Torque

We'll have to agree to disagree. For me, it falls on the top players fairly and squarely to justify their seeding, their ranking, their 'box-office' status or whatever you want to call it by winning the matches they are supposed to win. You continue to draw parallels with the men, which is interesting because they more or less all won the matches they were supposed to win which culminated in a final that went with the seedings. Of course the men play more sets and that undoubtedly makes it more likely that the top players will win, but the fact is it's been best of three for the women for some time now and despite that handicap it hasn't stopped the very best female players from getting to the business end of tournaments and racking up wins, with the most obvious example of that being Serena Williams.
The cream will always rise and if a player really is great then they will consistently get results in the biggest tournaments no matter the format, and there's an argument to say that regardless of ranking there just aren't that many great female players around at the moment. Rankings show how good players are relative to each other not necessarily how good they are, so it's possible to be a top 16 player without being all that great and the fact the female rankings fluctuate so wildly also backs up that assertion. In fact, if you disregard Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and maybe Murray then even the top 16 on the men's side is subject to change.

If seeded players aren't winning when they should do then do they deserve the tag of superstars - I don't think so. What you seem to be suggesting is that because the top players aren't winning when they should do they should be given some sort of free pass.
The 'closed shop' of just the top players playing against each other already exists at the tour finals, but personally I wouldn't want to see tournaments like that during the regular season, which I suspect is the only way to ensure top players playing each other all the time.

A pretty weak effort from Gary Anderson and that means Van Duijvenbode has now taken out two of my outrights, the s*d. Semi-final action tonight and we've got :
Van Duijvenbode Vs Whitlock 
Chisnall Vs Price
It was no real massive shock that Whitlock beat MVG lastnight. It's the second time the aussie has rose his game to beat the dutchman. It was an impressive performance though nevertheless. Van Duijvenbode has scored decent enough but his main reason for being here is the D16 he continues to hit to get off. You see it so much in sport where a player who comes in as a wildcard last minute wins events. We saw it in snooker recently when Maguire came in as a last minute replacement, We've seen it here with tho guys coming in going deep.
I think this one will be full of nerves though and a close tie. I'll be leaving the other semi-final alone knowing that if Chizzy wins it's a nice 25/1 and a 25/1 much needed as I sit on -33 for the competition. 
5pts D.Van Duijvenbode (+1.5 sets) to beat S.Whitlock 4/5 bet365
1pt S.Whitlock to beat Van Duijvenbode 3-2 5/1 bet365
Grand Prix -33pts
Darts 2020 bets +103.5pts

I agree with a lot of the mentioned points, but I'm not buying into the hype completely. She's still very young and success at this age comes with many dangers and obstacles. Her run was hugely impressive and she definitely has the potential to win many more GSs, but it's nowhere near guaranteed and we've seen similar stories go downhill in the past. I don't quite believe that she's going to go down the Ostapenko route, but I also don't quite believe that she's likely to win more than one GS next year. Winning one would be a great success imo, in fact.

@Brandnew
You preach on the WTA usually opposing the opinion of others. I've been watching WTA diligently for almost 30 years and been an urgent witness of the birth of Hingis, Pierce, Sisters, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, Andreescu and now Swiatek and therefore I'm not naive but experienced observer.
The outstanding quality of her game, calmness, speed have been identified as certain advantages for future GS victories by a number of tennis experts and former top players, and I fully agree with that.

I am the only one in the forum that i predicted the Swiatek to lift the trophy and relatively early, actually after i have witnessed her destroying Halep.
There fore i am the Nobel prize winner for the WTA prediction of the winner.
Now lets go to the ATP final, the real final of Roland Garros
Listen, i watched both semi finals yesterday. None of them, either Nadal or Djokovic impressed me. They are both FAR but FAR below their good days, Yesterday they both prevailed mentally against the up and down opponent players. What to say about the Argentinian? Sorry i can't hold his name, but he was really weak. In the other one, Tsitsipas has huge potential material to climb into the number one in rankings in 2-3 years time. Yesterday however, he was all of ups and downs. 
Hey simple as that : Djokovic to lift the Trophy!
Magnificent price for Djoko to lift the Trophy @ 2.33 offered by Meridian Bet. 
And me to become the KIng of predictions in both ATP and WTA Roland Garros!
xxxxxx

Perhaps I'm in danger of oversimplifying, but I don't see much wrong with the way things are - the best players are already 'protected' by the seeding system and so should make it to the latter stages of tournaments thus minimising randomness. At the same time though, if tournaments went according to seedings then that would be consistent but boring. This tournament has been the opposite of that, at least on the women's side, but that's mainly been down to poor performances from seeded players - Svitolina for example was awful against Podoroska.
On the men's side, I've seen flat draws with no seedings mooted to counter the mismatches that often take place in the early rounds which some see as boring, but the problem with that is you could still get mismatches plus the two best players in the world could face each other in the very first round - not an appealing prospect if you're aiming for the spectacle of those two best players facing off in the final.
I'd say the balance is about right - the vast majority of the time the top seeds make the latter stages of these big tournaments and there's usually one or two surprise players that go on an unexpected run as well. Some may say that there's been too many shocks at this tournament, others still may say that lots of shocks is what they want to see as it makes it more interesting and that's a question of preference.
I'd also say that I believe regardless of ranking every player that made the later rounds here deserved it - again using Podoroska as an example; she beat some very good players by playing arguably at the ceiling of her talent, and even though those players didn't play as well as they could have that's sport - rankings are a measure of consistency rather than ability in any case and most of the top 100 ranked women at least are capable of beating much higher ranked players on a good day.
There's lots of potential reasons to explain the strange results for the women here, but the way I see it this is just extreme variance. Next year will most likely see a return to more 'normal' results, even if this tournament is once again held in the autumn for whatever reason.  As for the question of where are the next big names coming from, firstly there's Osaka who holds appeal all over the world and secondly even if there isn't much coming behind her, it will come. It always does - previous generations show that.

Perhaps I'm in danger of oversimplifying, but I don't see much wrong with the way things are - the best players are already 'protected' by the seeding system and so should make it to the latter stages of tournaments thus minimising randomness. At the same time though, if tournaments went according to seedings then that would be consistent but boring. This tournament has been the opposite of that, at least on the women's side, but that's mainly been down to poor performances from seeded players - Svitolina for example was awful against Podoroska.
On the men's side, I've seen flat draws with no seedings mooted to counter the mismatches that often take place in the early rounds which some see as boring, but the problem with that is you could still get mismatches plus the two best players in the world could face each other in the very first round - not an appealing prospect if you're aiming for the spectacle of those two best players facing off in the final.
I'd say the balance is about right - the vast majority of the time the top seeds make the latter stages of these big tournaments and there's usually one or two surprise players that go on an unexpected run as well. Some may say that there's been too many shocks at this tournament, others still may say that lots of shocks is what they want to see as it makes it more interesting and that's a question of preference.
I'd also say that I believe regardless of ranking every player that made the later rounds here deserved it - again using Podoroska as an example; she beat some very good players by playing arguably at the ceiling of her talent, and even though those players didn't play as well as they could have that's sport - rankings are a measure of consistency rather than ability in any case and most of the top 100 ranked women at least are capable of beating much higher ranked players on a good day.
There's lots of potential reasons to explain the strange results for the women here, but the way I see it this is just extreme variance. Next year will most likely see a return to more 'normal' results, even if this tournament is once again held in the autumn for whatever reason.  As for the question of where are the next big names coming from, firstly there's Osaka who holds appeal all over the world and secondly even if there isn't much coming behind her, it will come. It always does - previous generations show that.

Don't think many people are buying Joker's injury antics. PCB certainly didn't. He has a long history of "selling a bag of goods" as they say in some quarters. ?
If Tsitsipas beats him it'll be because he plays superbly on the day, not because of any injury to Djokovic. 

When Mark Petchey was asked today who he would prefer in the final, he said that from a sponsor's perspective a Nadal /Djokovic final would be most ideal judging from the sort of money such a final would generate. He then said for the benefit of tennis he would preferably love to see Tsitsipas play any of the top 2 in the final. Most people on this forum at least the veterans, live on the inside of the game and are quite knowledgeable about who is who even at the basement of the game. Your original statement of expressing disappointment at the WTA for failing to maintain consistency in a tournament of this nature would have been more apt for anyone outside the scope of our involvement with this game. Those kind of people that you refer to that may not watch a game from not recognizing certain players are certainly not avid members of this forum. On here, we are like researchers. We track, follow, investigate and watch most of these players frequently. When you follow the game the way I do, you slowly get used to using your own mental provisional ranking for them as opposed to what the actual record says. The fact is that most sports have opened up so much in modern times and things have really gotten so competitive on a grand scale. The grand slams have now become similar to musical chairs.

