Tennis

[shoothoops]

Big moment and big opportunity for Peyton Stearns. NCAA Champion at Texas. Grinded the ITF too. Only 21. Playing great.

[MuggsyB]

Not a big upset here. And that's credit to Penko.

Ostapenko had 31 winners. Ultra Aggressive, big hitting, early in points, isn't the best matchup for Swiatek.

It's her 2nd major quarterfinal this year. She's a slam champion that is a top 15 player annually. She's good. She plays high risk high reward tennis. When she's on she can defeat anyone. That includes if she is serving well, and picks and chooses her spots wisely.

But Swiatek still fell apart midway through the 2nd set.  Penko can absolutely throttle the ball but Iga was not herself after a decent start. 

[MU82]

No American man will win this year's U.S. Open IMHO, but it's nice to at least see some life there.

I know that Djokovic, Nadal and Federer built kind of an impregnable wall for just about everyone - not only U.S. players - but it's still stunning that American men are 0-for-2-decades in majors.

An entire generation of American tennis without a sniff of a grand slam title - most years, not a single U.S. player even was a serious contender. Only 4 appearances in a major final these last 20 years, and none since 2009.

That's wild, especially given the success of U.S. men in the decades prior: Sampras, Agassi, Courier, McEnroe, Connors. 

[MuggsyB]

No American man will win this year's U.S. Open IMHO, but it's nice to at least see some life there.

I know that Djokovic, Nadal and Federer built kind of an impregnable wall for just about everyone - not only U.S. players - but it's still stunning that American men are 0-for-2-decades in majors.

An entire generation of American tennis without a sniff of a grand slam title - most years, not a single U.S. player even was a serious contender. Only 4 appearances in a major final these last 20 years, and none since 2009.

That's wild, especially given the success of U.S. men in the decades prior: Sampras, Agassi, Courier, McEnroe, Connors.

Ya.....that's crazy.  But you're right, winning it is a tall task.  The match later between Sinner/Zverev should be a really good one. 

[MuggsyB]

Medvy is flying under the radar a bit.  He's very dangerous on this surface and has had a relatively comfortable draw thus far.  I'm not sure it's automatic we'll see a Djoker/Alcaraz Final

[shoothoops]

But Swiatek still fell apart midway through the 2nd set.  Penko can absolutely throttle the ball but Iga was not herself after a decent start.

And why do you think Swiatek wasn't herself? She didn't magically self destruct on her own.

You actually have it backwards. Ostapenko upped her game a lot after the first and second set.

Penko cut her errors in half. And she improved her serve almost 30% in the 2nd set. Penko gave herself slightly more margin because she knew she would win the rallies. And she beat Swiatek in down the middle neutral ball rallies. She also is very good at creating angles from the middle of the court that many can't.

Few players play faster than Swiatek. But Penko is one of them and that gets into the head of Swiatek.

The frequent body serve of Swiatek became predictable and Swiatek side stepped it and hit an aggressive shot.

Swiatek was very consistent in the first 2 sets. Served 68 and 69 percent, winners and errors were similar each set. What changed was the level of Ostapenko.

[MuggsyB]

And why do you think Swiatek wasn't herself? She didn't magically self destruct on her own.

You actually have it backwards. Ostapenko upped her game a lot after the first and second set.

Penko cut her errors in half. And she improved her serve almost 30% in the 2nd set. Penko gave herself slightly more margin because she knew she would win the rallies. And she beat Swiatek in down the middle neutral ball rallies. She also is very good at creating angles from the middle of the court that many can't.

Few players play faster than Swiatek. But Penko is one of them and that gets into the head of Swiatek.

The frequent body serve of Swiatek became predictable and Swiatek side stepped it and hit an aggressive shot.

Swiatek was very consistent in the first 2 sets. Served 68 and 69 percent, winners and errors were similar each set. What changed was the level of Ostapenko.

I watched the end of the 2nd and 3rd set.  She played terribly and this is just a fact.  Penko is tough but Iga was nowhere near her top level or mentally sharp. 

[shoothoops]

I watched the end of the 2nd and 3rd set.  She played terribly and this is just a fact.  Penko is tough but Iga was nowhere near her top level or mentally sharp.

Bizarre that you have an unwillingness to credit a player for playing well and taking the other player out of their game. The notion that Swiatek lost mostly because she self imploded doesn't pass the personal bias test.

[MuggsyB]

Bizarre that you have an unwillingness to credit a player for playing well and taking the other player out of their game. The notion that Swiatek lost mostly because she self imploded doesn't pass the personal bias test.

It's bizarre you're refusing to acknowledge the truth and I'm taking nothing away from Penko.   Iga was beyond bad and you know this full well. 

[shoothoops]

It's bizarre you're refusing to acknowledge the truth and I'm taking nothing away from Penko.   Iga was beyond bad and you know this full well.

Lol. I watched the match, so no. I already explained what happened in the match.

It's 4 straight wins for Ostapenko over Swiatek. At some point it isn't self imploding or luck.

This also isn't the only player in which Swiatek has trouble with on hard courts. They all have similar styles of play too. 

[Jockey]

It's bizarre you're refusing to acknowledge the truth and I'm taking nothing away from Penko.   Iga was beyond bad and you know this full well.

You could learn a lot by listening to Shoothoops rather than always giving your take.

[MuggsyB]

Lol. I watched the match, so no. I already explained what happened in the match.

It's 4 straight wins for Ostapenko over Swiatek. At some point it isn't self imploding or luck.

This also isn't the only player in which Swiatek has trouble with on hard courts. They all have similar styles of play too.

We'll agree to disagree.  I watched what happened. 

[shoothoops]

We'll agree to disagree.  I watched what happened.

There isn't a both sides here.

If you read your own post above, you admitted that you didn't even watch two thirds of the match. That's a pretty strong opinion and a lot of posts of something you didn't even see.

Swiatek was outplayed by a better player. It happens. The specifics as to why were even referenced for you.

Ostapenko, Sabalenka, Rybakina, Garcia, Krejcikova, etc...are all players that play Swiatek well.

[shoothoops]

Week 1 attendance: 502,385.

Labor Day Weekend attendance: 201,787.

Both record highs.

Lots of people in here.

[MuggsyB]

There isn't a both sides here.

If you read your own post above, you admitted that you didn't even watch two thirds of the match. That's a pretty strong opinion and a lot of posts of something you didn't even see.

Swiatek was outplayed by a better player. It happens. The specifics as to why were even referenced for you.

Ostapenko, Sabalenka, Rybakina, Garcia, Krejcikova, etc...are all players that play Swiatek well.

I watched half the match and you clearly don't want to admit the truth. 

[Uncle Rico]

I watched the end of the 2nd and 3rd set.  She played terribly and this is just a fact.  Penko is tough but Iga was nowhere near her top level or mentally sharp.

Can you please stop saying "mentally sharp" when evaluating a player or team performance?  It's a weak argument at best.  You do this with Marquette basketball, too, yelling about focus. 

[MuggsyB]

Can you please stop saying "mentally sharp" when evaluating a player or team performance?  It's a weak argument at best.  You do this with Marquette basketball, too, yelling about focus.

That's because it's noticeable when people lose focus. 

[Uncle Rico]

That's because it's noticeable when people lose focus.

You use it every time a player or team is losing.

[MuggsyB]

You use it every time a player or team is losing.

It's a common problem and should be reiterated. 

[Uncle Rico]

It's a common problem and should be reiterated.

Sometimes, the other team or player is simply better, regardless of focus

[shoothoops]

I watched half the match and you clearly don't want to admit the truth.

It isn't possible to have a credible opinion about something that you didn't see or experience. That's incomplete at best.

You let your personal bias and limited experience on a subject form your opinions despite contrary factual evidence. You can insert different players or teams or topics. It's a pattern.

If you can't treat all of the players with equal respect, and an objective, open mind, your opinions will be flawed at best.

And you gave yourself away by quickly saying Penko would lose to Gauff. That of course is maybe yes, maybe no.

You've been presented with facts and specifics over and over, and instead of using facts to support your opinion,
you make vague references of "you know the truth." or "I disagree" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It would take you mere seconds to find lots and lots and lots of credible players, coaches, media that have said that Ostapenko outplayed Swiatek, and much of her tactics and execution which I have provided in the thread, support that.

All of this because you strangely don't want to credit a player for outplaying another, for her 4th straight win over that player.

