Talk About Tennis 2.0

It was to force all the top players to show up at 1000 level events.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:11 am It was to force all the top players to show up at 1000 level events.

yes, but also to force them to play a minimum number of events.. which minimum is quite high, actually.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:11 am It was to force all the top players to show up at 1000 level events.

Right, this seems like more a move in that direction - eoncourage the top players to supplement their schedules with 500s rather than 250s. Protect the higher tiered tournaments to make them more of an event - it makes the media deals lucrative and offers these tournaments more of a return on their investment for maintaining a higher level event.

Two the Russian Federation did not support...Alexandrova, wiki says, lives in Czech and has contemplated switching citizenship, and, of course, the well-known case of Rybakina

As a lifelong player, who mainly plays doubles because of the shortage of courts, I find I have a lot to learn by watching women's doubles ..men's doubles not so much, because I can't play like they can..too much power, too much net play, for me to emulate but when I watch, say, Taylor T and Siniakova, or Hsieh, I can really appreciate the way they structure the points, their timing for interception, the lobs to break the pattern of play... I always commend my friends to watch women,'s doubles to pick up some tips they can directly apply..

I have always been so weary of playing doubles, and I was a serve and volley player when younger. When I miss a shot in singles, no issues. When I miss a shot in doubles, the feeling of guilt is too much.
Agree with you. WTA doubles is so more enjoyable to watch.

Talk was spreading that Kasatkina was going to become a Spanish national.

since I have been talking about Tier 1 and Tier 2, here is my (subjective) list:
Tier 1 means players who are the very best, capable of winning majors in the future
Tier 2 are very good players, who are unlikely to win a major in the future, though they may have in the past. So my emphasis is on future potential, which can only be subjective, unlike, say, rankings.
A tier 2 player is not likely to lose to anyone except another Tier 2 player or a Tier 1 player - nor is she likely to actually beat a Tier 1 player. So, for instance, I would not classify Sloane or Kenin as Tier 2 - anyone can beat them these days.

But I thought it could make for a nice discussion, since everybody has their own opinion, as they should.

Tier 1
Sabalenka, Swiatek, Rybakina, Gauff, Osaka
Near Tier 1
Krejcikova, Keys, Muchova, Jabeur
Future Tier 1
Andreeva, Shnaider, Noskova

Tier 2
Ostapenko, Vondrousova, Pegula, Paolini, Svitolina, Alexandrova, Kasatkina, Zheng, Navarro, Badosa, Collins, BHM, Vekic, Kostyuk, Leylah, Raducanu, Anisimova, Mertens, Tauson, Pavlyuchenkova

Keys just won the Aussie open, beating your first top three Tier 1 players, and yet you don't put her a Tier 1?
Yet you include Osaka, and that can only be because of her past glory. Because Osaka is nowhere near winning a slam anytime soon again.
And I am sorry, you are cutting this sausage too thin. Tier 1, near Tier 1, Future Tier 1. Might as well use software nomenclature (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc).

As I said it is about the future..is Keys likely to win another major? Could but probability 20%. Osaka is very close now to her best..she will win another major..my subjective opinion of course.

https://www.tennis.com/news/articles/pe ... ells-miami

Kvitova plans to play Austin, IW and miami...yay! One of my favorites..

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 4:41 am As I said it is about the future..is Keys likely to win another major? Could but probability 20%. Osaka is very close now to her best..she will win another major..my subjective opinion of course.

We deal very well with the subjective here
I say Keys has a better chance of adding a second slam than Osaka has a chance of adding #5.

My money on ponchi here