19 year old Bianca Andreescu defeats Serena to become the first ever Canadian to win a Major Title
garnettstyle
Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
https://deadspin.com/19-year-old-bianca-andreescu-wins-the-u-s-open-fearle-1837958301
Your new U.S. Open champion
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
2
Comments
We The North!
Good.
Is she a liar too?
I picked Adreescu to win the tournament and she did. Anyone that watched her during the summer hardcourt season, especially Cincinnati, could see a rising star. She plays like Serena did 12 years ago, powerfully built, changes direction well, and bludgeons the ball off the ground. Her crosscourt shots are heavier than her opponents' which forces them to change tactics because they can't trade with her. I think this is just the beginning of a very promising career which will have multiple slams in her future.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
"Probably the 756th best player in the world."
John McEnroe.
She has done very well on the hard courts winning the U.S. Open, The Canadian Open, and Indian Wells. She has beaten Serena twice this summer.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Wow
Not Cincinnati, I meant Toronto during the Roger's Cup. Bianca was tested during that run and you could see her problem solve and fight her way back when it counted. There were 3 matches where she won the first set easily, got outplayed and lost momentum in the 2nd, then fought back to turn the match around and win in the 3rd.
Finding ways to build momentum on days where you've lost your A game, and then take back control from an opponent playing well and win the match~ that is the sign of rising star. Bianca showed me that during her run to the championship in Toronto. For that and many other reasons I picked Andreescu to win the US Open.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Are you or John saying that there are 755 men better than her?
It was John. In an interview re Serena he noted that she was the best woman player ever. Interviewer asked why he did not say the best tennis player ever. He responded that she was in the top several hundred of men players.
I don't follow the game close enough to make that opinion, but he is probably not far off.
I doubt he carefully compiled the stats . He was probably jealous of the attention she gets and was being a dick , in that respect hes near number #1
As a distance runner (distance has since gotten shorter) I always enjoyed watching the lady marathoners. Same route and strategy as the men and in the early 1980's everyone started together. No special tees as in golf or smaller ball as in basketball.
Best runners were at about a 5:40 pace per mile for a bit under two and a half hours.
Impressive by any measure.
She (and her sister) once played a guy ranked just outside the top 200. The guy dominated them both, while drinking and smoking during the match.
McEnroe was just being honest - not jealous.
There are probably at least 600-700 men who could beat Serena. And i hope she never beats Court's slam record.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The Williams sisters in their younger days proclaimed they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200. This statement was kind of naïve on their part. Known chain smoker Karsten Braasch asked his coach what his ranking was? He was told 203rd in the world, so he asked some people at Melbourne park he accepts their challenge and to set up a match with the Williams sisters.
The match was set up for a little later in the day, so while the sisters prepared by getting in an early hit and practicing; Braasch was hitting the links on the golf course. He followed his round with a couple shandies (alcoholic grapefruit drink) and arrived late for the match. Then with very little warm-up he proceeded to play Serena. Karsten was leading Serena 5-0, kind of lost interest in a game and won the set 6-1. Serena was still a very young player back in 1998 and it was apparent at the time she was not going to win. So Venus was next and at the time was ranked higher than her younger sister. Venus and Karsten played and Karsten won the first set 6-2. Everyone knew if they kept playing a 2nd set would likely be similar to the first.
When the press asked the sisters about the match, they amended their earlier statement saying ~they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 350. You have to remember their father, Richard Williams, raised those girls with the belief that they could beat anybody. And so the girls took that attitude with them to the court and they eventually became champions. However I think if the girls had played more practice matches against male professional players, they wouldn't have made their earlier statement. Lower ranked professional players are still professional players, they do this for a living. I don't care what sport it is, if your livelihood depends on your performance~ you're going to get pretty good at it
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
This pic just needed to be bumped
Well my knowledge of mens tennis comes from my time at summer camp. It chiefly consisted of holding the racket like a machine gun and chasing other kids around making rat a tat tat sounds.
Lets be honest , the only tennis worth watching is womens tennis , its the skirts mainly. Also the mens game is mind numblingly boring
Anyone who watched the Mens Wimbledon, or U.S. Open Final might disagree. 2 great 5 set matches.