You are very short on specifics. Example: Swiatek likes to play fast and to put pressure on opponents. However there are players who play even faster than her. And they hit a heavy tennis ball. Down the middle rallies, playing a neutral ball meaning without much top spin, under spin, etc...are difficult matchups for her. Pace, depth against her extreme Western grip are a challenge. And Ostapenko is one of the nest in the game at creating angles from the middle of the court.

Ostapenko didn't serve or return as well in the first set. Those numbers have been provided. She vastly improved it after that. Seems like she deserves some credit for that.

Penko realized by her own admission that she was winning the longer rallies and neutral ball rallies etc...and that if she gave herself a little more margin, but played a similar style, she would limit errors which she did. Stats have been provided. Seems like she deserves credit for that.

31 winners, often taking the ball early inside the baseline. Seems like she deserves credit for that.

You are taking something so very simple and being needlessly pedantic about it, because you lack objectivity on the subject.

https://tennishead.net/reason-behind-shock-swiatek-us-open-defeat-revealed-by-leading-analyst/#:~:text=It%20was%20as%20simple%20as%20that.&text=Both%20players%20had%2031%20forehand,her%20hands%20and%20feet%20correctly.

[MuggsyB]

Sometimes, the other team or player is simply better, regardless of focus

Yes Uncle R, but that was not the case in the Swiatek/Ostapenko match. 

[MU82]

Ostapenko deserved the match. She played significantly better the last two sets, imposed her will on Swiatek. And Swiatek also didn't play well, above and beyond the mistakes Ostapenko forced her into. Both can (and were) true.

I do wonder how many legit tennis experts would say that Ostapenko is a "better player" than Swiatek, though. Body of work strongly suggests otherwise.

[shoothoops]

Ostapenko deserved the match. She played significantly better the last two sets, imposed her will on Swiatek. And Swiatek also didn't play well, above and beyond the mistakes Ostapenko forced her into. Both can (and were) true.

I do wonder how many legit tennis experts would say that Ostapenko is a "better player" than Swiatek, though. Body of work strongly suggests otherwise.

The match didn't get away from Swiatek until late in the match. The numbers and facts support that. The eye test supports that. So, you almost have it in your first paragraph but not quite. You worded the last part to try to even out the causes of the loss for Swiatek when they weren't in fact even, or close to it. That distinction of course matters.

The 2nd paragraph is what a defeated person would say to attempt to distract from the facts of the particular match. That is gaslighting by definition. It's completely irrelevant to this particular discussion.

Better players and better teams don't always win. And when they lose, often times the other team was better that day. Tennis, golf, team or individual sports.

Ostapenko has now been better than Iga 4 straight times in their 4 meetings. That's a pattern. Swiatek has also struggled at times with a select group of players on hard courts. That's a pattern. It doesn't mean that she isn't a good or great player. It does mean there are other good or great players too.

And Penko, the player in this example, is a top level player with a long list of big wins in big moments. It could be a number of other players as the example too.

Ostapenko has won a grand slam title. She's been ranked in the top 5 in the world. She has had 6 career titles. (she just turned 26) She has won 329 matches in her career, two thirds of her total matches. She's made it to the quarterfinals or better of all 4 majors in both singles and doubles. She also won 15 ITF titles and the Wimbledon Junior Title.

In 2023, Penko has reached the final 8 in Australia, defeating Coco Gauff along the way. She made the Italian semis and she won the grass court title in Birmingham. She's also in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open Mixed Doubles. She's been a top 50 player all of the past 8 seasons. Most of those have been top 25 or better. She has TWENTY career wins over players who were Top 10 players at the time. She didn't just walk in off of 111th street.

None of the above two paragraphs I typed have anything to do with the match of discussion. However, it does provide some background about a player who has done this many times before. Just as the facts also show that Iga has had some trouble with some other similar types of players on a similar surface before.

For reasons only known to Muggsy, his dislike or personal bias for or against someone or something, has gotten in the way of simple objectivity even when presented with overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

[MU82]

"Better player" were your words, not mine. I think if we both agreed on the participants in a panel of 10 experts and asked them, "Who is the better player, Ostapenko or Swiatek?" at least 9 of 10 would say Swiatek. (And 9 of 10 is probably being overly generous to Ostapenko.)

Obviously, Ostapenko was the better player yesterday. But that's clearly not what you said.