ATP/WTA 2?: Unchained Meldonium
09-13-2016, 12:56 AM
Post: #741
|
|||
|
|||
RE: ATP/WTA 2?: Unchained Meldonium
I just read through Jon Wertheim's US Open recap deal and found these two things interesting:
Quote:After broaching the taboo topic of female players and monthly cycles last week, we heard from a few of you including former WTA champions with stories and confirmations. Full candor: I’m thoroughly, fiercely uncomfortable discussing this. And the same time, it seems silly and disingenuous and even dishonest to ignore a natural event that has very clearly determined the outcome of important matches and impacted countless others. (Including, allegedly, at least two second-week matches at the U.S. Open. In one case, we heard that a player allegedly asked her opponent if she could leave the court to tend to matters. The opponent, grasping the situation, graciously consented but the chair umpire declined the request.) Not sure where this leaves us, but maybe just something to consider…. Quote:I always enjoy speaking with Craig O’Shannessy of Brain Game Tennis, who does some next level statistical work. He claims that the most common length of points is rallies lasting 0-4 shots. No surprise, right? But get this: At Wimbledon, 71% of rallies in men’s matches fell into this category. At the Australian and the U.S. Open? 69%. At the French Open? 67%. That’s some serious evidence of homogenizing surfaces. The homogenizing of surfaces isn't news, really, but it did surprise me about the French Open. And then there is evidence that on the whole women have longer rallies (though not by much in the grand scheme). I say that to get to the debate about equal prize money in saying time on court doesn't necessarily equate to "work." A 2 hour women's match could actually involve more 'work' than a 2.5 hour men's match. Quote:I preface this by saying that in my limited interactions with her, Jo Konta seems like the player perhaps least inclined to break any rules. But in her second match she suffered what she later referred to as a panic attack. It was a scary moment, watching her lay prone on the court and complain about an inability to take deep breaths. But that was not a physical injury and one wonders how she was able to pause for 22 minutes without a penalty. These situations are always tough to assess but it seems unfair to the opponent when issues stemming from nerves or conditioning shortcomings (i.e. cramps) go unpunished. I had questions about that situation, even if it was physical. That was way too long of a break. |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)
Return to TopReturn to Content