The other finds a way to lose when they're winning
_________________ go firmly to the window
and listen with deep emotion,
but not with the whining, the pleas of the coward;
listen-your final pleasure-to the voices,
to the exquisite music of that strange procession
Listen to Serena talk about Grand Slam. Some people say Grand slams are easier to win than Miami, Indian Wells... nope...
Grand Slams are far easier to win than premiers and premier mandatories due to the expanded draws, allowing for scrubs to participate, making for cakewalk draws like the one Wozniacki got to win this year's AO. I, for one, value the titles for premiers when everyone shows up and the YEC (when the best 8 are participating) due to the contraction of the draws and the tighter competition that players get from the lst round on, which you hardly get at the Slams. Further, at a Slam you play 7 matches with 2 weeks to play and a day off after every match. At premiers you play 7 matches (6 with a bye) in "one week" with only one day off. The only thing that makes the Slams greater are the payouts..... +2/3 mil, the ranking points (2k) and all the players get a nice payout for just qualifying (over 35k for just the lst rd., more than one earns by winning an International 250k event playing 5 rounds for the title). At the Slams the competition is scattered and lightweight, depending on how the draws unfold. Thus, are Slams easier to win than premiers.......... "absolutely", 2 weeks to play, 6 days off and scattered, weakened competition, as evidenced by this year comparing the competition that Kvitova faced in winning Doha, Wozniacki at the AO, Osaka and Kasatkina here at Indy.
Woz's road to the title: Petra K's Doha: Osaka's IW: Kat's IW:
Who has the weakest of the draws in winning titles, or reaching the final? "Caroline", for she only faced "1" top-10 player in winning the AO a "Slam", while Petra faced "3" top-10ers in winning Doha, Naomi 2 top-10ers and 2 former top-10ers in reaching the Indy final and Kat has faced "3" top-10ers and last year's USO winner in Sloane. Caroline's 3 mil. payout for winning the AO is a joke, for her draw looks like a Charelston-type draw warranting a Charleston-type payout, nowhere near what Petra, Naomi and Kat' have faced in winning the title or reaching the Indy final. Slams are overrated as all get out due to the watered down competition via the expanded draws. Imo, to think that Slams are viewed as some massive achievement is a "laugh".
Lol..... my columns didn't line up right, but you can still see who each player faced on their respective road to the final.
But like Serena said, it's the preparation, the tension, the expectation that make the slam difficult.
I just wish they would do the the draw in such way that R1 matches oppose top-64 to bottom-64. That would at least prevent the annoying Q vs Q or #80 vs Q...
But like Serena said, it's the preparation, the tension, the expectation that make the slam difficult. I just wish they would do the the draw in such way that R1 matches oppose top-64 to bottom-64. That would at least prevent the annoying Q vs Q or #80 vs Q..
Please......all players "prep" for any event, in addition to having tension just to get through rounds of events. It's competition and what competition entails. "Expectations", tho', is a self-imposed stress point "only" affecting players who have won multiple Slams, like Serena, Roger, Rafa and Novak. There wouldn't be expectations from no one else for they haven't been repeat winners and Serena having expectations is something that she freely adopts for herself, for the expectation is coming outside of herself by sportswriters and fans via criticism. She doesn't have to accept that but just play and tell them that nothing is guaranteed even though she's been successful in winning the Slams. But, she's afraid of blowback if she doesn't win, which she doesn't have to accept.
Your last point I totally agree with in term of having 64 seeds, for it values the rankings that players have achieved and gives them the opportunity to get to the next round by playing a lower ranked player in the lst rd. By having 16 seeds or 32 seeds, players immediately outside of the seeds could face each other, while lower ranked players (90's-100's) play each other, making for bad draws in the later rounds, for which the public doesn't want to witness.
I'm not going to forget last year's AO where Serena faced Bencic in the lst round, then got Lucy in the 2nd, who faced Wickmayer in the lst round, both players ranked in the 60's, while scrubs (123rd ranked played someone ranked 119th, then got an 80th ranked in the 2nd). This should "never" happen at a Slam, for they just told Bencic, Lucy and Wicks that their rankings were worthless, 3 higher ranked players got bounced early while Jennifer Brady reached the 4th round playing nobodies. Absurdity.....
The two-week duration of pressure, prestige, spotlight, financial opportunity and ranking points at GS make it more difficult to pull off despite the quality of the opponent.
There isn't any "intense" pressure for a 2 week event with "6" days off and playing players like Fett and Bertens over a 4 day period in the case of Caroline's draw. Of course, the emphasis by the tennis organizations, the media interest and the significant prize money at the Slams makes such events "the" events for the tennis year. I understand. However, the competition is what should make the Slams significant, but they are not if the champion has not faced minimally 3 top-10 players and at least one in the top-20 (I prefer 2) on the road to that title. With the current top-10 being marginal at best and clearly not formidable, the achievement for winning a Slam nowadays doesn't say much, especially with Serena, Vika and Petra K. not in the mix. Yet, it's still 3 mil. and 2k ranking points for Caroline, nevertheless.
Of course players dream of accomplishments at the Slams due to the institutions of tennis stressing the importance of such, coupled with the significant prize money one would earn by just participating, let alone winning such, the increased number of ranking points available that keeps one out of qualies and participating at the Slams and premiers and the so-called "prestige" of winning them. I get that. However, in substance, the competition is weaker at the Slams and no way as intense as the premier events, as noted above, by the draws players face at those events and the YEC.