Jump to content
Attention, PL Members! To reinforce security on the forum, we have updated our login process. Please note that you will now need to use your email address to sign in, rather than your forum username. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation.


Regular Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by liquidglass

  1. 6 hours ago, AgaRadwanska said:

    Yeah I'm defo swerving Shapovalov/Felix. There's just no scoreline that would shock me. 

    Karatsev is quite solid, but he was expected to beat Gerasmirov comfortably. He's won a lot of matches, but these have mostly been at Challenger level. Not any ''big names'' in there. Schawartzmann is a different level and imo will come out on top here. 

    Kudermetova should at least give Halep a good game. Haven't been impressed in the glimpses I've seen of Halep lately, but tbf I'm basing that mostly off of the 6-1 6-2 defeat to Alexandrova, in which she was dreadful. 

    The bets I'm currently looking at for tonight are the in-form Cirstea (to beat Vondrousova), and possibly taking the overs line on Cirstea to break serve on 365 (vond doesn't have much of a serve), and Fiona Ferro (to beat Swiatek) - the latter as match winner and handicap. Thoughts on these, anyone?


    It is so very difficult to weight Ferro up, but I really really like her. She looks like a real sleeping dog. It will not shock me to see her win and perhaps run very deep. Same comment applies to vekic over Kanepi. Shocks certainly brewing.

  2. 1 hour ago, CzechPunter said:

    Still not convinced about anything, but my shortlist has Shapovalov, Karatsev, Kudermetova and Fucsovics. Thoughts anyone?


    1 hour ago, CzechPunter said:

    Still not convinced about anything, but my shortlist has Shapovalov, Karatsev, Kudermetova and Fucsovics. Thoughts anyone?

    I do not know why you will be interested in Fucsovics for any reason especially after that 5 set brawl which he only managed to scrape through. In the context of things Raonic will be considered a step up on Wawrinka. It is going to require maximum concentration to beat a guy like Raonic who he will only have less than a 10% chance of breaking in any service game. He will also need to play at least 40 games + to beat Raonic. He has been unsuccessful twice.

    Shapovalov/Aliassime certainly has to be vying for favorite slot match of the day. These two guys are very very close friends who know each other's game from back to front. I remember Shapovalov saying in an interview about 5 years ago that he considered Aliassime his mentor in the way he constantly trained in militant fashion to perfect his game. Remember, unlike Shapovalov, this is a guy that has been billed for the no1 position by many afficionados of the game. You really do not want to go in there taking sides on the outright.I feel if one has to get involved, then total games will be the way to go . My only problem is wondering how fresh Aliassime is after the weeks before, that really is the basis for assessment. I am leaning towards Auger Aliassime.

    Kudermentova really is at a spot of advantage from where she is with her game. I really fancy her chances against Halep. This represents a huge opportunity for me. I am a real heavy staker, so I have pressed home this advantage by taking advantage of the Paddy Power alternative handicaps @ +5.5 Kudermentova 2/5

    Karasev Looks an unknown quantity. How good is he? I dont know. Or do you??? Question is where has he been since? He looks like he has brushed aside everything in his path to this point. Schwartzman been priced at 3/10 will clearly suggest that Karasev has a real live chance here. My only point against is his age 1993. In comparism, I consider Schwartzman more progressive in terms of past achievements. Hence my opening question "where has he been since?" Any player coming out of nowhere in my opinion should be around 1997-2000 at this stage. Watch the Karasev price currently at 11/5 and see if it shortens just a little bit before the start of play. That would really be positive. Still, minimum of 4 sets expected.

  3. 57 minutes ago, CzechPunter said:

    I didn't, but, at this point, Barty and Osaka look like strong favourites to me, with Muguruza and Swiatek close behind.

    I will agree with you about all but Muguruza who still looks one dimensional. Barty seems to get stronger match after match. However I think there is money to be made in her Match against Gavrilova. It is a local derby and I am expecting Gavrilova to be as gritty as ever. Gavrilova has slipped into this tournament behind some real potent form that started at the tail end of last year. over 17.5 total games looks very attainable.


