussie is going to be bothered by the trivial difference of speed (which you know I don't see) between Melbourne and IW.
He IS a hard court player; he likes the stuff. I am not saying I expect him to wipe the slate clean, but I say SF at both are completely possible. And winning one too.

[ashkor87]

Speed difference between AO and IW is not small!
On fast courts, I would rank Sinner #1, followed by Medvedev, Alcaraz, Djokovic and Zverev in that order..on slower courts, the ranking would be Alcaraz, Djokovic, Zverev,Sinner - Medvedev would not be top 5- at this moment, of course .

Alcaraz is the most fragile of these..maybe he is just too young to perform consistently day in and out, but he will, soon enough....

[ponchi101]

Take out Djokovic. He is at another level.
But you are saying that the player with two slams on the fastest courts ranks behind Sinner and Medvedev.
Uhm... hard for me to agree with that.

And remember that you see court speed as a crucial aspect of a players performance. I don't. I would rank, for example, ball differences as much more important.

[ashkor87]

Well, I am interested only in how good they are at this moment, not the past or future.

[ashkor87]

Ball difference is interesting..example?

[ashkor87]

Frankly, I don't see court speed as a bigger factor than, say, innate ability. It is probably no more than 5-10. % but can make the diffrence at the margin. It is just that few people even recognise that it is a factor at all.

[meganfernandez]

Frankly, I don't see court speed as a bigger factor than, say, innate ability. It is probably no more than 5-10. % but can make the diffrence at the margin. It is just that few people even recognise that it is a factor at all.

I think it's definitely a factor. It's just really hard to gauge the impact of it any given week. Players who might seem at a disadvantage can adjust, and players can waste their court-speed advantage with other deficiencies that day.

There are so many factors to a match, it's hard to isolate anything as a determining factor other than ability and health. But I'd love to know how often your court-speed projections bear out in the end.

Tennis is definitely a game of margins.

[ponchi101]

Ball difference is interesting..example?

The HEAD/PENN balls are different from the Wilson's. Slazenger/Dunlops are way harder than either one. I have not played with babolats, but I suspect they are good for clay, meaning they are heavy.
Because of the altitude, I have been playing with Tretorn's or the Wilson's Trinity. Great balls, but you can feel they are not as lively as a pressured ball.
I would say the fastest balls out there are the Slazenger/Dunlops. Very hard and light, good for S&V tennis. Then Wilson. The slower, although I have not played with them in years, are the HEAD/PENNs. So, for players with lots of spin, I would prefer the latest. Flat hitters, the Wilsons.
But if a monkey like me can get used to a ball in just one hitting session, I also wonder how much of a difference that makes.

[ashkor87]

Ball difference is interesting..example?

The HEAD/PENN balls are different from the Wilson's. Slazenger/Dunlops are way harder than either one. I have not played with babolats, but I suspect they are good for clay, meaning they are heavy.
Because of the altitude, I have been playing with Tretorn's or the Wilson's Trinity. Great balls, but you can feel they are not as lively as a pressured ball.
I would say the fastest balls out there are the Slazenger/Dunlops. Very hard and light, good for S&V tennis. Then Wilson. The slower, although I have not played with them in years, are the HEAD/PENNs. So, for players with lots of spin, I would prefer the latest. Flat hitters, the Wilsons.
But if a monkey like me can get used to a ball in just one hitting session, I also wonder how much of a difference that makes.

Yes, I have played with all of them, plus Yonex, and your characterization makes sense. As you say, folks do get used to them pretty fast, except they may get some injuries from overcompensating..I wonder if that is what distinguishes court speed from balls, nobody tried to compensate for court speed by, say, hitting harder..something to mull over.

[ashkor87]

Frankly, I don't see court speed as a bigger factor than, say, innate ability. It is probably no more than 5-10. % but can make the diffrence at the margin. It is just that few people even recognise that it is a factor at all.

I think it's definitely a factor. It's just really hard to gauge the impact of it any given week. Players who might seem at a disadvantage can adjust, and players can waste their court-speed advantage with other deficiencies that day.

There are so many factors to a match, it's hard to isolate anything as a determining factor other than ability and health. But I'd love to know how often your court-speed projections bear out in the end.

Tennis is definitely a game of margins.

As a test, I have made some predictions based entirely on court speed..on the random random board. When the draw is out, I will make specific predictions about specific matches..we can see how many come true.