French Open 2018

jr86

I'm sure we'll get people moaning about how easy it is for Rafa but instead I think its much better off just appreciating how good he really is, and that I'd doubt we'll ever see anyone as good again on clay

Just like in some previous editions he more than saved his best for the latter stages and you can moan about a weak tour all you want but at his best he is simply untouchable on clay

All in all I really enjoyed the tournament tbh. Schwartzmann had a great run and kept Nadal honest, while Novak can no longer rely on any aura he has to eke his way to finals. Hopefully we see penty more of Checcinato. Nice to see Zverev have something of a slam breakthrough and Thiem was superb over the fortnight

I can't say I follow the women's side at all but I was delighted for Halep to win a slam as she gets a lot of unfair stick imo

NoviGlitzko

I'm not on this train at all. Thank god this borefest tournament is over which rewards grinding. Delighted the clay seasons over. It's been by far the least entertaining surface for years now.

Rjd2

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I'm not on this train at all. Thank god this borefest tournament is over which rewards grinding. Delighted the clay seasons over. It's been by far the least entertaining surface for years now.

Yeah Rafa is an icon but a wwretched Slam yet again. The ladies has been bringing the excitement unlike the men which has been a procession fest since Australia 2017 which was the last worthwhile men's slam.

lostcat

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yeah Rafa is an icon but a wwretched Slam yet again. The ladies has been bringing the excitement unlike the men which has been a procession fest since Australia 2017 which was the last worthwhile men's slam.

this time in 2016 everyone was bemoaning the fact that Djokovic was going to win the next 10 slams and that they preferred Fedal....well, we just got two more years of Fedal and no end in sight.
I don't mind Fedal one bit, but they are playing at perhaps 80% of their peak years and still no none can touch them. I think the weak era is just around the corner, but we wont realise it as there will still be 4 slam winners each year and must of the younger brigade appear to be on a similar level so it will be competitive.

whatever about all that, serious props to Nadal.

jr86

Rjd2 wrote: »

Yeah Rafa is an icon but a wwretched Slam yet again. The ladies has been bringing the excitement unlike the men which has been a procession fest since Australia 2017 which was the last worthwhile men's slam.

That's interesting, you say this ad nauseum every slam, yet any mainstream news bulletin ive seen over the two weeks has focused much more on the mens, and the attendance and ratings are way, way higher

Chivito550

jr86 wrote: »

That's interesting, you say this ad nauseum every slam, yet any mainstream news bulletin ive seen over the two weeks has focused much more on the mens, and the attendance and ratings are way, way higher

Yeh very true. Even Game Schett and Mats generally give more time to the men and tend to lead with them.

Rjd2

jr86 wrote: »

That's interesting, you say this ad nauseum every slam, yet any mainstream news bulletin ive seen over the two weeks has focused much more on the mens, and the attendance and ratings are way, way higher

I don't say it every Slam, but the last four have been processions and incredibly tedious. They might be drawing the money, but that doesn't mean that for me at least its not incredibly boring to watch.

BarryD2

Pity that Thiem couldn't hold out a bit longer and he might have taken it. His body language and head seemed to be a bit out of control. People saying that he'll have another chance etc. Maybe but the likes of Nadal and Federer were winning the big tournament finals at his age. They were getting the breakthroughs.

That's why they are bad for the game - too much dominance. There's an argument that says they should continue while they can and another that they should just retire gracefully and give others and the game a chance to breathe?

Rjd2

They should play as long as they want. Its ultimately up to the rest to start stepping up and beating them.

BarryD2

Rjd2 wrote: »

They should play as long as they want. Its ultimately up to the rest to start stepping up and beating them.

even if that means they are 'processions and incredibly tedious.' as you put it yourself??

Royale with Cheese

If they suddenly retired out of pity for the rest of the field you'd be sitting there watching the likes of Cilic and Zverev picking up slams, knowing that an aging Federer and Nadal would still wipe the floor with those guys the vast majority of the time. I'm sure viewing figures would fall off a cliff too.

Auroras_encore

BarryD2 wrote: »

Pity that Thiem couldn't hold out a bit longer and he might have taken it. His body language and head seemed to be a bit out of control. People saying that he'll have another chance etc. Maybe but the likes of Nadal and Federer were winning the big tournament finals at his age. They were getting the breakthroughs.

That's why they are bad for the game - too much dominance. There's an argument that says they should continue while they can and another that they should just retire gracefully and give others and the game a chance to breathe?