I want to thank everyone for their kind wishes and lovely messages. It is a sad, sad time for me. To see how much other people thought of Graham is a great comfort to me. He loved PL and was devastated when Paul died earlier this year. It is beyond my belief that they are both now gone. Too soon, way too soon.

Just want to note a few things.  I find it strange how I am such a winning player but when I post a pick online it is very often a loser.  Random but weird lol. I really struggled during the first 2 rounds (as is often the case) then I just killed it in rounds leading to now.  So much to learn.  But this forum is the best one I know of and I really enjoy the comments.
 
By the way @liquidglass really enjoying reading the profundity of your comments.  Very deep and intellectual and I have long yearned for a forum where the intellect rises up and we can debate to a point of converging on success.
 
So tired, cannot wait for this to be over and sleep a few days well before Ostrava!
 
MDLP

I do not think that it requires any intense observation to realize that tennis has officially entered a new era as with a few other sports like snooker etc. Most times there is never any distinguishing ceremony to mark this kind of change aside noting the slow and steady upgrade of the human infrastructure as the years roll on. In most cases change will occur as a simulated or clandestine activity which will always be visible to those who understand the game or are privileged with an inside view.
Over the past years this simulated process has continued in the background and invariably progressed the game to where it is now. I remember when tennis was mostly about serve and volley, a one handed back-hand and a defensive back hand slice (as opposed to the continuous full backhand swings that we see these days in brutal rallies) There were also more overhead lobs etc used to alter the cause of a rally. Then from Jimmy Connors onwards, we started seeing this new kind of aggressive baseline game with players opting to stay back to control points. This also signalled the beginning of the double-handed backhand stroke that has now suddenly become the norm. All these were changes that happened as the game evolved. We also saw the introduction of aggressive baseliners into the game like Jim courier, Thomas Muster, Monica Seles, Serena Williams etc
You must remember that change is not something that happens instantaneously. It is always somewhat of a slow and deliberate process. Over the last few years there has been a steady injection of talent from Russia, China, Romania, USA and even the United Kingdom who have suddenly raised their game on both sides of the ball. So when cite Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin as pre-change models, you are definitely making a mistake as these young women are the product of this current change. Random slam winning was very rare before these new breed of young women came on board. You will also discover that these women represent the ages of players born from 1997 on-wards which is about where we can just about trace back the roots of these new era of players to.
I definitely believe that I am quite right when I say that true aficionados would rather prefer randomness. This is perhaps true in all sports. It is this same unpredictability that makes the FA cup very special. Most of us are here on this forum because we have a very comprehensive understanding of the game backed by an unrivaled passion. So whilst Grand Slams for the ordinary tennis watcher will center around Federer, Djokovic and Nadal, for us here who take stock of everything from the satellite  level and beyond, it is more about those competitive early rounds where these random talents try to make their bid for glory. These matches are always special for us to see a baby star that we all know break into maturity. Predictability is as boring as Djokovic and Nadal in another final as was Steve Davis in a snooker final way back when.
Yes, we all want to see rivalries in as much as we want to see new talent emerge. Nothing makes Osaka, Kenin and Andreescu any different from Swiatek Podoroska etc. It is all about having your opportunity to take your chance when it becomes available. A good player is all about a positive mental attitude. When you look at a player like Podoroska, you will discover that her bad habit for winning did not start here at the French Open. She always lived in winning mode which was why it was not too difficult to project it on to a higher level. I have known her from jump street and have been following her progress along with many others like Kostyuk. They all have a positive attitude towards the game and are very progressive. If we repeated the tournament there is no certainty where anyone will finish. The same will be true even with a fully packed elite field. The field is now closely bunched up talent-wise and there is no one person so far in front as before. 

This match reminded me of Sinner's match v Medvedev earlier this year, where the young Italian started on fire, full of confidence, blitzing him in the first set, but as soon a Medvedev raised his game and applied pressure, Sinner crumpled and lost heavily in the next 2 sets. You can see Sinner has a huge game and for much of the match he was able to hit thru Nadal, but not when it really counted. When it really mattered (holding after breaking Nadal's serve, and in the TB) he lost his confidence, his focus, and his big shots disappeared. Nadal will do that to 99% of the players on the circuit. We have to remember he is only 19, so has lots of time to improve and gain more experience of being in these tough situations, and if he does improve his mentality he could be a serious weapon on the tour. 

