Jan/Feb TENNIS Magazine "expert" picks

[brokenshoelace]

It depends on what dark horse is. Is it someone unexpected who can cause upsets, or someone unexpected who can win the tournament? I always considered it the former to be honest, since those with a real chance of winning the tournament are pretty known, and as Denis mentioned above, are contenders.

 

[tented]

It depends on what dark horse is. Is it someone unexpected who can cause upsets, or someone unexpected who can win the tournament? I always considered it the former to be honest, since those with a real chance of winning the tournament are pretty known, and as Denis mentioned above, are contenders.

"someone unexpected who can cause upsets" -- Spoiler (well, a form of spoiler, at least)

"someone unexpected who can win the tournament" -- Dark horse

 

[Denis]

I dont think this tennis magazine has these elaborate criteria. No spoilers, wild cards, contenders etc. Just a winner and a surprise factor aka dark horse.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It depends on what dark horse is. Is it someone unexpected who can cause upsets, or someone unexpected who can win the tournament? I always considered it the former to be honest, since those with a real chance of winning the tournament are pretty known, and as Denis mentioned above, are contenders.

"someone unexpected who can cause upsets" -- Spoiler (well, a form of spoiler, at least)

"someone unexpected who can win the tournament" -- Dark horse

Yeah that's a good distinction actually. The problem is, realistically, there isn't really anyone unexpected who can win this tournament, so you're stuck with whacky Dark horse picks that seem too far fetched.

 

[tented]

I dont think this tennis magazine has these elaborate criteria. No spoilers, wild cards, contenders etc. Just a winner and a surprise factor aka dark horse.

That's true.

Tennis magazine has unfortunately (long story ...) succeeded in the manner in which they intended: making predictions which would generate attention.

 

[tented]

It depends on what dark horse is. Is it someone unexpected who can cause upsets, or someone unexpected who can win the tournament? I always considered it the former to be honest, since those with a real chance of winning the tournament are pretty known, and as Denis mentioned above, are contenders.

"someone unexpected who can cause upsets" -- Spoiler (well, a form of spoiler, at least)

"someone unexpected who can win the tournament" -- Dark horse

Yeah that's a good distinction actually. The problem is, realistically, there isn't really anyone unexpected who can win this tournament, so you're stuck with whacky Dark horse picks that seem too far fetched.

Yep, that's the case at any tournament over the past half decade or so which has included Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and/or Murray. Their ridiculous level of dominance has made dark horse picks almost laughable. Picking them is a tradition which I guess they feel like they need to continue, but come on.

There were weird periods and forms of dominance in the pre-Open Era, but since then there hasn't been anything like this. ONE PERSON not named Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, or Murray winning a Major in almost a decade?! Who would have ever thought such a thing would happen? I don't think anyone would even describe the Borg/McEnroe/Connors era this way.

 

[nehmeth]

It depends on what dark horse is. Is it someone unexpected who can cause upsets, or someone unexpected who can win the tournament? I always considered it the former to be honest, since those with a real chance of winning the tournament are pretty known, and as Denis mentioned above, are contenders.

"someone unexpected who can cause upsets" -- Spoiler (well, a form of spoiler, at least)

"someone unexpected who can win the tournament" -- Dark horse

Good definitions tented.

Not sure how tennis.com "experts" picked Cilic. :laydownlaughing Really?? He's gutless.

 

[tented]

Not sure how tennis.com "experts" picked Cilic. :laydownlaughing Really?? He's gutless.

Your assessment of Cilic has always been spot on, especially during the hype surrounding his initial period of success. "Gutless" is an excellent word to describe him.

I understand the desire and need commentators and sports writers feel to discuss players outside of the Top 4 (and no, I'm not including Ferrer, if anyone thinks that). The talking heads want to generate a form of excitement and controversy during this period of dominance, and perhaps they have succeeded to a degree with casual tennis viewers, but true tennis fans know they don't even actually believe what they're saying.

Even when something out of the ordinary happens, such as Soderling beating Rafa at RG, did anyone really think he was going to beat Federer in the final? Or when the reverse happened the following year, when Soderling faced Rafa again. Who genuinely thought Soderling would win that final?

