Watson v Robson

Heather Watson and Laura Robson both put on a strong show in the first round at Wimbledon. Robson losing in three sets to Schiavone and Watson winning in two against Benesova. They are close in age with Watson the oldest by 19 months. Both have also won junior slam titles. Robson at Wimbledon and Watson at the US Open. They have just been chosen to play doubles in the Olympics.

Who is the best prospect for British tennis. The consensus appears to be Robson but my suspicion is that it's Watson. Robson is taller and looks more powerful but IMO she lacks variety. I also sense she may suffer a bit from getting down on herself when things don't go well. Watson has more variety in her game and also has a sunny disposition. To me she looks by far the strongest mentally.

Who is the best prospect for British tennis?

I think it's almost impossible for someone like Heather Watson to make it to the top of the women's game, she just doesn't have the power and is unlikely to develop it. Possible top 20-30 at the most I'd say

So would have to say Robson ... top female players don't necessarily need the variety. She's about 6 foot ... the advantages this gives (serve / power) outweigh the disadvantages (movement). She sounds suicidal though ...

Robson...much heavier weight of shot. She just needs to improve her speed of movement. Watson looks a little underpowered against many of the top players.

Tough to choose because both have their own strengths and areas to work on. At the moment I'd opt for Heather Watson but Laura Robson is younger and has more power.

lydian wrote:Robson...much heavier weight of shot. She just needs to improve her speed of movement. Watson looks a little underpowered against many of the top players.

I know that is the general conclusion but I just think Robson looks a little robotic. Once Schiavone got used to the pace she could handle it and she also out played her with slice and variety. Schiavone is tiny too. Robson if not suicdal did look really really sad in her interview at the end. Also at one point in the third set when the match was slipping away she turned to face the backboard and paused. I was scared she was going to cry. It is a real disadvantage to be unable to control emotions on court. In contrast I think Watson looks mentally very tough.

Good points HE. Robson has been hyped up for some time now and the weight of expectation you feel is crippling at times...its no wonder she's emotional when she loses. I do think she has the better strokes but as said her movement is suspect and she does lack variety (robotic at times as you say). I think Robson has the ability to go further but suspect Watson may well make the most of what she has...

She is still only 18 as well so time is on her side to develop further and with experience - temper her emotions.

I posted this earlier in the wimbledon thread, but i think i may as well repost here,as it summarises my view on the two:

Its been glaringly obvious for years that Robson has far bigger holes in her game than Watson. Movement being the biggest problem and something which really is hard to do something significant about at this late stage. Watson is a much more athletic player with a much more dynamic game and imo a better understanding of how to construct points. Theres less than 2 years between the two, is more like 1 1/2 years and I would say at the same stage when heather was Lauras age she was the better, more evolved player. Watson has a higher career high ranking and will go higher than Robson the Wimbledon performance this year. Given the potential Robson showed at a young age she has not progressed at much as expected. whether this is due to injuries is up for debate. Personally i would expect more progress in her conditioning inspite of injuries. I also think Heather is more serious about her physical condition, as you can see a marked improvement in her physical appearance each year for the last 3 years. I think if she carries on developing strength she will manage to develop more weapons/ a stronger defensive base.

Finally i would also point out that Heather is showing really good consistency in her results:
http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Player/Activity/0,,12781~16047,00.html

Invariably she is progressing in tournaments passed people her ranking would suggest she could until she comes up against some one ranked a fair way higher.

Robson on the other hand, although sometime good, has been far more inconsistent when she has been in tournaments:
http://www.wtatennis.com/page/Player/Activity/0,,12781~15680,00.html


The truth of it for me is that heather is going to have better chance on clay and slow HC, like AUS and as we crave the Wimbers slam champs the press gives more credence to Robson as her game may well suit the faster surfaces more, but for me this does not make her the one to follow.

As far as I read it currently:

Watson - potential to be consistent top 30
Robson - potential to be top 50 (if she gets fitter)

I hope they both prove me wrong by achieving more.