Yeah, I knew you would have been gutted about Sinner. That is one of the most painful ways a person can lose a bet where the thought is spot on but loses on the expression of that thought. Sinner covered the handicap and total games with a lot to spare. It also looked like he could win a set anytime he chose to put his foot on the gas pedal but never quite got round to doing it. He largely suffered from the cobwebs of inexperience. His total concentration was in and out for most parts and his commitment to shots was lackadaisical at times coupled with a body language that was not in line with that mission that he was setting out to accomplish. Despite all that, Sinner is the real McCoy for sure!

What state is the WTA in? Randomness or consistency, it is clear that the standard of tennis has still remained very very high even without the usual old faces. In fact true aficionados of the game will certainly prefer randomness over predictable and mundane consistency. It is what keeps everything intriguing and exciting. Also it matters not what the ranking of the three remaining players are. We can all see that they are all far better than those numbers will care to indicate.  Even before this competition a player like Iva Swiatek would always be priced respectably by the bookies regardless of who she was playing and there certainly cannot be anything random in the scores she has produced on the way to completely obliterating her opponents including Halep.
Covid 19 has just helped to jettison an old era of tennis  to instal a brand new brigade of young talent same as we currently see in the men’s game. What the covid 19 situation has done for these lowly ranked players is that it has afforded them to play in an empty arena without the usual tension that the crowds or the centre courts would have otherwise brought, thus allowing them to play with the uttermost freedom from the abundance of the talent within. It is the main reason why you will begin to see these faces at the later stages of tournaments even after the old brigade has returned. Things have really changed in all spheres of life and that change has come to stay.

I'd still blame COVID: out of the top 11-ranked WTA players, 5 have missed the tournament (Barty, Osaka, Andreescu, Bencic and Serina, who quit after round 1). Including 2 of the top 3. That would be a problem in any sport.
2 of the remaining 6 players are still in the tournament.
The rest:
Halep - lost to Swiatek, not too many people disappointed with that, a new star joins the hierarchy
Pliskova - lost to a former Roland Garros champion
Svitolina - lost in the quarter-finals
Bertens - used a wheelchair in round 2 but got to round 4 ?
And as AgaRadwanska said, the weather further complicates things.

PSG v Angers (1) 1.12
Red Bull v Schalke (1) 1.27
10pt double
 

Fairly obvious reasons for why this is, but:
- Best of 3 sets rather than best of 5 = way higher variance for ''better players'' in women's tournament. 
- Weather: French Open being played in the wind/rain/cold of September/October rather than in Spring = players not being used to conditions. 
- Some players lacking competitive match fitness due to ongoing pandemic, and others (Fiona Ferro for one) having played several clay tournaments and being super sharp. 
- Lack of full arenas
 
 

Completely agree. Why not the whole season while we're at it.

You are kidding me. That's ridiculous. I said to @BillyHills after Paul passed away if I could help in any way with the site then let me know, and that offer goes double now. So sorry to hear this 

Everyone who plays this competition will appreciate the amount of work involved in its running, which BillyHills did, from compiling the results to putting up the weekly posting threads. Just so the Admin team here can get on top of things we are going to pause for a week, which will reduce the period of the first season comp by a week. This happens to coincide with an international break when the betting choices would be affected, so we hope you will bear with us on this.
We will update last weeks results as soon as possible.

This simply cant be true. I was wondering why no updates in the tables and was worried only to find out Graham passed. So gutted. He was a gentleman and always helpful, not only to me, but to every one at PL.
 
My deepest condolences to Suzy and the rest of the family.
 
I have a suggestion that all prize money this month goes to Suzy and the rest of Grahams family in support and honor of all the hard work Graham put in on the site.
 

I've no idea if there's anything I can do to help, but if there is let me know.

To the Punters Lounge family,
It is with deep regret that we must share some tragic news with you all. BillyHills aka Graham Sarson sadly passed away over the weekend after suffering a heart attack. Graham was a hugely popular figure within the PL community and had become a much-loved person amongst the staff team.
Graham has been a part of Punters Lounge for a number of years and has played a key role in contributing quality content to the forum and site. His horse racing tips were the stuff of legend across the gambling industry and his management of the Last Man Standing and Tipster Competitions provided many of us with some fun and laughs over the years.
Since the devastating loss of Punters Lounge owner Paul Ross, Graham has played a pivotal role in helping the site to remain active and keep growing in the way Paul wanted. Our thoughts and love go out to Graham's wife Suzy, his family, and his friends at this awful time.