    This really is a very hard game to call with both players knowing each other's game very well. The head to head is 5-4 Sasnovich with Kontaveit currently in the groove amid a continuing February winning streak. I just do not know how fresh Kontaveit is coming into this tournament aside her form. Sasnovich is 2/2 coming into the tournament and I feel like if I had to be anybody this minute i'd rather be Sasnovich who appears strategically fresh and strikes my senses as dangerous. Sasnovich recently beat Tsurenko 2-1 and lost to Begu 2-1. Looking through the eye of Begu's form i'd say she must have done just enough to get her ready for Melbourne. I am leaning strongly on a Sasnovich win here. But believing that she is the fresher physically, I will rather go for the safer option which is Sasnovich to win with +4.5 Bet365.com

  5. 19 hours ago, ElPrincipito007 said:

    I start the AO Open with 2 underdogs who are priced to high in my opinion:

    Mager @3,25 (Bwin)

    Monfils @2,4 (Betfirst)

    Don't know why Mager is priced so high. Monfils comes back from injury and if his fitness is okay, he is more than able to beat Ruusoveri.

    I will share this with you from experience which relates to a practice that i religiously carry out before every tournament and especially in relation to Grand slams. I emphasize, especially Grand slams. It is also applicable to every sport and 8 times out of 10 will send you in the right direction especially in the early rounds of tournaments. First rule, do not ever ask why a certain price is high or low and then resort to reason it out ordinarily bounded by head knowledge. You will always be misled 9 times out of 10. I have said this so many times, that the odds always determine the outcome of any match or event. You just need to be able to train your spirit man or inner self to be able to understand and translate these odd movements to put to positive use.

    I have been studying the science of odds movements for over 20 years now and still studying. The results are amazing and thought-provoking. There are two characteristics that constantly and positively influences all markets in relation to betting namely, market moves and market forces. Market moves are the deliberate involuntary movements of odds in whatever direction that precisely indicate who the winner will be depending one one's ability to translate the particular movement. Market force is the resultant influence of the movement of odds on the general outcome. That is to say that the market force always has the power to control the outcome of any game taking into account before hand all possible permutations and external factors like rain, defaults, injury, covid, you name it. When you come to understand the influence and dynamics of odds on the market, it almost makes you believe that the result of any given game is settled even before a racket touches a ball. I use "almost" because I do not want to be the one to unveil what has been a hidden fact for years and turn to be the subject of intense questioning. There is so much to write about on this topic with so little time to do it. Most people who have been involved in gambling for at least 5 years will attest to the fact that certain things have happened to them in way of betting outcomes that they have found very hard to explain. Some include How some bets have suddenly been lost from impregnable winning positions defying all plausible explanation. Why the last leg of a parlay is always a loser 9 times out of 10. What odds and cashouts were made to accomplish, why when you change your mind, it is to lose, Why when you take the cashout early the selection goes on to win and lose most times you leave the cashout. Why everyone focuses on the same games even from a list of over 100 match entries. The list goes on.

    Here is what i am going to share with you and trust me, it will constantly help you as long as you remember to use it. Before any tournament especially grand slams, take a screen shot of the odds the first time they come out from whatever website you use. On the desktop you can just right click on the long list and save it. Next day repeat the same thing maybe at the same time or just a bit earlier. Repeat again next day. Save individually. Study very closely the movement of odds in relation to the various matches over that time frame and especially a few hours before the start of play. Some will not move. Focus on the ones that move and closely monitor. You will come to realize over time that the odds actually have a final say over the results most times, again I emphasize, depending on how you have trained your spirit man to bookmark these various changes on the charts.

    Once you have successfully been able to train yourself for some time to understand these sequences at least over time, you will then in most cases be able to use your bookmarking ability to good effect and get better as the months and years go on. In other words you will eventually be able to mentally make up your own odds in your head which would automatically tally with the bookmakers odds even before you see the market. You always know something is wrong when the bookmaker's odds is far from what is the product of your mental precision. That really becomes your first point of diagnosis. You then proceed to check your charts going days back, then check current form, and a few other external factors for further confirmation.  Remember the movement of odds and the consequent indication of market forces are much much more important than the subject of the activity. Good luck!