____________

I will add to this that Robson has strength and potential to bring it together to make a formidable A-game. However, thats all ive ever seen from her and i feel theres better versions of her likely to emerge, in all honesty, and keep her down around the 50s in the world (which isn't that awful by the way). I think with Watson she, at very least, has a chance to make the most of her abilities, which might see her into the top 30 or a bit beyond. At the end of the day that would be great. Although power dominates the womens game i don't think that necessarily means you have no chance without it - it just takes more work to fight your way into winning positions and these days i think it takes a few years to get that together. So with Watson i am hoping she can gradually add to her game over the next 3-4 years and continually improve. Even so i don't see either as being world beaters, but that setting sights way too high imo.

The jury is out on both of them. They are already close to being top 100 players. If they remain injury free (which is an if), and if they remain committed (which is another if) - they should at the minimum enjoy ten years as top 100 players. It is looking like Heather might become a top 50 player. Apart from that the future is uncertain, and they remain equally good prospects for Britain.

I think Watson is a pretty safe bet to spend most of her career hovering in the 30-70 area of the rankings. She's pretty consistent, works hard, and seems mentally strong.

Robson has the weapons to take it to the next level, but also runs the risk of never really making it due to her nervousness and erratic play.

They've both got gaps that need to be worked on, but Robson has gaps that can be filled. Watson will always be a bit small and have limited power off the ground and first serve.

Some Stats on Four Grand Slam Winners plus the two Brits
Francesca Schiavone ........64 kg............. 1.66 m (5 ft 5 in)
Justin Henin .....................57 kg............. 1.67 m (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
Heather Watson ...............63 kg.............1.70 m (5 ft 7 in)
Laura Robson ...................??? .............. 1.80 m (5 ft 11 in)
Viktoria Azarenka .............66 kg .......... .1.83 m (6 ft 0 in)
Maria Sharapova: .............59 kg ............1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)

not sure of the accuracy of their weights and of course that can vary, however their heights are pretty much fixed. This indicates that Heather's size should not on its own prevent her from reaching the very top (assuming that were possible).

yellowgoatboy wrote:I think it's almost impossible for someone like Heather Watson to make it to the top of the women's game, she just doesn't have the power and is unlikely to develop it. Possible top 20-30 at the most I'd say

So would have to say Robson ... top female players don't necessarily need the variety. She's about 6 foot ... the advantages this gives (serve / power) outweigh the disadvantages (movement). She sounds suicidal though ...

Caroline W. isn't particularly powerful, but tends to make the most of her variety of shots. I think we over-rate power. Variety and mental toughness nearly always wins and that's what Watson appears to have a this stage

David Ferrer 5th in the world... power is not in his locker enough said here.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:David Ferrer 5th in the world... power is not in his locker enough said here.

nor is it Murray's really. I think the consensus is that power has taken over the women's game rather than the mens, when stamina is perhaps more important than ever.

Nah, stamina would not help Nadal and Djokovic if they had the foot speed of a Karlovic, you can have stamina like Nicolas Mahut in that match with Isner, but really not be a threat in the mens game.

i think watson is better at the mental side but we have to remember robson is only 18 there is still plenty of time for fitness to improve from a physical and mental standpoint

wheelchair1991 wrote:i think watson is better at the mental side but we have to remember robson is only 18 there is still plenty of time for fitness to improve from a physical and mental standpoint

Of course both players are still young and I agree that Robson can get stronger physically but I didn't see that as a particular weakness. It was more her predictable game and the emotional side. Watson is a very different character. This "tweet" sums her up

If rankings were formulated for affability, openness and general happiness then Heather Watson would currently be world no.1

https://twitter.com/#!/Barry_FlatmanST

This also makes her more fun to watch.

Watson will be the better I think. For an 18 year old Robson carries the weight of the world on her shoulders and doesn't seem to like it as much.