Oh ffs "bad for the game" the two greatest players are bad for the game cause lesser players can't win a major against them ycmiu, invariably its up to the rest to catch up and practice as hard as possible and a TV fan won't care about them until they step up to that level and will appreciate Roger and rafa for as long as possible

Joe Dog

Nadal and Federer going a way would be seriously bad for Tennis and I'd say the ATP tour are praying Zverev ,Thiem and the other up and coming players step up big time in the next few years and have a few slams under their belt and push Nadal and Federer into retirement rather than them just walking away because they've had enough. Remember Tiger Woods decline was not a good thing for golf, more supposed competitiveness in golf meant there was less of a story to be sold at each major championship as you had loads of guys winning one and not doing anything after that.

As I said in an earlier post I think team sports are better when their is a spread winners and individual sports are better when you are appreciating greatness.

yerwanthere123

Side-eyeing this Instagram post from Zverev. I'd have left out the pictures of him getting his leg taped up and just congratulated Thiem.

BarryD2

Auroras_encore wrote: »

Oh ffs "bad for the game" the two greatest players are bad for the game cause lesser players can't win a major against them ycmiu, invariably its up to the rest to catch up and practice as hard as possible and a TV fan won't care about them until they step up to that level and will appreciate Roger and rafa for as long as possible

I think people want to see closely fought competitive games, regardless of standard to some extent. They want to see a match ebbing this way and that. If you look at Nadal in this last French Open, he had a procession of 3 set wins, just dropping one set. OK some of these sets were tight, but there was always a sense that the outcome was inevitable. That's boring, I went off and did some other stuff most of his matches.

Hector Savage

Not Nadals fault, he can only beat the player at the other side of the net, but make no mistake, this is more about the utter weakness of this new generation than his greatness.

Rikand

Hector Savage wrote: »

Not Nadals fault, he can only beat the player at the other side of the net, but make no mistake, this is more about the utter weakness of this new generation than his greatness.

We've been blessed to have fed, nadal and djoko in the same era. The standard has been so exceptional to the like we may never see again

dominatinMC

BarryD2 wrote: »

Pity that Thiem couldn't hold out a bit longer and he might have taken it. His body language and head seemed to be a bit out of control. People saying that he'll have another chance etc. Maybe but the likes of Nadal and Federer were winning the big tournament finals at his age. They were getting the breakthroughs.

That's why they are bad for the game - too much dominance. There's an argument that says they should continue while they can and another that they should just retire gracefully and give others and the game a chance to breathe?

This has to be one of the most naive statements I've read in a long time. You are actually suggesting that there is an argument to be had that two of the greatest tennis players of all time (in fact two of the greatest sportsmen of all time) should simply down tools, and walk off into the metaphorical sunset?! Federer and Nadal are two of the greatest competitors in the history of sport, and are eager to cement their legacies further by winning more GS. Furthermore, they actually seem to enjoy playing the sport. If the younger generation can't step up and compete, that is an indictment of them. Federer and Nadal aren't obliged to help them! :pac:

lostcat

dominatinMC wrote: »

This has to be one of the most naive statements I've read in a long time. You are actually suggesting that there is an argument to be had that two of the greatest tennis players of all time (in fact two of the greatest sportsmen of all time) should simply down tools, and walk off into the metaphorical sunset?! Federer and Nadal are two of the greatest competitors in the history of sport, and are eager to cement their legacies further by winning more GS. Furthermore, they actually seem to enjoy playing the sport. If the younger generation can't step up and compete, that is an indictment of them. Federer and Nadal aren't obliged to help them! :pac:

The thing about Fedal is, apart from their undoubted talent, that they are still driven to play, to win.
Becker has openly said that by the time he was 22/23, he had lost interest in tennis. Wilander admitted that once he finally knocked Lendl off the No 1 spot, he lost motivation.
The thing with these two is that they won their 6/7 slams, which put them there or thereabouts with the best of their contemporaries and the best of the generation just preceding them (McEnroe etc.) That is a very acceptable place to be.
Look at the slam numbers now, Fererer 20, Nadal 17, hell even the ‘third wheel’ of the past 10 years has 12. 12 is twice what Becker had. Federer and Nadal have pushed each other into a kind of nuclear arms race (and Djokovic tagged along for a bit) which I find it hard to see happening again anytime soon (I know everyone was saying that Sampras was uncatchable at 14 back in the day).
If there is a point to the above, it is that these guys will not and should not stop playing until whomever is coming up can beat them consistently. That might be 2019, it might not.

BarryD2

Of course you can make the argument that they should play as long as possible and win as many titles etc etc.

But is that good for the game? Plenty of other examples in sport - look at the current dominance of Dublin in GAA football or the previous dominance of Shumacher in Formula One or Williams in the women's game and so on. Generally it's not great for a sport to have one or two people or one team dominate for years. Initially it attracts attention but then it all becomes predictable.

Good sport is all about well matched competition and some uncertainty about the outcome.