  6. Aliassime vs Moutet

    Aliassime looks to be playing well, perhaps the the sort of form the feels good but not good enough having hung on to life dearly by his claws in the last two matches. The h2h is 3-0 Aliassime with all three victories being very easy. I am willing to take the chance here on Moutet. His current form looks credible enough to come out on top in a match like this just before the start of the Aussie Open. There is also the feeling that Aliassime might default at some point if the kitchen gets too hot. I just hope that happens after the first set. Moutet to win here.

  7. Muguruza vs Vondrousova

    Certainly a clash of styles in prospect here which should lead to only one foreseeable outcome. Both have been in reasonable form coming into this semi, but it is the form of the spanish bully that stands out as most impressive. Though there is no head to head to follow, there are a few other indicators that point to where we should be putting our hard earned cash. Muguruza will be hoping for a third title on aussie soil having won 10 titles previously on hardcourts. I just do not think that Marketa will be afforded the room to manipulate the ball enough. Muguruza takes the ball on the rise almost every time and that will mean Vondrousova under constant pressure from the get go. I also would not expect this to go long as I see Marketa packing up quickly as the ball bashing gets more consistent. If there was a more compelling reason to fade Marketa, it will be due to the 6sets played between her last 2 opponents. She faces a real tall order here. Muguruza to win cosily.

  8. 6 hours ago, darko08 said:

    @liquidglassC'mon... don't be lazy and find more examples .  I don't care how much spin put on her shots, or how good are her drop shots and angles,... IMO she's so far from what I saw from her in 2019... As I said, if you're assuming Podoroska can't deal with such players, find more examples, don't tell me that she can't deal with them just because Swiatek and Vondrousova (in 2017...) won easily against her. BTW, Swiatek not only destroyed Podoroska in RG, she destroyed 10 more players, including Halep (6-1, 6-2) and Kenin (6-4, 6-1). It's more a matter of form. The only thing I'm agree with you is that Vondrousova is overall better player and has more progression but she's far from her best form and I dont like what I have watched from her recently. Anyway, in some way i found interesting your point of view.

    Lol! To be honest I never mentioned Swiatek in relation to the French Open Final, I was just writing thinking on the fly and named Swiatek simply on the basis of her awkward and seemingly unrefined way of playing. We have all together been jointly contributing on this forum now for many years that would ordinarily seem short. In those years i have come to realize that we all have our various styles of tipping which essentially has been great for the forum. I respect everyone's views on here in the sense that most opinions whether right or wrong in the end, always come with a great deal of handy information that can either be used for the immediate or future game. I have to say that regardless of the head to head record or the form available, Most times as a tournament starts entering the business end, I am almost always able to sense the winner of the various matches as they move towards the final. I do not know if anyone else feels the same way,.Vondrousova just looks like the kind of player that would not have bothered getting this far if she was not going to make the later rounds like the semis or final. She either crashes out early or makes a meaningful deep run. I know you have disregarded her red hot form because of the dog fight she had with Vera who really is a deceptively brilliant player.. Make no mistake, Vera is still a classy veteran who can be quite hard to beat with that victorian flat-hitting style of hers used to perfection. I appreciated the points you made all the same. We will see how this unfolds. 

  9. 2 hours ago, darko08 said:

    Nadia Podoroska to beat Marketa Vondrousova at 2.37 with bet365

    I have watched some parts of both players' matches. Vondrousova has been a mess for a long time. She lost in the 1st round of the AO in 2020 against Kuznetsova and the only remarkable thing she did was reaching the SFs of Rome. In Abu Dhabi she lost in the 1st round against Hsieh and today she has suffered a lot against Zvonareva (7-6, 6-7, 6-4). Podoroska ended 2020 with an impressive 45-8, including a SFs in RG. She lost in the 1st round in Abu Dhabi against Sorribes, in 2 sets. She has won against Francesca Jones (6-1, 6-3), Minnen (6-3, 6-4) and Kvitova (5-7, 6-1, 7-6). At these odds I like Podoroska because she's in a very good form while Vondrousova is so far from hers.

    I still have another one that I will post later. GL.

    Hmmmm!  In my humble opinion from the evidence already on ground, this looks quite easy to untangle on the face of it. Marketa's game is similar to Swiatek in the sense that you look at their both their games and cannot figure out what they do well enough to keep winning. I would think that it has to do with the spins, semi-moonballs and awkward angles that they throw at their opponents to keep them guessing throughout the match. Head to head stands at 1-1 and at that score of 6-0 6-1 by Marketa, it will be safe to assume that Podoroska must have been pulverized and frustrated with the mixture of shots coming at her that I described previously. It can be argued that that was 2017 and Podoroska has come a long way since then, and also it took place on clay Vondrousova favorite surface. I disagree.First Vondrousova is younger and looks the more progressive player especially considering that she also plays well on hard courts. Vondrousova is also in a rich vein of form on hard which began in December 2020 and runs through beating the beating of Kvitova and Alexandrova albeit very easily . That form should be good enough to take care of Podoroska who judging from her victories over Minen, Jones and an undercooked Kvitova, still falls short of the sort of standard needed to take Vondrousova out.

  10. 9 hours ago, darko08 said:

    Kudermetova to beat Kostyuk at 1.73 with William Hill

    I like how is paid Kudermetova, I was expecting something different... I have nothing much to say, she is better player and she has faced better players (Kontaveit, Badosa and Svitolina). Today she has won against Svitolina after losing the first set and I liked so much what I have seen from her. I haven't liked what I have seen about Kostyuk. She has played a lot of points with too much precipitation, looking for fast winners. She has played a horrible first set (6-0) and could have lost the whole match against Sorribes.

    EDIT. When I started writing this she was paid at 1.73 in William Hill, but has dropped to 1.57...

    1.61 with bet365 still has value imo

    Two things I am going to say in opposition to this pick. The first is that women's tennis has come a long way already where the gap between the very good and good is hardly noticeable. I believe that aside match experience, Kostyuk is as good as any top tier player today and is at a stage in her career where she should hold no fears against anyone. I wrote about her a few times last year because of the raw potential that I saw in her crying out to explode. She beat Soribes yesterday from that innate belief. I believe that she beats kudermentova today and rolls one. Secondly this forum as i know has a big negative record when one pick is seconded by a different person as in two entries. This one seconded by Czech. Nothing to do with the pickers, more to do with the trend. I am believing trend continues. Kostyuk for the win here. Should have the more penetrating ground strokes. Good luck

  11. 56 minutes ago, Heisenberg68 said:

    Nice money price for undefeated champion. I think Thiem will be very motivated and Rublev is already in vacation. On more time , I think Thiem will win ?

    I think the motivation in this match solely rests on Rublev's shoulders. Thiem has qualified and can decide to do anything as we have seen from past experiences in round robin matches. And this idea of Rublev already being on vacation is really a figure of speech for all intents and purposes. On the head to head count, pride or financial reward, Rublev still has a lot to play for. Rublev at least wins a set and possibly more here.

  12. 1 hour ago, Torque said:

    If anyone backs Davidovich Fokina in future, it might be an idea to cash out if he gets into a winning position. He's just gone from 6-2, 5-2 - at which point he was backed at 1.01 - to 6-2, 6-7, 1-6 against Schwartzman. Now Schwartzman is obviously a very good player, but that is one monumental choke. He served for a straight sets win not once, not twice, but three times and had a match point but still couldn't get over the line and win. The third set evisceration was sadly all too predictable as well.

    Sometimes it can be so very difficult to distinguish between a monumental choke and suicide. That would seem to me like suicide for profits. Certainly the most annoying way anyone can lose money.

  13. 36 minutes ago, ogii55 said:

    Harris - Humbert 2.6


    Harris is playing better with each match. He has great serve. Playing very good baseline tennis and is showing the best tennis of his life. Humbert beat PCB, but he is not consistent during matches. Has big drops in game, which could be huge problem vs opponent with big serve on indoor.

    Does someone watch Sabalenka vs Gauff? I wonder if to try Sara Tormo, who is showing nice form vs her tonight.

    There is definitely the problem with the clash of styles and trying to figure out what Sabalenka's raw power might be worth. However, I think that there is already evidence to show that should not be a problem with Sorribes having previously succeeded over a similar player in Kontaveit. I think Sorribes may be on one of those unusual freaky runs that comes not so often in a players career. Sorribes to win definitely is the right play here.