I think the most unusual and unexpected sequence of events was when Djokovic beat Roger at the AO in '08, and then Tsonga beat Rafa. In retrospect, however, we can see that that was simply Djokovic's debut as a GS winner, unlike del Potro's one-hit-wonder at the USO.

 

[nehmeth]

I guess shutting down their own forums sufficiently cut them off from intelligent commentary.

 

[tented]

I guess shutting down their own forums sufficiently cut them off from intelligent commentary.

:clap :lolz: This deserves more than a "like".

 

[nehmeth]

I tried to refrain... and couldn't.

 

[Front242]

I don't get the "Biggest Bust" category...To me , it should be reserved for young guys whom we expect a lot of, and when they don't perform, THAT should be a bust, not older guys like Haas, Ferrer etc that are on their way out anyways...

To me biggest bust would have to be Serena Williams. In the ATP I've no idea and haven't paid much attention to moobs.

 

[Moxie]

I don't get the "Biggest Bust" category...To me , it should be reserved for young guys whom we expect a lot of, and when they don't perform, THAT should be a bust, not older guys like Haas, Ferrer etc that are on their way out anyways...

To me biggest bust would have to be Serena Williams. In the ATP I've no idea and haven't paid much attention to moobs.

:lolz: The male one was Nalby, but he retired. :angel:

 

[Front242]

I don't get the "Biggest Bust" category...To me , it should be reserved for young guys whom we expect a lot of, and when they don't perform, THAT should be a bust, not older guys like Haas, Ferrer etc that are on their way out anyways...

To me biggest bust would have to be Serena Williams. In the ATP I've no idea and haven't paid much attention to moobs.

:lolz: The male one was Nalby, but he retired. :angel:

:laydownlaughing Maybe Bagman now then.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't get the "Biggest Bust" category...To me , it should be reserved for young guys whom we expect a lot of, and when they don't perform, THAT should be a bust, not older guys like Haas, Ferrer etc that are on their way out anyways...

To me biggest bust would have to be Serena Williams. In the ATP I've no idea and haven't paid much attention to moobs.

Bro, there was another female player who had to have a reduction...Halep or something. She has to win in that category.

 

[Front242]

I don't get the "Biggest Bust" category...To me , it should be reserved for young guys whom we expect a lot of, and when they don't perform, THAT should be a bust, not older guys like Haas, Ferrer etc that are on their way out anyways...

To me biggest bust would have to be Serena Williams. In the ATP I've no idea and haven't paid much attention to moobs.

Bro, there was another female player who had to have a reduction...Halep or something. She has to win in that category.

Ah yeah, was thinking that alright but those puppies are gone for good But they were niiiiiice! Can see how they interfered with her game a lot though!

Crazy!

 

[Moxie]

I don't get the "Biggest Bust" category...To me , it should be reserved for young guys whom we expect a lot of, and when they don't perform, THAT should be a bust, not older guys like Haas, Ferrer etc that are on their way out anyways...

To me biggest bust would have to be Serena Williams. In the ATP I've no idea and haven't paid much attention to moobs.

Bro, there was another female player who had to have a reduction...Halep or something. She has to win in that category.

That was Halep. She wins for Busting Biggest Bust. (Perhaps as a woman here, I'm the only one that could say that…and perhaps we should just move on.)

 

[Front242]

Too late for moving on, this thread became a boob-fest, sorry

 

[DarthFed]

Wow, I definitely hadnt seen her on court before. Getting rid of those should raise her ranking a ton

 

[Front242]

Wow, I definitely hadnt seen her on court before. Getting rid of those should raise her ranking a ton

Actually it has already.

"At almost 18 years old, Halep decided that her large bust was interfering with her game. She underwent mastopexy to reduce her bust size to 34C from 34DD. There was wide criticism of her decision to reduce her bust in order to improve her game. Fans petitioned her to reconsider her decision. She responded, saying, "It's the weight that troubles me. My ability to react quickly, my breasts make me uncomfortable when I play. I don’t like them in my everyday life, either. I would have gone for surgery even if I hadn’t been a sportswoman."[14] She also experienced back pain.[15] She later revealed her reduced bust size at the French Open in May 2010.[14] Since the surgery, she has moved up over 450 places in the world rankings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simona_Halep