Johnmb

Seriously, how is this even a discussion!?! In what other sport has anyone ever said that someone should retire because they are too good for everyone else, so they have to let someone else win? This isn't a junior school sports day, it is an elite competition for the best in the world. And the best have been winning, and should continue to do so until someone arrives who is better and can take their crown, as happens in all elite level sports, and has happened to every previous generation in tennis.

Chivito550

BarryD2 wrote: »

Of course you can make the argument that they should play as long as possible and win as many titles etc etc.

But is that good for the game? Plenty of other examples in sport - look at the current dominance of Dublin in GAA football or the previous dominance of Shumacher in Formula One or Williams in the women's game and so on. Generally it's not great for a sport to have one or two people or one team dominate for years. Initially it attracts attention but then it all becomes predictable.

Good sport is all about well matched competition and some uncertainty about the outcome.

Usain Bolt. Everyone loved watching him win, and he drew big crowds. I remember being at the 100m final at the Worlds in Daegu and after he false started, a good amount of the Korean locals started leaving. They didn’t even stay to watch the race.

Big names draw big crowds.

Hector Savage

Johnmb wrote: »

Seriously, how is this even a discussion!?! In what other sport has anyone ever said that someone should retire because they are too good for everyone else, so they have to let someone else win? This isn't a junior school sports day, it is an elite competition for the best in the world. And the best have been winning, and should continue to do so until someone arrives who is better and can take their crown, as happens in all elite level sports, and has happened to every previous generation in tennis.

I think it's more a case of - come on new guys step it up .. raise the bar ... increase the training and give it ****ing ALL to beat these guys!!

When Djokovic first came on the scene he wasn't good enough, but he WORKED and he rose the bar - changed his diet, his training schedule.

I can't see the likes of Kryios being arsed about that tbh.

I have a small hope for Zverev - just a tiny glimmer.

BarryD2

Johnmb wrote: »

Seriously, how is this even a discussion!?! In what other sport has anyone ever said that someone should retire because they are too good for everyone else, so they have to let someone else win? This isn't a junior school sports day, it is an elite competition for the best in the world. And the best have been winning, and should continue to do so until someone arrives who is better and can take their crown, as happens in all elite level sports, and has happened to every previous generation in tennis.

Big tour competitions are also business. And business needs to pay, to take in income from punters, brand and TV sponsorship which latter in turn is based on viewership and advertising revenue etc.

When tournaments become predictable in terms of outcome, the above suffers.

All I'm saying is let them gracefully retire and give the younger players their day and incentive. If they don't age & injury will catch up and then the only way is down anyway.

lostcat

Hector Savage wrote: »

I think it's more a case of - come on new guys step it up .. raise the bar ... increase the training and give it ****ing ALL to beat these guys!!

When Djokovic first came on the scene he wasn't good enough, but he WORKED and he rose the bar - changed his diet, his training schedule.

I can't see the likes of Kryios being arsed about that tbh.

I have a small hope for Zverev - just a tiny glimmer.

Djokovic himself was / is a once in a generation player. I don't see one coming up, but we will have Zverev, Thiem and a few more who will be at the same level or thereabouts and it will still be competitive enough. What people want to see and what drives things to the next level interest wise I think is rivalries (see Sampras/agassi) and if we have a few of those, it will be grand. Fedal was, and is likely to remain, the definitive rivalry, two of the very best players in history don't come around together very often.

dominatinMC

lostcat wrote: »

Djokovic himself was / is a once in a generation player. I don't see one coming up, but we will have Zverev, Thiem and a few more who will be at the same level or thereabouts and it will still be competitive enough. What people want to see and what drives things to the next level interest wise I think is rivalries (see Sampras/agassi) and if we have a few of those, it will be grand. Fedal was, and is likely to remain, the definitive rivalry, two of the very best players in history don't come around together very often.

Well said. I think we should stop complaining (the few that actually are doing so), and admire the fact that we have been lucky to witness the two greatest tennis players of all time battle it out for so long. The Fedal rivalry has transcended the sport of tennis, and has captured the imagination of so many tennis fans, and casual observers, alike. There is no doubt in my mind that they have brought the sport to new heights, and the inevitable void they will leave when they eventually retire will be one that will be impossible to fill. That is simply a consequence of their unprecedented, and enduring, popularity, and I do not think the ATP or the next generation will be able to do anything about that.

Johnmb

BarryD2 wrote: »

Big tour competitions are also business. And business needs to pay, to take in income from punters, brand and TV sponsorship which latter in turn is based on viewership and advertising revenue etc.

When tournaments become predictable in terms of outcome, the above suffers.

All I'm saying is let them gracefully retire and give the younger players their day and incentive. If they don't age & injury will catch up and then the only way is down anyway.

You just shot down your own argument for why they should retire with your first line. Federer and Nadal both sell out any event they play in.