  14. Fritz vs Lloyd

    I just thought that the time and opportunity was right to go back to complete a job that the Czech Punter started at the beginning of the week and abandoned from the resulting initial disappointment. Clearly noticing that Lloyd was low in energy levels and suffering physically, Czech had seemingly sent in a hit man in the name of Coria to finish him off. I thought then that the idea was right except that Coria finding the task beyond him because of the potential match up on the surface. Lloyd called the bluff and even went on to win his next match which was a slight upgrade in Moutet. I continued to keep Lloyd under radar even after Czech checked out. Today definitely seems the day to reassess those energy levels as Lloyd faces an even sterner test in Fritz who accelerated past Opelka yesterday(Even though I thought Opelka's challenge was suspect). I expect Fritz to win by any means necessary and move on to the next round. Good luck!!!

  15. 7 minutes ago, liquidglass said:

     Foo Fighter, There was nothing there to untangle. I just presented 2 schools of thought that looked the same depending on which angle you looked at it from. It’s called mirroring of thoughts. Why  would you have been confused? Was there not a conclusion to what I said? Did you not read where I arrived at Nadal being the winner by 3-0 70% probability or Nadal 3-1 30% probability? .  Did you not see where I said in black and white Nadal wins cozily? Put whatever bias aside and re-read that post again. Also learn to speak for yourself.

    My apologies Foo fighter. I meant to reply Brand New who might need spectacles. 

  16. 2 hours ago, BrandNew said:

    liquidglass, your posts are like the wires on my headphones, in that I have to spend time laboriously untangling them, before I can begin to make use of them.


    Can you clarify/simplify a couple of things please, because you appear to have totally contradicted yourself.

    '.... there is a greater probability of Djokovic maintaining his unbeaten streak than Nadal equalling Federer's record. I am in total agreement with that statement.....'

    '..... there are more chances of Nadal winning another French Open title than Djokovic remaining unbeaten.'

    Which is it?

    I can't be the only person confused by this post?!

     Foo Fighter, There was nothing there to untangle. I just presented 2 schools of thought that looked the same depending on which angle you looked at it from. It’s called mirroring of thoughts. Why  would you have been confused? Was there not a conclusion to what I said? Did you not read where I arrived at Nadal being the winner by 3-0 70% probability or Nadal 3-1 30% probability? .  Did you not see where I said in black and white Nadal wins cozily? Put whatever bias aside and re-read that post again. Also learn to speak for yourself.

  17. 2 hours ago, Foo_Fighter said:

    Djokovic to beat Nadal & Both Players to win a set & Nadal to win a Tie Break in any set at 6.00 - local betting company called Stoiximan (??). 

    My gut says Djokovic will lift his second Coupe des Mousquetaires in Paris today. Obviously it's extremely hard to do so without dropping a set against the king of clay. I also fancy the chance of Nadal winning at least one tie break in the match, provided that they reach one during the match of course. I'm pretty sure Djokovic has a worse TB record than the Spaniard. In general I believe that Nadal and Federer have always been very elite at tie breaks throughout their careers so far and that's one more element of their greatness. Anyway I know I made a weird suggestion lol. 

    Good luck folks ? 


    I have been pondering over this one for quite a while and I am still to reach anything conclusive. However, there are parts of the match that I have concluded. Firstly Whilst Djokovic has beaten Nadal a few times on clay, we have seen from history that Nadal’s preparation for this slam is second to none. He plays this slam different to everything else.

    In answer to the question where the market inquires 5 setter? Yes 5/2 no 2/7. I say emphatically no. If anyone is ever going to beat Nadal in a Roland Garros  final, their energy levels would need to be at best 3/4 full. Djokovic has played one 4 setter and one 5 setter, and to be honest that 5 setter coming just before this final has done him no favours at all. In my opinion with the options left Djokovic can only win 3-0 or 3-1 at best and there does not seem to be enough petrol in his tank to account for such a feat.

    Market moves over the last two days interestingly enough have gone in favour of Djokovic who opened at 5/4 now 6/5. In most cases using my model the market would always end up being right over 75% of the time unless there are conflicting factors to consider. The odds seem to indicate that there is a greater probability of Djokovic maintaining his unbeaten streak than Nadal equalling Federer’s record. I am in total agreement with that statement for whatever it amounts to literally. However I would rather rephrase the  statement to translate to.....that there are more chances of Nadal winning another French Open title than Djokovic remaining unbeaten. Same statement, different impact on the thought process. I see Nadal winning cosily 3-0 with over 70% possibility and 3-1 30%. Since the odds for both are respectable, we should only be talking outright price here. Verdict: Nadal to win the 2020 French Open.

