Slam Trend?

[RJD11]

From Wertheim's Mailbag

Johnny Charles of Leeds, United Kingdom: "Just noticed that for the second of the last three Grand Slams, the ladies champ hasn't had to beat anyone else from the top 16. After some (wrongly) said Marion Bartoli's triumph should be asterisked after No. 17 Sloane Stephens was her highest-ranked foe, wonder where they stand on Li Na, for whom Dominika Cibulkova at No. 20 was the best-ranked opponent?"


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20140129/rafael-nadal-roger-federer-australian-open-mailbag/#ixzz2rpSR8S70



I noticed there were a lot of negative comments about

Bartoli for this and hardly any about Li Na.


Also

If you throw in the FO won by The Pova

is this a new trend for the Grand Slams and

is it a sign of more parity in the WTA.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Parity is there in WTA.

But, a parity where everybody sucks is bad for the game.

A parity where everybody plays good is good the game.

Not all types of parities are the same.

 

[tented]

From Wertheim's Mailbag

Johnny Charles of Leeds, United Kingdom: "Just noticed that for the second of the last three Grand Slams, the ladies champ hasn't had to beat anyone else from the top 16. After some (wrongly) said Marion Bartoli's triumph should be asterisked after No. 17 Sloane Stephens was her highest-ranked foe, wonder where they stand on Li Na, for whom Dominika Cibulkova at No. 20 was the best-ranked opponent?"


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20140129/rafael-nadal-roger-federer-australian-open-mailbag/#ixzz2rpSR8S70



I noticed there were a lot of negative comments about

Bartoli for this and hardly any about Li Na.


Also

If you throw in the FO won by The Pova

is this a new trend for the Grand Slams and

is it a sign of more parity in the WTA.

People who post negative comments like that are demonstrating a form of denigration which is childish and full of jealousy. Players can only play those who are standing across the net. Bartoli and Li did not handpick who they would play.

Also, for as many examples of players winning Majors without having had to face top-ranked individuals, there are far more examples of the opposite. It's the former which stands out because of its unusual nature, and therefore garners more attention.

 

[RJD11]

From Wertheim's Mailbag

Johnny Charles of Leeds, United Kingdom: "Just noticed that for the second of the last three Grand Slams, the ladies champ hasn't had to beat anyone else from the top 16. After some (wrongly) said Marion Bartoli's triumph should be asterisked after No. 17 Sloane Stephens was her highest-ranked foe, wonder where they stand on Li Na, for whom Dominika Cibulkova at No. 20 was the best-ranked opponent?"


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20140129/rafael-nadal-roger-federer-australian-open-mailbag/#ixzz2rpSR8S70



I noticed there were a lot of negative comments about

Bartoli for this and hardly any about Li Na.


Also

If you throw in the FO won by The Pova

is this a new trend for the Grand Slams and

is it a sign of more parity in the WTA.

People who post negative comments like that are demonstrating a form of denigration which is childish and full of jealousy. Players can only play those who are standing across the net. Bartoli and Li did not handpick who they would play.

Also, for as many examples of players winning Majors without having had to face top-ranked individuals, there are far more examples of the opposite. It's the former which stands out because of its unusual nature, and therefore garners more attention.

I agree Tented. Marions Wimb title is everybit as

legit as Li Na's.


I also don't think the WTA sucks. There is a lot of

talent out there and with the emergence of some

youngsters the outlook is looking quite bright for the WTA