- Dec 27, 2003
That was outstanding!!
Is there something more Im missing besides a 19yo winning? Her pedigree, from what I understand, is top shelf.I'm so so so so so happy for Coco. Just an incredible performance. I was in tears as she fell to her knees on the court. For real. Just an amazing moment in sport, and obviously, in her life personally.
I think she used her speed and endurance today, as well as some pushing, to frustrate and tire out Sabalenka. It was abundantly clear in the third set that the team Coco has surrounding her had prepped well for this particular opponent.BTW, maybe I was primed by Gilbert in the stands, and maybe I should not be such a fair weather fan, but ... is Gauff kinda a pusher?
How can your favorite players be Djokovic and Coco??????If you trust the official measurements, Sabalenka has 3 inches and 50 pounds on her, Coco usually is much more aggressive than this but when she tried that today (not too often), it wasn't very successful. Her defense was truly remarkable though, not just getting back balls but getting them back into positions where Sabalenka often didn't even have an advantage anymore.
Coco has been my favorite women's player since first emerging in 2020 at 15, so so so happy for her!!!
IIRC it was also after a few years of bad weather where the men’s final ended up getting postponed until Monday (pre roof obviously).I'm old enough to remember when CBS had the US Open. Early kickoff was the lead in to the men's finals. I think they lost the rights in the prime Federer/Nadal years.
I thought Medvedev had him at this point -- Djokovic looked tired and even fell to the ground (on purpose) once or twice. But he found that extra gear, somehow. It was remarkable, especially since he's 36 after a long year of tennis.Brad Gilbert said before today’s final that he thinks Djokovic has three more years at this level, so remarkable. He was so close to cracking in that epic second set today, but somehow did not.
Why do they do that? It should ALWAYS be 1-4, 2-3, and NEVER 1-3, 2-4.Djokovic was also lucky to have a very favorable draw for the first six rounds, so he had more left in the tank for yesterday.
I’ll say it for the 50th time, but to me it is batshit insane for the #1 player to be on the same side of the draw as the #3 player, and in this case it probably decided the tournament.
I believe 1/2 are on opposite halves, then 3/4...then 5-8 you will have 2 on one half, 2 on the other (technically it could end up being 5/6 on one half, 7/8 on other). Same for 9-16...then 17-32.Why do they do that? It should ALWAYS be 1-4, 2-3, and NEVER 1-3, 2-4.
Otherwise seeding makes no sense. Why even bother?
I get the reasoning for standard seeding, especially in a more normalized sport where you play an entire season leading up to one tournament. But tennis rankings and seedings evolve week to week and tournament to tournament, and you've also got the whole defending your points angle which is also asinine. The real solution would probably be allowing a seeding committee to seed NOT solely relying on ranking (which I think used to happen at the French and Wimby, but not sure it happens anymore).Then adjust your seedings accordingly, but have 1 and 4 on the same side, and 2 and 3 on the same side.
Hmm, not even sure it held up then as Andy Murray was in that same group for a while (top 4 for most of the stretch between 2008-2017 and #1 for 41 weeks in there).I always liked it in the Big 3 years. You had a top three that was by far and away the best in the game, and any of the three could probably be number one. But if you forced one of them to ALWAYS have to beat the other two in order to win a title, and one of them only has to win one match, the rankings long term would be skewed towards whoever only had to play the one match. By rotating you ensured that all three greats occasionally had to play each other.
Yeah to be clear, Im not really a fan either. I just am not a fan of using rankings for seedings and then doing 1/4, 2/3 etc etc. There is no world where Ruud, as one example, shouldve been the 4th seed at this years Wimbledon. Have a seeding committee...and then do 1/4, 2/3 etc.Yeah, it makes no sense, I bitch about it here a few times every year.
Although then you get into the seeding committee needing to be unbiased, in a world where Coco Gauff's coach is one of the main TV commentators.Yeah to be clear, Im not really a fan either. I just am not a fan of using rankings for seedings and then doing 1/4, 2/3 etc etc. There is no world where Ruud, as one example, shouldve been the 4th seed at this years Wimbledon. Have a seeding committee...and then do 1/4, 2/3 etc.
Fair. I wonder if the solution for the slams is kind of a mixture of ATP/WTA officials, with reps from each slam to seed for each slam.Although then you get into the seeding committee needing to be unbiased, in a world where Coco Gauff's coach is one of the main TV commentators.
Good approach, grass might be a problem given it's such a short season but whatever. But yeah I do like the 1/128 idea, because while we are compaining about the 1/3 2/4 stuff, those are kind of minor issues IMO compared to things like the 1st seed matching up against the 33rd ranked player in the 1st round, which can happen.I think I would just do a mathematical system for each of the four Slams, maybe 1/2 overall world ranking and 1/2 world ranking just on that surface (hardcourts, clay, grass), and then just go 1/128, 2/127, all the way through. Give that a year or two and see how it goes, I know I would be so much more into the fairness of that as a player.