I think some on these boards get far too seduced by power, because when it's affective it looks good. However, the same people seem to forget that it's also often boringly one-dimensional where the said player doesn't have a Plan A never mind Plan B

Virtually all the 'greats' of the last 10-15 years have one thing in common, the ability to do all parts of the game very well

The Fed's / Williams of this world also had, at their peak, a controlled power that no-one else could match. But they didn't just rely on this

i.e. power without control rarely gets you anywhere

Control without power, will make you struggle to win a Slam - but you could have a fairly comfortable Top 10 career

As you all perhaps know, I am suspicious when anyone calls someone a power player for me it means 'lack of variety' and they haven't got a clue how to construct a point - surely the ideal utopia of the game, i.e. Fed in full pomp

Different in the women's game though. The ability to win cheap service games is at a premium.

Watson, for example, would never be likely to have a chance against someone like Wozniacki, but Robson would have a chance given her ability to shorten the rallies. (she could also get hammered mind you.)

Robson will be rightly seen as a massive flop if she doesnt make the top 10 at some point. To win the junior title at 14 usually suggests you are going to be competing for the number 1 spot and grandslam titles.

The young player I'm really impressed with is Ashleigh Barty who only turned 16 in April. She went out in the first round but not before I managed to catch a few games that confirmed what I thought of her play when I saw her in Nottingham. Barty has power AND variety. She also looks like she is able to control her emotions.

https://www.606v2.com/t31397-the-wait-for-new-young-talent-is-over

hawkeye wrote:The young player I'm really impressed with is Ashleigh Barty who only turned 16 in April. She went out in the first round but not before I managed to catch a few games that confirmed what I thought of her play when I saw her in Nottingham. Barty has power AND variety. She also looks like she is able to control her emotions.

https://www.606v2.com/t31397-the-wait-for-new-young-talent-is-over

Good shout

I think, as with several other posters, that Watson will be a consistent player well inside the top 100 - she has the consistency in her game to reliably beat lower ranked opposition (based on good movement and consistent shot making). I do though see her being blasted off court by the Top 10 players.

Robson on the other hand has had her best performances in competetive defeats agaisnt genuinely class opponents (Schiavone the other day, Jankovic a couple of years ago) - she has a good lefty serve (although needs to improve the reliability of this) and sufficient weight of shot on both wings to trouble the better players. Her movement is still not fantastic, but then you can say the same about Sharapova and she's won plenty of tournaments.
I get the impression though that at times Robson loses interest against middling players, those that it should be in her capability to beat, and so isn't getting the results her talent merits. Quite how she can improve this I'm not sure - perhaps it's just something that will come in time, that she will gain a couple of wins against top 50 players and so her confidence will grow. Hopefully as well she can stay injury free and work on her fitness and movement.

So my conclusion is that Robson has the greater potential to be a top 10 or top 20 player, but also is more likely to not make it at all. Watson I don't think has the potential to be a real challenger, but I think will have a far better career than Baltacha or Keothavong - being the 50th best woman tennis player in the world is still some achievement.

djlovesyou wrote: ... Watson, for example, would never be likely to have a chance against someone like Wozniacki ...

Tamira Paszek has just beaten Caroline Wozniaki at Wimbledon - and she played some high quality tennis in overcoming her. Caroline played well but from the little of the match I saw she seemed a little one dimensional.

Tamira Paszek: Height: 5' 5" (1.65 m) Weight: 132 lbs. (60 kg)
Heather Watson: Height: 5' 7" (1.70 m) Weight: 138 lbs. (63 kg)
Caroline Wozniaki: Height: 5' 10" (1.77 m) Weight: 128 lbs. (58 kg)

I'm with Nore Staat on this - I fail to see why in a couple of years, Heather should get lasted off the course by the Top 10 - particularly as it's hard to fathom who'll be in there

She's already getting weightier shots and obviously wants to get better

Both look a little fat.

super_realist wrote:Both look a little fat.

Pity Mclaren isn't here to lecture you about the name calling

Baltacha looked a bit lardy too.

Of all sportspeople tennis players need to be carrying no extra weight.

To be fair, there's nothing on Watson. She's very slim and toned.

Looked pretty flabby around the tummy from the match I saw today, don't think her dress was very flattering but she could do with toning up.

If the tennis board wasn't troll infested enough.

It's a reasonable point though. Kvitova is fat too.

You're fat too.

Care to provide BMI's which would suggest otherwise? You know just to give your points some validation.

According to BMI. Kvitova is underweight and Watson is ok.

Damn those fatties.

Do you call athletes fat because your big belly keeps breaking your belly putters?

Legend I'm a rake, so see no reason why a professional athlete should have a lardy belly. No excuse for anyone, let alone professional athletes to be out of shape, even if it's only slightly.

So by definition what is 'lardy' belly?

Dimensions. Give me something to go by.

Golf is littered with pub rocks, like Darts is and they are considered dare I say it 'Professional Sports' when infact they are past times.

An athlete should have a toned flat belly, Kvitova and Watson do not.
They've got muffin tops for heavens sake. Unacceptable.

oh do grow up.......they dont have muffin tops!

Their BMI shows they are fine and like LK said Kvitova is under weight!

If thats all you have to say realist about these players, then thats pretty poor to be honest!

It was an observation, that's all. I'm of the opinion to be at the top of your sport and ensure you can be the best you can be you have to be in tip top shape, I don't see Kvitova and Watson( and Robson) of being in that category.

In a truly physical sport like tennis. Having a fitness/conditioning edge of 1 or 2 % over your opponent can do no harm.

BMI isn't a great measure of anything, it's purely indicative.

well clearly kvivotva isnt being affected by her weight at all....top 5 in the world has already won a grandslam...

Just wondering if she could be better though. Look what improved fitness/diet did for Djokovic. Perhaps she'd be number one.

I just know if I was talented enough to be professional at anything, i'd take the conditioning side as seriously as the practice/training. They are complimentary.

she was no1, but in tennis its always swapping around!

Look at Wozniacki for example was no1 a few months back, now she's 7th! it changes all the time.

.....and women's tennis isn't very good, so I find it hard to believe that someone like Kvitova, doesn't use conditioning as a way to strengthen her position at the top end. The women's game is begging for someone to take control of the number 1 position and win lots of majors now that the Williams are on the slide.

Strap a couple of bags of sugar around your belly and see how it affects your energy and movement. That's basically what she is doing now by carrying around that superfluous weight.

You don't have to be stick thin like Hantuchova, but it's hard to argue that a fat belly can be of any use in Tennis.

jeez you have a personal vendetta against these players

they arent fat!

They aren't fat like Dawn French or Vanessa Feltz, but they are carrying extra weight around their stomachs. It's plain to see from the bulge in their dresses.

How can that be good in an endurance/fitness/movement sport like tennis?

Watson is a good mover, I think she'd be better if she tones up and dropped that weight around her belly.

Legend,
I'm not arguing that these players aren't very fit athletes, but there is clearly room for improvement. I rate tennis players as some of the best athletes around.

Both are carrying an extra couple of pounds around the waist. It's clear to see That's all I'm saying, and despite their doubtless fitness levels, there is clearly room for improvement, as carrying needless fat around can't do much for your energy/movement over long periods of time.


It might only account for a 1 or 2 % increase, but small margins make big differences. I'm amazed people seem to think their fat bellies make no difference to their performances.

Leave "go figure" for the yanks.

Kuznetsova was a fattie and won 2 Slams.

She since slimmed down and won sod all.

So tell me in that logic of yours how that theory works when fatties are winning Slams an Skinny's aren't?

You aren't getting it.

Talent and fitness combine to make a great player. Now you can be fit and talented and still not win anything if someone else is better on the day, or you can be slightly out of shape and have enough talent on the day to win.

Women's tennis produces a lot of spurious results, but I can't see the argument that NOT being in the best shape you possibly can be isn't important. Therefore I find it incredulous that the trainers of Watson/Robson and Kvitova aren't working on getting them in the best possible shape.
Can you imagine Mo Farah running and performing to his best carrying around a belly like Kvitova?

If you strapped a bag of sugar around Djokovic's belly, he might well win matches due to his talent, and general fitness, but it's hard to argue it wouldn't impede him at all and wear him down over the course of a long match or two week tournament.

You're not getting it.

Provide me evidence of a player who dropped 'added weight' and then started to win Slams.

Mo Farrah has nothing to do with tennis!