French Open 2020

[liquidglass]

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!!

[lelit]

I am afraid that long scientific and philosophical debates about WTA's beauty have won out some tipsters

So I decided to type 3 sets in the Kvitova-Kenin match; Bet365 pays 2.5 for this.

Edited October 8, 2020 by lelit

[liquidglass]

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.

Edited October 8, 2020 by liquidglass

[TomOlej]

2 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.

I'm one of the few procent tennis fan who watch only grand slam and i really don't care who play in semifinals but how. Time is difficult and atypical but it will be a time of history often remembered

[AgaRadwanska]

3 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.

So, you simply want to see the same 7-8 names make the last 4 in each GS, year on year? To me that's kind of dull. Every player has their own individual story. To me, upsets and rags-to-riches stories make the WTA way more exciting than the ATP. 

A little ridiculous that it's acceptable for 1/4 of the semi finalists to be ranked out the top 100, but 2/4 = ''A randomness problem'', somehow.

It's just variance that comes as a result of 3 set matches. If all matches were best of 5 you'd likely see higher ranked players flourish, and weaker players would rarely get deep. 

[liquidglass]

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.

[owenclass]

Hi guys. This is my first bet of the tournament. And I will be going for 

Stefanos Tsitsipas to beat Novak Djokovic 5/2 paddy power 

I have been really impressed with Tsitsipas during this French Open. And throughout the tournament he has been playing better and better. So i think he is now ready to beat his opponent for the first time at a Grand slam. You are wondering why I'm confident that he can now beat him and reach his first French Open final, well the last round his opponent kind of struggled against Carreno Busta even though he came through easy enough in the end. But he got injured during the match and needed the trainer so all is not well with the world number one. And even his opponent who he beat said that he is not that in great form. So all these factors mean that i feel that this is Tsitsipas best chance of beating one of the greatest players of all time. And reach a grand slam final on clay probably against the king of clay which will certainly not be easy 

 

 

I also want to do a couple of side bets which could possibly happen

 

Stefanos Tsitsipas to win the French Open 8/1 paddy power

Nadal to beat Schwartzman 3-1 sets betting 11/4 paddy power 

Edited October 9, 2020 by owenclass

[teodorppv]

6 hours ago, owenclass said:

Hi guys. This is my first bet of the tournament. And I will be going for 

Stefanos Tsitsipas to beat Novak Djokovic 5/2 paddy power 

I have been really impressed with Tsitsipas during this French Open. And throughout the tournament he has been playing better and better. So i think he is now ready to beat his opponent for the first time at a Grand slam. You are wondering why I'm confident that he can now beat him and reach his first French Open final, well the last round his opponent kind of struggled against Carreno Busta even though he came through easy enough in the end. But he got injured during the match and needed the trainer so all is not well with the world number one. And even his opponent who he beat said that he is not that in great form. So all these factors mean that i feel that this is Tsitsipas best chance of beating one of the greatest players of all time. And reach a grand slam final on clay probably against the king of clay which will certainly not be easy 

 

 

I also want to do a couple of side bets which could possibly happen

 

Stefanos Tsitsipas to win the French Open 8/1 paddy power

Nadal to beat Schwartzman 3-1 sets betting 11/4 paddy power 

I also think the Greek player should win. He deserves it and also he is playing amazing this year, but it must be kept in mind that the physio thing is Djokovic special move. So I am not sure is he injured or not, it is not the first time when he calls physio when his game is not good enough, it is more strategic move than a physical problem. Still think the match is going to be interesting and it is time the new generation to beat the Top 3.

[Bettingboots]

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. 

[lelit]

4 hours ago, BrandNew said:

 

I expect they are due to lose a significant amount of their audience when Serena Williams retires, so they really need a continuity of new recognisable names to help move on from that, not a random group of new names at each new tournament.

Ohh.. come on!! Who else is intrigued by Serenas once brutal game, vulgar costumes and dramatic behavior, she should take care of her daughter, at her age, and maybe start knitting.

People prefer, for sure, to watch Osake, Andreescu and certainly Swiatek and even Kasatkine or Bencic.

Edited October 9, 2020 by lelit

[teodorppv]

2 hours ago, Bettingboots said:

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. 

Yeah I agree 100%. Personally I think Tsitsipas has the potential to win this match. I just wanted to help the other guy to not be misguided by these medical timeouts from the djoker.

[Torque]

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.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Torque

[Striker]

anyone know what outright odds Iga Swiatek was at the start of the championship?

[Teodore]

On 10/7/2020 at 8:10 AM, CzechPunter said:

 

Only for me 1.70 on Nadal is huge value? 

[j6u1uv4n4]

2 hours ago, Striker said:

anyone know what outright odds Iga Swiatek was at the start of the championship?

50 to 1 UK odds

 

51 Decimal

[CzechPunter]

41 minutes ago, Teodore said:

Only for me 1.70 on Nadal is huge value? 

Haven't really given it a thought yet, but he hasn't been tested and that's an issue for me. Djokovic is battle-hardened at this point and on a huge winning streak, Nadal has had soft or chokey opposition so far. I didn't like him against Sinner at all, Sinner was the better player for the first half of that match before falling apart.

[K8a]

58 minutes ago, j6u1uv4n4 said:

50 to 1 UK odds

 

51 Decimal

And Kenin? Call me crazy but I actually like a small little bit more Kenin than Swiatek. I think Kenin takes it in 3 sets for her second 2020 Slam.

[Cinch]

3 minutes ago, K8a said:

And Kenin? Call me crazy but I actually like a small little bit more Kenin than Swiatek. I think Kenin takes it in 3 sets for her second 2020 Slam.

I totally agree. May take advantage of the sky exacta, LWW

Also god love him, i think nadal scores but loses

Swiatek v Kenin 1 2

Djok v Nadal  Djok +3.5 sets

Double

16.87/1 (B365)

[CzechPunter]

Yeah, that's going to be the most important bit for Swiatek. She's a bit like Ostapenko in this regard a couple years ago, when the Latvian was facing Halep in what was supposed to be a pretty one-sided final. Kenin isn't in the same league of favorites as Halep was back then, but I'm not sure she deserves to actually be the underdog. Swiatek either does Ostapenko or falls apart.

[lelit]

Swiatek is not fighting, she destroys opponents; too much fire, precision and very versatile arsenal. But a month ago she lost in a strange way, without fighting in the I round in Rome, yesterday in double match, she was terrible and hysterical, poor serving.

Edited October 10, 2020 by lelit

[CzechPunter]

If I had to bet, I'd bet on Kenin and Nadal. The odds don't seem off to me, however.

[TomOlej]

Jazda! The first polish tennis player with won in the grand slam! 

[bet4fun]

Congratulations to Swiatek and so happy that a 19 yr old wins french open. I hope she does not turn out to be another ostapenko. ostapenko was lucky in her win whereas swiatek was flawless. absolutely crushing players. think kenin was injured today. but thats no excuse. even a fitter kenin would have lost. see shades of steffi graf in swiatek.

[bet4fun]

5 hours ago, lelit said:

Swiatek is not fighting, she destroys opponents; too much fire, precision and very versatile arsenal. But a month ago she lost in a strange way, without fighting in the I round in Rome, yesterday in double match, she was terrible and hysterical, poor serving.

i lalso thought this match would be on the back of her mind. they were winning doubles easily until they lost their way and became reckless.

[delfino]

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

[CzechPunter]

He just seems to have more in the tank imo and this should be a long match. Like @delfino, though, I haven't been impressed by either.

[DrO]

@delfinowhat were the odds for Swiatek to win the RG?

[DrO]

And before tournament started?
Does anyone knows..i'm quite curious

[CzechPunter]

22 hours ago, j6u1uv4n4 said:

50 to 1 UK odds

 

51 Decimal

@DrO

[DrO]

Wow,that's really huge.
I had Bianca Andreescu as US Open winner last year,and odds were 19.