US OPEN 2016 (Read 1st Post)

cowboyBuilder

mickmackey1 wrote: »

5 US Open final defeats for Djoker, equalling Lendl. Ouch!

Doesn't really matter as he's won it twice.

wonski wrote: »

That's the thing. He was very close to loose 3rd round in US Open.

3/3 means he only got to the final three times, while Murray got there nine times.

Just because he won them all, doesn't say the whole story. Saying that he was great today.

Exactly - and I'm no one to defend Murray but he still has an overall better record

iroced

I'd not worry over Djokovic. Over the last 25 GS, he reached the final 19 times for 11 victories. This year, he made 3 finals for 2 wins, last year all 4 of them for 3 wins and the one before 2 finals for 1 win. etc... He's just so damn consistent. He just can't win them all. But I'd say, he's still thiking he can match and maybe beat Federer's record.

On the other hand, Stan can't maintain his best level over an entire season. At least he never did. But when he's at it, he's almost unplayable. I remember the lesson he gave to Federer when he won Rolland Garros. That was impressive. Federer looked like a kid that day. Just crazy! And in the final, he managed to frustrate Djokovic. Yesterday was different though, he slowly but surely looked better, despite being close to exhaustion, as he said afterwards. Magnus Norman did/does a hell of a great job with/for him.

Overall, it was an exciting US Open. And from a French perspective, an encouraging one. 3 Frenchies in the 1/4, last time it happened was 1927 (the musketeers) :pac:! Monfils looked like a new man now that he works his physicality with a trail runner who's more physical than him. He's on the back of a great summer season. But he needs to work on his mental and attitude. His first 2 sets against Djokovic were a bit disgraceful. And Pouille is emerging. His great win against Nadal should make him grow even faster than we're expecting.
Davis Cup is our aim now this season (though Tsonga injury is not a good news).

cowboyBuilder

I would worry about Djokovic for the simple reason what drives him now .. whats left to win ?

Maybe a 2nd FO to be the only player in the open era with every slam multiple times .

Losing the FO 2015 final drove him to do the next 4 slams, it was a devastating blow as he still needed that
final slam to complete the career slam.

Now he's just lost a US Open final, he's won it twice no big deal.

Hope I'm wrong tho.


But yeah, congrats to Stan the Man and all ...

lostcat

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Doesn't really matter as he's won it twice.





Exactly - and I'm no one to defend Murray but he still has an overall better record

comparing murrays overall body of work to stans works out pretty poorly for stan murray has been consistently at the business end of things for 10 years, usually loosing to one of the 'big three' in a semi or a final. stan is more like a comet, wonderful to see, but you arent going to see it too often...

Dirty Dingus McGee

lostcat wrote: »

comparing murrays overall body of work to stans works out pretty poorly for stan murray has been consistently at the business end of things for 10 years, usually loosing to one of the 'big three' in a semi or a final. stan is more like a comet, wonderful to see, but you arent going to see it too often...

Does anybody really care about those other tournaments though?

In a couple of years time nobody will remember who won anything apart from the grand slams.

The other tournaments (just like in golf) only exist for the players to make money and keep their ranking up, I mean I doubt a player who won 20 or 30 regular events but failed to win a grand slam would feel their career was more successful than someone who won only 9 or 10 regular events but won a few majors.

cowboyBuilder

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Does anybody really care about those other tournaments though?

In a couple of years time nobody will remember who won anything apart from the grand slams.

The other tournaments (just like in golf) only exist for the players to make money and keep their ranking up, I mean I doubt a player who won 20 or 30 regular events but failed to win a grand slam would feel their career was more successful than someone who won only 9 or 10 regular events but won a few majors.

It's a good point, but those Masters 1000 are decent events.

In fact Stan must be one of the few players that win slams that has less Masters (1 MC 2014) ...

lostcat

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Does anybody really care about those other tournaments though?

In a couple of years time nobody will remember who won anything apart from the grand slams.

The other tournaments (just like in golf) only exist for the players to make money and keep their ranking up, I mean I doubt a player who won 20 or 30 regular events but failed to win a grand slam would feel their career was more successful than someone who won only 9 or 10 regular events but won a few majors.

it absolutely does matter when you are comparing two players. if they are pretty equal on number of slams won, everything else needs to be compared.

If you judge everyone in terms of a body of work throughout a professional career, Murray easily trumps Stan. I don't think i am taking anything away from Stan in saying that...he is having an amazing career.

nah, at the top end of tennis you're judged on number of Grand Slams and world number 1 ranking time.
Neither player has been world number 1.
Everyone knows that Murray has been at the sharp end of things way more consistently than Stan but the record books say 3 slams each.
If Stan did manage to get the career slam he'd go ahead of Murray as so few players have achieved that, even if Murray got another slam to make it 4 all.

Dirty Dingus McGee

lostcat wrote: »

it absolutely does matter when you are comparing two players. if they are pretty equal on number of slams won, everything else needs to be compared.

If you judge everyone in terms of a body of work throughout a professional career, Murray easily trumps Stan. I don't think i am taking anything away from Stan in saying that...he is having an amazing career.

Murray has continually been included in a big 4 despite there never having been a big 4, it's always been a big 3.

He may be way more consistent than Wawrinka no arguing that but I personally think that consistency in sports like Golf and Tennis is completely overrated and it's all about peaking for the 4 events per year that really matter.

Without being anything close to a tennis expert I feel aesthetically Wawrinka is mile and miles ahead of Murray , I find Murray dull as hell to watch while Wawrinka gets me off my seat , he's a brilliant player to watch.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Murray has continually been included in a big 4 despite there never having been a big 4, it's always been a big 3.

He may be way more consistent than Wawrinka no arguing that but I personally think that consistency in sports like Golf and Tennis is completely overrated and it's all about peaking for the 4 events per year that really matter.

Without being anything close to a tennis expert I feel aesthetically Wawrinka is mile and miles ahead of Murray , I find Murray dull as hell to watch while Wawrinka gets me off my seat , he's a brilliant player to watch.

Murray has been included in the big 4 because there was always a huge gap in the rankings between the top 4 and the rest of the tour. More often than not it was the same 4 in the SFs at Slams and there was a really long period where there wasn't at least one of them in the finals, usually it was some combination of the 4.

Look at the rankings as of this morning, Wawrinka has climbed up to 3rd and Nadal is down to 5th. Even with Federer being out for a large part of this year and Nadal being out for chunks of a few seasons and neither winning Slams or making finals, it's still usually the same 4 players at the top.

In terms of Slam results only, there is/was no big 4. There was Federer, then Federer and Nadal, and then it was Djokovic.

I don't think many would argue against Wawrinka being a nicer player to watch than Murray, or Nadal or Djokovic for that matter.

iroced

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I would worry about Djokovic for the simple reason what drives him now .. whats left to win ?

Equalling and beating Federer's GS record. He already broke Nadal's Masters 1000 record. Being the first to make the Grand Slam of Grand Slams (don't know how you call that in english, I mean winning all 4 majors in the same season, only Laver did it but IIRC there was only 2 different surfaces back then)

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Does anybody really care about those other tournaments though?

glasso wrote: »

nah, at the top end of tennis you're judged on number of Grand Slams and world number 1 ranking time.

Admittedly, GS & number 1 spot are the sh*t but I'd say not only players do care about Masters 1000 but the best records will be remembered.
The rivalry between Federer, Nadal & Djokovic about being the one who won the most of them speaks for itself. And Murray 12 titles, 5th best record in history, won't be forgotten.

-

Anyway, we're certainly experiencing the best era ever in men's tennis with maybe the 3 best ever players and 2 of the greatest ones at the same time.

iroced

iroced wrote: »

And Murray 12 titles, 5th best record in history, won't be forgotten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics#Singles_3

10th Best. Just makes the list

lostcat

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I don't think many would argue against Wawrinka being a nicer player to watch than Murray, or Nadal or Djokovic for that matter.

sorry, I really cant accept this. wawrinka is probably nicer to watch that anyone else when:

- he actually turns it on (2 week period every year or so). for the other 50 weeks I could pick many players who look better and are more enjoyable to watch to my eye (someone like tjonga, for instance)

- when he is playing someone with a compatible/contrasting style playing at the same level, which makes for an entertaining match.

if he would play like that every week, we might have us a ballgame.

matches between djokovic and murray are terrible to watch, just djokovic doing the same thing slightly better for 4 hours
fed-djokovic is/was probably the best to watch, djokovic-nadal is also good, (compelling if nothing else) , fed-nadal got quite boring quite quickly because the result began to feel inevitable....

stan fits nicely into this company on occasion because he can match them shot for shot. with a contrasting style.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

lostcat wrote: »

sorry, I really cant accept this. wawrinka is probably nicer to watch that anyone else when:

- he actually turns it on (2 week period every year or so). for the other 50 weeks I could pick many players who look better and are more enjoyable to watch to my eye (someone like tjonga, for instance)

- when he is playing someone with a compatible/contrasting style playing at the same level, which makes for an entertaining match.

if he would play like that every week, we might have us a ballgame.

matches between djokovic and murray are terrible to watch, just djokovic doing the same thing slightly better for 4 hours
fed-djokovic is/was probably the best to watch, djokovic-nadal is also good, (compelling if nothing else) , fed-nadal got quite boring quite quickly because the result began to feel inevitable....

stan fits nicely into this company on occasion because he can match them shot for shot. with a contrasting style.

I think we're saying the same thing though? Obviously Wawrinka is capable of playing bad tennis but when he's playing well he's got a better style, in my opinion, than anyone bar Federer.

For what it's worth I'm not a huge fan of Wawrinka or Federer when it comes to actually wanting a specific player to win things, but they both play a very nice style of tennis.

Nadal/Djokovic is as bad as Murray/Djokovic, for me, baseline grinding.

iroced

glasso wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics#Singles_3

10th Best. Just makes the list

Ah yeah . I found it weird that there were no players from the 70ies/80ies and before in "my" list. Got it now (only compiled from 1990, don't really see the point).

iroced

iroced wrote: »

Ah yeah . I found it weird that there were no players from the 70ies/80ies and before in "my" list. Got it now (only compiled from 1990, don't really see the point).

well the name changed over the years and maybe the format but you really have to go back to the start of the open era like the wiki list does, even though 1 or 2 may have been added since the start - I'm not sure of the exact comparison. can't not consider the greats like McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendl etc imo

what do you expect from a French-compiled list anyways!

iroced

glasso wrote: »

what do you expect from a French-compiled list anyways!

Easy.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

glasso wrote: »

what do you expect from a French-compiled list anyways!

iroced wrote: »

Easy.

Attack the post not the poster

Coldsnow

The masters 1000 tournaments are big events and nothing to be scoffed at. Federer to this day would love to win a few more, especially the remaining couple he hasn't won.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Attack the post not the poster

a french list was linked. wasn't saying anything about the poster :cool: