Wimbledon 2019

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cob
  • Start date Start date
Don't see what the problem with the question is really. He laid out factual stats and asked her what her plan was to overcome this problem she clearly has. It's no different to a footballer having 10 shots on goal and not hitting the target with any and being asked what are they going to do to perform better.
 
While it could have been raised more sympathetically, making a living for whacking a ball back and forth over a net is an easy ride compared to most. Twice now she has buckled when facing lower ranked players in the later stages of a major so something is not quite right assuming she wants to take the next step in her career. Murray lost a handful of Grand Slam finals and recognised this, Konta on the other hand threw her toys out of the pram when she needs instead to look at herself more carefully in these situations.
 
Do you think she wants to lose like that? Perhaps she is not quite good enough to win a major yet? Shock horror.. She is doing everything she can to win. Winning a major is a MAJOR achievement, only achieved by the very best players, playing their best tennis.

I think its unhelpful to question a player like that on the day (sometimes moment) of defeat. Anyone who has played any sport to any sort of level will tell you how much it hurts, and I am often surprised at how well professional sports people handle themselves in interviews after defeats. The British public does not own her. She is a professional tennis player who happens to play for this country.

No one wants to lose, and although the question does have merit, perhaps it's best left till a little later?
 
Last edited:
rubberduck said:
Why do people assume she is underachieving by not reaching a semi final or final etc. instead of over achieving by making in to the quarters?
Click to expand...
Yes, this ^

And the Tim Henman comparison.... is actually quite apt. He had no right to be getting to so many Semi-Finals of Grand Slams as he did - the guy had, basically, no weapons, just an all-round solid game. A guy who was never expected, from the juniors, to amount to much. Absolutely maximised his talent.

And I was never really a Henman fan - always liked Rusedski more :D
 
100% agree about Henman.... He extracted the absolute maximum he could from his game but was ultimately just lacking the weapons to dominate the top players winning the slams. Such a shame he is portrayed as a perpetual loser when he had a career that included winning over 10 singles titles and peaking at 4 in the rankings.... I wonder why Kyrigos is labelled as a 'bad boy' as opposed to a 'loser' given his talent level.
 
Federer is going to win this in four now, ever since those opening three games he's put lots of pressure on Nishikori's serve while holding his own fairly comfortably. Nishikori was hitting the lines really well in the opening part of the match but I don't back him to be able to keep up that sort of shot making for the whole match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom