Watson v Robson

First topic message reminder :

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?

super_realist wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Legend, you don't know how it has affected her performance.
You don't know that carrying around the extra weight hasn't impeded her.

And you know this as a fact then?

No more than you saying it hasn't affected her Legend.

It's hard to argue that carrying weight you don't need could help you though Legend.

Sounds very much like you are in denial about your own weight with being so defensive, perhaps that "extra few pounds" you have is more like a few stone?

Well compared to a 'rake' I am well toned and actually put time into my conditioning.

Maybe I can win a Slam eh? I am not carrying the 'Nalbandian Belly' so I fancy my chances.

Maybe what Wimbledon needs is someone who can call the players fatties and that we can start a 'You Can't Win Wimbledon With a Belly' campaign.

Its a simple equation, carrying additional weight means you have to work harder and expend more energy than if you were lighter.

I can't see how you can argue with that.

And if people have the necessary energy to carry that weight it means they can compete.

Another simple equation.

Not really, you can only carry a finite amount of energy, but why make it harder on yourself?

Why don't they just put a fat man on a horse to win the national if weight makes no difference?

How much energy can the body exert and absorb? See again it is logic. If people require a higher calorie diet to maintain their energy levels, size regardless is not the main factor in how any professional athlete competes.

Andy Murray eats a 6,000 calorie a day diet and he is only 6'3 190lbs.

So there you go, if Kvitova is receiving the correct legal nutrition she can last in the professional circuit which she has done and continues.

I think you have a thing for bellies. Do you watch Bellies and Bulleyes on ESPN Classic?

Does Andy Murray have a belly? No, If he did his trainers would tell him to get rid because it will only slow him down and consume energy carrying it round.

Isn't sport about being the best you can be? Not sure how having a body like a scouse single mum can help with that.

Has Murray won a Slam though? No

Kvitova has.

You need to find a fattie who hasn't and then present a meaningful argument.

Legend,
A fatty wouldn't win in the mens draw, but the womens game is pretty open so you don't have to be 100% to win.

My argument is not that Kvitova isn't an athlete and shouldn't be winning tournaments, more that I believe if she was nearer 100% in terms of physique she'd be better.

Stick three LBS of coins in your pockets and see how well you move.

super_realist wrote:Legend,
A fatty wouldn't win in the mens draw, but the womens game is pretty open so you don't have to be 100% to win.

My argument is not that Kvitova isn't an athlete and shouldn't be winning tournaments, more that I believe if she was nearer 100% in terms of physique she'd be better.

Stick three LBS of coins in your pockets and see how well you move.

I move well actually because lbs of coins tend to rip pockets. I tend to scatter to try and redeem what change is left.

It is speculation to the levels Kvitova is performing at as previously stated because she has won a Slam and reached the semi's.

Watch Sharapova v Li Na FO 2011 and tell me should someone that lean be moving so slowly without carrying any weight?

Listen,

I think she'd be quicker and have more energy if she lost the belly, you think it doesn't matter. We are both being speculative.

So lets leave it at that.

Go on youtube and watch that match.

You will then see that a mini belly is nothing if that is how the current crop of slim players are moving.

There's loads of reasons why she might not have moved well that day.

Do you think Kvitova's coach says, you'd play better, move quicker, have more energy if you ate a few more pies?

Sharapova was declared fit. In fact in 2011 she didn't suffer any injuries or retirements from matches. So fitness is not a question.

If Kvitova is winning with a belly why would you change it?

It's not a case of whether she might change, just a bit curious how in a sport which requires precision and perfection why you'd risk not being the best you can be by carrying round a hefty belly.

Perhaps she's happy just carving out a very good career, and is simply too lazy to get herself in shape to see if that would make her even better.

Or maybe because her game is essentially power based? Considering she has played that way since she started playing, why on earth would any professional tennis player radically change their game un-necessarily? Power hitters are notoriously slow in movement, so why change a formula? You are speculating that her being a faster runner on the court would benefit her game when in fact it would balls up her timing of groundstrokes.

With respect Legend, that's just as speculative. You don't know it would affect her ballstriking at all.

super_realist wrote:With respect Legend, that's just as speculative. You don't know it would affect her ballstriking at all.

Or you could ask the professional coach who coaches my nephew? This is something he has echoed and many other coaches would do the same.

Depends on the person. I take it your nephew has a fat belly given your level of defence on this issue.

In no way is she fat. Who are you Gok Wan?

Is your best friend the mirror by any chance?

super_realist wrote:Depends on the person. I take it your nephew has a fat belly given your level of defence on this issue.

My nephew is 5'5 and a paltry 6 stone. My brother wanted him to go on an eating spree to gain weight and the coach set my brother to rights and how much that would kill his movement. Works the other way.

Maybe with your lack of knowledge you could come an coach as you know so much on the sport clearly?

Sounds like he is worryingly lightweight.

In fairness SR I think your a fatty. A golfing fatty who thought all sports follow the same physics.

But don't worry I am sure your golf club will have a pie eating contest you could win

Legend, I'm more the Ross Fisher physique. Never been fat in my life, so see no reason why a professional sportsperson should carry needless weight around.

Anyone else getting weight loss adds in the banner on this thread?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Is your best friend the mirror by any chance?

Mine is. Now that I think about it, it's my only friend. And it doesn't really like me that much.

super_realist wrote:Legend, I'm more the Ross Fisher physique. Never been fat in my life, so see no reason why a professional sportsperson should carry needless weight around.

Is that due to your meticulous dietary and exercise regime or just a genetic fluke?

I'm the same, but it's not due to hard work. All luck.

Battle of the fatties coming up. Baltacha v Kvitova

Anyone just see the BBC piece on Heather? What a wonderfully likeable girl with a terrific attitude. A credit to Britain.

Win or lose today, she's done herself proud this week and has a bright future.

She's still fat!!!

legendkillarV2 wrote:She's still fat!!!

harsh!!

reckoner wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:She's still fat!!!

harsh!!

Well she is so I have been informed.

Danny John Jules a.k.a Heather Watson getting an absolute tanking on centre.

super_realist wrote:Danny John Jules a.k.a Heather Watson getting an absolute tanking on centre.

Yea she lost to a chubby polish girl. Heather wasn't fat enough unfortunately

Robson is the better talent for me, younger and with me time to improve. I also think her game has more potential against top players where Watson looks more limited.

I think Watson should go to about 50 and Robson to about top 20 would be best guess, although obviously either could do much better or worse.

It's strange how the advert at the top is selling dietary programmes for women: "Patricia lost 2st 8ibs ... Picture of before and after fat girl ... see how she did it."

I have noticed that the advertising algorithms seem to be getting smarter - reading and analysing our text. Google introduced that a few months ago - storing and analysing our web searches etc.

I remember being surprised to see Watson win this poll. I wonder if it might be different now if we redid this.

All I'll remember from Watson at this year's US Open is moonballing.

HB, I think Watson will level out reasonably quickly. She's a very fine player, but apart from her retireval skills and good reading of the game really lacks the weapons that will hurt the top players. It was painfully obvious in R1 that Li Na could afford to just wait for the opening before going for it because Watson wasn't going to put her under enough pressure.

Contrast with Robson, who has some of the hardest groundstrokes in the women's game, and you see why to my eyes Robson has a much brighter future. Robson has the weapons to hurt any player on the tour, her biggest problems are consistency and movement (which is improving all the time).

Of course if you could combine Robson's ball striking and mental fortitude with Watson's movements and consistency you'd have one hell of a player

The score was 10-8 until I re-found the thread and now someone's voted to add it to 10-9. So just for the record 10-8 was the pre US Open score.

that's me I'm afraid HB, I hadn't voted before the US (might have been during one of my absences from here), though I hope you'll believe me when I say I'd have voted for Robson before this run too

Robson can win a match without help from her opponent whilst Watson is basically just a grinder. Robson can be top 10 but i doubt Heather can if i'm honest, but she's good enough to be top 30 at some point.

I think Hev is the David Ferrer of the women's game. She can do well but, like Ivanovic, will be swatted off court by anyone with power. It would be interesting to see her play Laura.

Confess to voting after Laura's run at the USO, but even before that it was clear that Watson will struggle to get into the top 50.
Been waiting for Laura to have the sort of results she achieved in new York as she looks to have the game to succeed. The good thing for Robson is her deficiencies - fitness, movement, consistency, experience - can all be things she can improve on.
If you aint got the talent or the weapons you are going to struggle. Watson is only reasonably talented but has no real weapons. She may even have got as high as she's going to go, although I very much hope I'm wrong.

You can't base all your opinions purely on one run in an Open however fine it was.

Laura definitely has the bigger game but Heather's qualifying and then winning a main round match at the French must say something.

Heather needs a little bit more to her game as a counter puncher and more aggression from time to time. The fact that Li Na was very comfortable against her and then at times blown away by Robson before losing to her means you would have to favour Laura at this stage in their respective developments. Tennis is a marathon though and not a sprint event 9as it were) so there's a long road ahead of both these two.

Also Konta isn't exactly a veteran at 21(?) and could maybe giver them both a run for their money in the future.