  18. 7 hours ago, BrandNew said:

    Yeah, I was referring to a high number of recognisable names, and high-ranked/seeded players reaching the  latter stages of tournaments. That is what most sports desire.

    Five quarter-finalists ranked outside the top 50, and none of last year’s quarter-finalists reaching the quarters this year (despite all of them except defending champion Barty entering the tournament) is not a good situation for the WTA to find itself in. Sports are built on recognisable names, stories and rivalries.

    Obviously, you may get good matches involving lower-ranked players, but some people will have chosen not to watch it in the first place, if they don’t recognise the names involved.

    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.

  19. 12 hours ago, BrandNew said:

    I’m struggling to follow what you’re meaning with much of that post. 

    Randomness ‘residing at the opposite end of consistency,’ ‘accompanying consistency,’ and ‘arriving with consistency,’ - I don’t think that it’s clear what any of those statements mean.

    I think I need to take your mind back to your original statement which became the springboard for this mini-debate. You said:"I can’t believe what state the WTA is in. I thought they had done really well the last couple of years to improve the randomness problem, and improve the standard and consistency at the top of the game." What then did you mean by the randomness problem? You answer the question right there in the second half of your statement "a lack of consistency at the top of the game" Unless you now say that "Consistency" used referred to  just having the usual top players appearing in finals regularly. I respond by saying if consistency is your problem, it should  only center around the quality of tennis on show as opposed to the ranks of the players in the final. I then concluded that even in randomness was quality. Whatever random order that the players had used to reach the final had to come with a healthy amount of consistency rendering your original complaint  invalid. When I made the statement that most aficionados would prefer randomness, it was certainly within the concept of the accompanying consistency in mind. The kind of Randomness that gave birth to Sinner/Nadal, Schwartzman/Thiem,  as opposed to something like Federer/Nadal.

  20. 7 hours ago, BrandNew said:

    I think you may have misunderstood me, I was citing Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin as being part of a potential new era, not the old era, if separately defined eras even still exist in the women’s game.

    Not sure if you’re British yourself, but there has been no injection of talent from the U.K. over the past few years, a mere drip of players, most of whom jumped ship from other English-speaking countries.

    Please don’t attempt to speak for other people. You may prefer ‘randomness’ but don’t assume that to be to everyone’s liking, or even to the liking of the majority. I don’t believe that that is the case.

    Also, saying that nothing makes Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin different from Podoroska, is a ludicrous statement. The former are Grand Slam champions, one of them a multiple champion, all of whom barring injury, should be frequenting the Top 10 and competing for major titles for the next decade. Podoroska will do well to ever be a top 50 player, barring this one freak fortnight in Paris.

    Just need to put straight one or two matters that need clarification. Firstly I do not know if you have your own customized definition to the word "injection" if not I think it is obviously clear that since Murray and Konta there has been a remarkable improvement on the mens and womens side with the inclusion of new players unless you are not conversant with British tennis. The improvement is nowhere near the other countries mentioned but it is there. Secondly, you seem to think that randomness resides at the opposite end of consistency. It is simply a variant in this case. It will almost be impossible to find randomness at the later stages of a grand slam if consistency has not accompanied it there. I may have to reiterate again for effect that nothing makes Osaka, Andreescu and Kenin any more different from players like Swiatek, Kostyuk Podoroska, Rybakina etc. Not everyone good will be lucky enough to breakthrough and some will be lucky enough to break through without being quite good enough. Where is Muguruza today? Wozniacki never won a grandslam till the end of her career and she reigned as no1 for a decent period. When Kenin and company are able to live in the top 5 for like 5years straight then we can continue this discussion. You would have been able to get your desired final born out of consistency (Nadal vs Djokovic) but for the randomness that has now arrived with consistency. Tsitsipas will definitely have a lot to say about that for sure!!

  21. 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. 

  22. 2 hours ago, CzechPunter said:

    Agreed on PCD there! Gutted about Sinner!

    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!

  • Create New...