MUGURUZA ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 апр 2024
- Excerpt from Served with Andy Roddick Episode 13 - released on 4.13.24.
Andy and Jon Wertheim go over Garbiñe Muguruza's retirement announcement and share why they think she is a shoe-in for the Tennis Hall of Fame. 
Спорт
Put her in. She had the best walk in the history of tennis. Just loved watching her walk.
Hall of Fame is such an American concept. What the hell is the significance of it really, your record speaks for itself.
You're a soccer fan huh ?
@@thelastrellikx9503everyone is a football fan
Womp womp
@@jamesm9995 thats a lie. And I meant his favorite
"I think I got in [HOF] because I can tell jokes" 😂
It was a fearsome performance against Serena in that RG final - I was pretty confident then that she'd win many more than two slams, highly impressive though that is.
Agreed with Jon, Muguruza winning French and Wimbledon over Serena and Venus, 2 great (if not greatest women) champions, is something people can't take away from her...plus she got a hot boyfriend now..🤣.
her bf is so hot
I LOVE tennis, and I really appreciate its history. But I believe the standards for their HOF are too low. That's just not enough titles for me. Two majors is certainly very impressive, esp. beating those two players in the finals. But how about a longer stretch of relevance? How about 15-20 titles? Petra Kvitova for sure. 30+ titles along w/ 2 majors. Much more impressive, imo. Hardest HOF to get into? C'mon man.
Andy’s wilding with the pronunciation of rmurguza being from Texas. Bru
Right?? Trying a little too hard
If a HOF'er entrant is decided upon stats alone then she's absolutely in, in my book. As stated; double GS champion, former No.1, 500 tour wins - if that doesn't get you in statistically then I would like to know the benchmark.
The difficulty I have with her was her.... prickly attitude? her consistency? her potential? What did she bring to the game that was new or exciting? - why did she stand out, results aside? I could call her game almost instantly forgettable, like a Myskina, a Rios or a Safina. I could question her motivation like a Genie Bouchard. What has tennis lost with her retirement?
As good as she was, I struggle to remember watching a genuinely enjoyable part of her game. That, perhaps, is why there is pushback...
10 titles is pretty measly.
Kuznetsova had a way better career and was far more consistent
Play long enough as a top 20 player, you'll win a lotta matches. Jankovic, Safina, Wozniacki, and Ivanovic were #1s, too. How would you feel if you won 7 or more majors (or 10+) , 20+ titles and were in the HOF only to see players w/ only 10 or so titles in there largely cuz they won just 2 majors?
It’s sooooo hard to even get one tournament major under your belt…. Tennis HOF has it right, Serena Federer etc have their supreme positions regardless. I’m sure they could give a crap about their tennis family joining the ranks at one major.
not HOF. successful, but come on. but already 30? time flies. ok you convinced me. guess because she's been on the slide for a while through me.
hated the grunting, but liked the game.
esp toward the end the grunting was nuts
HOF?
The problem is the tennis HOF is too easy to make, win 1-2 Grand Slam titles and you are basically a lock to make it. The HOF should be about consistent greatness and not you had two very good weeks in your career. Muguruza was ranked #1 for a total of 4 weeks, that is the mark of somebody very good not great.
I don't think it's just automatic internet hate when someone says she isn't worthy of it. She was a stuck up diva, had a pretty crappy attitude on the court for more than half of her career, and wasn't a clutch player at all in tight spots. I think lots of tennis fans thought she could have been way better, even with her resume that she ended up with. She never quite had the mental game to stay ELITE. Again, I'm not saying she didn't have a good career, but I think a shoe-in HOF'er is a little surprising to hear for some people. Especially like Andy said on how few people get in.
Her 'attitude' means nothing. Wtf are you talking about? It's their consistent performance, or lack thereof, and their results that matter. This isn't a popularity contest, FFS.
@@kevinlakeman5043 Her performance was anything but consistent throughout her career, especially in bigger matches/tournaments. Yeah she won 2 majors and racked up some wins, but like Andy said she won 0 other titles on Grass and clay other than those 2 slams. She was a basket case most of her career. And your attitude and how you represent yourself and the sport Absolutely means something. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Facts show she has the credentials to be there. Winning 10 titles, including two grand slams defeating the Williams sisters, is quite remarkable.
When I think about her career, I can't help but think she should have won a few more slams. Definitely potential unrealised and definitely not HOF material.
In what way? Because she should have won more? She had 10 titles including two Slams and 3 WTA 1000s, former #1, 448 singles wins. BTW Roddick was describing himself as the worst player in the HOF...he had 32 titles with one Slam. Also former #1 and 612 wins.
@@joellahrman4557 10 titles is weak. Roddick probably shoudn't be in the HOF either. Federer kept him from winning 2-3 more, but Roddick was up 5-1 in that Wimbledon tiebreak and blew it. Even Hewitt & Safin won 2 majors. Kuerten won 3 FOs as a clay specialist (14 of his titles), but otherwise was pretty irrelevant.
@@kevinlakeman5043 if it were the Hall of Grand Slam titles then Roddick wouldn't have a strong case. But it's not like we can equate his career with Gaston Gaudio's or Thomas Johansson's simply because they each won one Slam.
Is she worthy? So inconsistent and one dimensional tennis, excellent lob aside.
That said, if she was American, plan the ceremony now. 😎
cut the bad language.