Although women's tennis tv ratings have been going up in recent years. Overall Viewership for the men’s tour outdraws the women by a wide margin.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
nope 5 sets is too many , its literally more boring than baseball
Richard Williams is a genius. The way he trained them in the ghettos of Compton, to become two of the best tennis players in history. Serena being the best womens player ever. He's a genius.
That is a high bar.
One of the best. I still Have Court and Graf ahead of her. Others have different opinions.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Fans want the competitive 5 set matches. Makes them more exciting and draws high ratings, as opposed to one-sided matches.
The US Open set an all-time attendance record in 2019, with 737,872 fans coming to the USTA National Tennis Center during the two weeks of the main draw.
Combined with the record 115,355 attendance during US Open Fan Week, the US Open's total three-week attendance surpassed 850,000 for the first time at 853,227.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Here are some pictures of some of the many celebrities that attended this years US Open. Wayne Gretzky, Tiger Woods, Ben Stiller, Alec Baldwin, Vanessa Williams, Tom Brokaw, Lindsey Vonn, Grant Haley, Saquon Barkley, Julius Randle, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, Kobe Bryant, Boris Becker, CC Sabathia, Giancarlo Stanton to name a few.
https://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2019-09-08/best_quotes_from_the_2019_us_open_andreescu_serena_federer_nadal_speak_out.html
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
People have asked me about my thoughts on the greatest players of all time. When discussing women players I have Serena Williams as the greatest singles player followed closely by Graf and Court. When asked who is the greatest women's player of all time, I still give the edge to Martina Navratilova because of her all around accomplishments. Martina won 18 singles grandslam titles which is 5 behind Serena, but where she has the edge is in her doubles prowess. Martina won an astounding 37 grandslam doubles titles. She also won the mixed doubles grandslam championship 10 times. Martina won 14 year end championship singles titles, and was a perfect 11-0 in year end doubles championships. When you put all those things together not even including how many finals she reached in her career, Martina Navratilova still gets my vote as greatest women's tennis player ever. To put her career in perspective, her dominance in the women's game would be the equivalent of Novak Djokovic and Mike Bryan combined into one player. As good as those two have been on the men's side, she has done the equivalent on the women's side.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Martina was magic.
Martina was amazing. She is 5 titles short of Margaret Courts's all-time Grand Slam Titles record. Martina won 59..-Court won 64. Court is the only person in history to have won all 12 Grand Slam events at least twice. Court also holds the record for the Most singles titles--192.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Margaret Court is certainly worthy of being #1 on some peoples' list. I don't have her #1 on mine because if I remember correctly when she won her first Australian grand slam championship, she lost in the junior girls finals. She won multiple grandslams as an amatuer meaning that the depth of professional tennis during those years was not yet what it should be. When Martina played I think you could call more of the players professionals as they trained longer hours and were more dedicated to the sport. Granted some of Martina's early rounds in the grandslams were not exactly tough matches, those players were putting in enough work trying to get better. In Courts' days you had a number of players putting in as little as 5 to 10 hours a week on tennis, and to me those are not true professionals (according to sources I have talked with that played/coached/belonged to that era.)
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Like tennis coach People have asked me about my thoughts on the players I watch all the time. When discussing women players I have only one that I follow.
The best players were still playing the Grand Slams in the 60's even though they were called Amatuers. Courts record against Billie Jean King in Grand slam finals was 4-1. Laver also won a good share of his slams in the Amatuer era, but he is still regarded by many, the best player ever because he won the Grand slam(winning all 4 in the same year. Margaret Court also won the grand slam during the open era(1970). Something that Serena has never achieved.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
garnettstyle, i'm not talking about the "best" amatuers;I am talking about the not so best amatuers and the lower ranked professionals of Court's time. Some of these players only put in 5 to 10 hours of court time per week during those years, hardly professionals. Those were the type of players the best amatuers and professionals were facing in the first 3 rounds of majors in those years. When you get to the 70's, 80's, and 90's when Martina won the majority of her grandslams, most professionals were putting in 10 to 15 hours of off court running, conditioning, strength training, plyometrics, and another 10 to 15 hours of court time every week. The players were putting in the required work to be called professionals.
Take college football for instance, college football of the 60's and 70's kept an amatuer focus on the sport. College football players today spend enough time, energy, strength training, film study, class room/playbook work, cardio conditioning and overall dedication to the sport to be considered unpaid semi-professionals. They have to adapt or they get passed by. The same thing happened to professional tennis in the early-mid 70's. The amount of work for most players grew from an amatuer focus to a professional one. It continued to grow as more money came into the sport and a greater pool of players where competing to make a living at it. You either adapt and adopt a professional work ethic or you found yourself on the outside looking in. The most talented players were sometimes the exception to the rule. But for the most part if you were a lower ranked player and did not put in the required work, you would get passed by because younger players coming into the sport were more dedicated. In the early 1960's players could still have long tennis careers and devote a lot of their time to other jobs as well, they were more like amatuer players. So in the 1950's and 1960's there were a lot of really good club players being credited as good amatuers/professional players when really they didn't truly belong at that level of the game.
Before this year you could sometimes attend a challenger event and during the qualifying see a local highschool/club player given a wild card into the qualifying portion of the event. While they are excellent club players, they are not professionals and they usually lose by a lopsided score in the first round. The late 1950's through the mid 1960's had a number of these type of players playing tennis professionally or as top amatuer players. They didn't truly belong on the circuit.
To perhaps put it another way, if I scoured the YMCAs across America and pulled some good players out of each I could likely form a pretty good basketball team. However if that team was to play a decent a decent division 1 college basketball team, they are going to lose. The YMCA team would have the advantage of stronger full grown men as athletes, but they won't have the dedication to the sport as a division one college team does. Without that dedication and focus to the sport they're likely going to get outplayed due to a lack of organization. The early days of tennis lacked that true "professionalism" which was developed during Martina's career on the tour. So while yes it gets continuously tougher to win grandslams as you continue through the years, if you go back far enough the professionalism of the sport had not yet taken shape. There were not enough players making a living at the sport to warrant them being called professionals.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
You've got to be kidding right? In EVERY decade there were tennis players that didn't practice or practiced very little. Ask Nick Kyrgios how much he practices, but yet has a good record against the top players. John McEnroe didnt practice much either during his playing days. Probably in every sport, athletes today are stronger than players from past decades. Pro football and baseball players held 2nd jobs. It doesnt take away their legendary status. Court and Laver winning all four grand slams in the same year IN THE open era means your argument holds no water. Have you ever watched any of these lower ranked women on the pro circuit on tennis channel plus? Some of them can barely keep a ball in play for 6-8 strokes. The competition today is not better than in the 60's and 70's when alot more people took up the game of tennis. Look at the mens side from the USA. When was the last time an American man won a grand slam?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
garnettstyle, you are just wrong on so many levels when it comes to professional tennis. You can't understand professional tennis just by watching it on TV. To say Nick Kyrios and John McEnroe didn't practice much means your basis for comparison is all fouled up. Kyrios and McEnroe were still putting in 20+ hours a week between on court work, strength and conditioning, cardio, training etc. or they couldn't maintain that level of play. When compared to most other modern professionals that are grinding and putting in 35-40+ hours a week, then yes, they are not practicing as much, but that is not to say they are practicing very little like a lot of players were 50 years ago.
Why are you using the word "probably"...there is no question that players in every sport are better athletes today than they were 40 years ago.
Look, the lower ranked women on the WTA circuit today are 10x better players than they were 40 years ago. So this "some of them can barely keep the ball in play for 6-8 strokes" means you have never watched them practice or play live. The competition today is way better than it was in the 60's and 70's. To say otherwise means you are just not aware of how good modern professional women players are. Wherever you live;, go watch a good division 1 college women's match. Go and really look at how well they play. Then understand that a modern (lower ranked) professional would absolutely wipe the floor with them in a match. This same girl who you think can't keep the ball in play suddenly looks likes she can't miss in this match-up. In the early and mid 1960's there were a lot of players playing professionally that were not working at it like professionals. Calling yourself a professional and being one are two very different things. Case in point, look at two of the newest "professional" boxers Logan Paul vs. KSI. They may be called professionals, they may even get paid like ones, but they are not professionals. So yeah, I think winning a grandslam tournament was easier 50-60 years ago and carries less weight then winning one in mid 1970's and 80's. In those formative years there wasn't enough money in the sport to have enough true dedicated professionals. Maybe if you talk to enough players and coaches you will come to the same realization.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
LOL
I give up. No sense having a debate with a knucklehead who bases his eras GOAT on how much they practiced. In which he cant prove and means nothing anyway.
His logic means Babe Ruth isn't the GOAT because his era players didnt practice as much
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@DIMEMAN - The message board does not need junk like you posted here. Totally inappropriate. Please do not do it again. - Todd Tobias
you forgot the video
Awesome. A forum meltdown on woman's tennis.
I love this place
garnettstyle, you should reread what I wrote because my decision was not based on how much a player practices. Therefore your comparison about logic, Babe Ruth, and practice is untrue as well. But if you think athletes don't have to work hard to be true professionals then you keep on believing that, I know otherwise. And if you think there isn't a difference in the level of competition through the decades, then you keep right on believing that one too.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
fans have evolved too.
Margaret Court is certainly one of the best players the game has seen. She did win a lot of grand slams during a time where there was not much money in the sport. As a result there were a lot of players whose primary job was not tennis. They were top club players and their main income came from other sources. So they didn't devote themselves to the tough off-court strength training, cardio, plyometrics, and flexibility required to be professionals. Therefore the tournament draws at grand slams during 50's and 60's were filled with amatuers and club players designated as professionals but spent the majority of their time working at something else. It's no fault of the club players, they had to earn a living and at the same time cover expenses and travel to get to tournaments. They didn't play anywhere near a full schedule of tournaments. So getting through the first 3 or 4 rounds of these grand slams is not the same as what it became when you head into the 70's and 80's. Sure an occasional amatuer or club player made it through qualifying, but the grand slam tournaments had no where near as many as they did in those earlier years. The number of players whose primary job is tennis expanded greatly during the 1970's. Margaret Courts career essentially went from 1959 to 1975. Martina Navratilova's career was from 1973 to 2004. Navratilova won 18 singles grandslams, 37 doubles grandslams, 10 mixed grandslams, and did it against professional fields. So while it is a close call, it is for these reasons I give Martina the edge.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Please give us some names of the club players that played the grand slams during the 60's? Court and Graf are the only two woman players to win the grand slam...... The sports toughest achievement. So they deserve to be ranked higher than Martina.
The players weren't allowed to be called pro's. They actually called themselves 'independants'...not amatuers. Because in reality the best players in the world were still getting paid for tournaments under the table...because they were actually pro's.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The real reason why the media like ESPN, and the other liberal networks, dont recognize Margarat Court as the greatest, is because of her right-leaning religious/political beliefs. She is also a ordained Minister.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Navratilova was a great singles player, not the greatest, but still great~ 18 grand slam singles championships. I don't think there is any disputing that she is the greatest women's doubles player of all time. 37 grand slam championships in women's doubles and 10 grand slam championships in mixed doubles. Add that with all the finals she made in both singles and doubles~ I place her #1 in all around accomplishments with a career that impressive.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
It's a hokey "achievement" based on a calendar year. Martina won 6 straight slams, which is far more impressive. Court did the same thing but against much-lesser competition.
Nah, she's not recognized that way because: 1) Others have surpassed her; 2) Competition today is much tougher; 3) She hurt her own legacy by getting rolled by Bobby Riggs while ranked #1.
I know! Silly me to not check in on a thread with so many new post advertisements lol
I know very little about women's tennis but I'll take the side of a guy with tenniscoach as his username.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You know what this sounds like, it sounds like the argument from a conspiracy theorist. I have to agree with Tabe here. The real reasons are 1) Others have surpassed her 2) Competition today is much tougher 3) She hurt her own legacy by getting rolled by Bobby Riggs while ranked #1.
Winning the grand slam in the same calendar year vs winning the same grand slams in adjoining years is basically the same achievement. Whether you win them in the order of Aus, RG, Wim, US vs winning them Wim, US, Aus, RG makes no real difference. In each case the champion holds all 4 titles at the same time.
grote15 knows what's up.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Can’t make a much better point than this 😂
As with any other sport, you cant compare eras. The 80's and beyond Technology in tennis is undeniable.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED