French Open 2021

NoviGlitzko

Lads I was nearly 2 hours behind there and just finally finished that voyage of a match. Mother of god. The other half and myself nearly lost hair in that 3rd set.

I've never been shy of being anti Nadal when it comes to the French, but when he first pumped a great winner a set down in the fourth I felt guilty in myself for cheering against a great sportsman.

The tension was just insane. Just a note to the commentary on ITV who said this is the highest level of tennis; it's not. It reminded me of a decade ago in 11' when these two were playing in Rome (or Monte Carlo) and remembering saying to myself this is the highest level of tennis I can recall seeing. Nole routine'd Nadal on clay in 2011 only for Federer to to do the same to him in a FO classic. Tennis, like the beauty of any sport is about styles making interesting match-ups.

I'm really looking forward to the final now. I give Tsisipas a decent chance here, whereas I think Nadal would've mentally wore him down. Wow again. What a match.

NoviGlitzko

TheRiverman wrote: »

Thankfully the men's game still gives us magical matches from well known star players of the sport. The women's game is a has been a shambles for some time exemplified by tomorrow's final of who? v your one.

I'd rather drama between two potential first time winners of the French than Nadal's utter domination any day of the week. Unless you're a fan of Rafa, who wouldn't?

NoviGlitzko

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I'd rather drama between two potential first time winners of the French than Nadal's utter domination any day of the week. Unless you're a fan of Rafa, who wouldn't?

Ah, so many first time winners of slams there

Some of whom are never heard from again in any serious context and others who are flakier than a terrible bout of dandruff, losing to absolute plodders with regularity

Begs the question, is the tour all so equally balanced ...

Or are so many just equally mediocore?

NoviGlitzko

glasso wrote: »

Ah, so many first time winners of slams there

Some of whom are never heard from again in any serious context and others who are flakier than a terrible bout of dandruff, losing to absolute plodders with regularity

Begs the question, is the tour all so equally balanced ...

Or are so many just equally mediocore?

No doubt about it there's been a gulf of superstar talent in the women's game in the last few years. There's an argument there with the ATP too when you see the top 3 domination after their supposed primes, although that's another debate can be talked for days.

I think especially in the last 2 years there's been a huge influx of great women players. Swiatek, Andreesu, Gauff to name a few. The WTA level has been really high the last couple of weeks here. The passion that was on show throughout the tournament was great to see. It's in a good place IMO.

Personally I was just happy to see Serena lose (sorry to be a hater)

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

I'm not making any accusations against any players. I'm calling out the nonsense that doping isn't that important in tennis. Without the fitness and stamina, your skill isn't worth jack sh1t deep in the 4th set, 3 or 4 hours in.

This is kind of desperate..

Questioning why elite athletes could go 4/5 sets in a match..

What do people expect? They are athletes. Best of the best in their sport

Tennis matches can be hours long, but actual physical play is not. They have plenty rest during their matches..

Most the points/rallies are 5/10 seconds with 20-30 seconds non play

I often wonder why they need/have breaks every 2-3 games. After each set a 3 minutes break would be better.

It not 5/6 hours on a saddle riding a bike, or 26 mins on a running track, or 2 hours on a road running..

Average 3 hours match sees 25-30 mins of actual play/action. And that is over 3 hours. Not continuous. It is not some extraordinary effort or feat. Far from it, and far from it for young fit athletes who are paid millions to do it.

Roughly 17-20 percent of match time is actual play/effort.

This OTT doping talk every time is pathetic..why do folks always seem to want it to be true.

You could test the big three every day and they’d pass and still you’d have ignorant dumbass folks wanting not to believe..

Slashermcguirk

Just watching back some of the tennis, it’s amazing the variety Djokovic brought. The angle he produces on the forehand side loaded with topspin, there were times it looked like he was pulling Nadal out into the crowd. Then you look at the power he generates with his cross court backhand deep into Nadals forehand, it just skips through the court it’s so flat. He constructed so many of the points so well which was in big contrast to last years final when he was struggling with his game and rushing for a winner but missing.

I still think Djokovic at his absolute peak level is the highest level I have ever seen, he just becomes unplayable

SlickRic

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

I still think Djokovic at his absolute peak level is the highest level I have ever seen, he just becomes unplayable

I don't think it's in question anymore.

He's the best ever.

walshb

SlickRic wrote: »

I don't think it's in question anymore.

He's the best ever.

Come on

There’s plenty stats and criteria and intangibles to argue for any the big three

Personally I think Fed greatest tennis player ever. Nobody does it better…

On clay all at peak, Nadal wins!

Hard court all at best, probably Nole. Fed right behind. Should have put Nole away twice in U.S. semis.

On grass all at best, I think Fed best..

Langosta

What a brilliant tennis match that was yesterday. I think the fact the match played into the late evening helped Djokovic hugely. If the match was played a few hours earlier in hot conditions Nadal likely would have won. The lateness of the match nullified Nadal's heavy topspin which usually wears down his opponents. Looking forward to the final, I wouldn't count out Tsitsipas.

Slashermcguirk

Slashermcguirk wrote: »

Just watching back some of the tennis, it’s amazing the variety Djokovic brought. The angle he produces on the forehand side loaded with topspin, there were times it looked like he was pulling Nadal out into the crowd. Then you look at the power he generates with his cross court backhand deep into Nadals forehand, it just skips through the court it’s so flat. He constructed so many of the points so well which was in big contrast to last years final when he was struggling with his game and rushing for a winner but missing.

I still think Djokovic at his absolute peak level is the highest level I have ever seen, he just becomes unplayable

There is a load of rubbish talked about how the next gen should be winning the slams now as Nadal and Djokovic are "past their peak"

(I'm not counting Fed as he's actually too old at this stage. Personally don't give him any chance of winning at SW19)

Nadal was completely unplayable last year at RG and still fearsome this year and I don't think that any other player except Djokovic could have come back from the monstrous start that Nadal put in to go to 5-0 yesterday

ND said himself that this was the best tennis that he has ever played at RG and I believe him.

Djokovic has just turned 34 and his style is not as attritional as Nadal's who is 35.

Too many people still buy into this "you're done in tennis when you turn 30". It's certainly not true in the case of one of the best players ever.

I think that Djokovic has at least 2 more good years in him if he's bothered.

The race for the most GS titles is what is what is driving him on and I hope that he does it.

Certainly not saying that it's a given that he wins on Sunday - Tsitsipas could surprise people and be a natural final performer.

Girly Gal

glasso wrote: »

There is a load of rubbish talked about how the next gen should be winning the slams now as Nadal and Djokovic are "past their peak"

(I'm not counting Fed as he's actually too old at this stage. Personally don't give him any chance of winning at SW19)

Nadal was completely unplayable last year at RG and still fearsome this year and I don't think that any other player except Djokovic could have come back from the monstrous start that Nadal put in to go to 5-0 yesterday

ND said himself that this was the best tennis that he has ever played at RG and I believe him.

Djokovic has just turned 34 and his style is not as attritional as Nadal's who is 35.

Too many people still buy into this "you're done in tennis when you turn 30". It's certainly not true in the case of one of the best players ever.

I think that Djokovic has at least 2 more good years in him if he's bothered.

The race for the most GS titles is what is what is driving him on and I hope that he does it.

Certainly not saying that it's a given that he wins on Sunday - Tsitsipas could surprise people and be a natural final performer.

When all is said and done and all 3 are finished playing I think Djokovic will be considered by most as the greatest player of all time, I expect him to get more than 20 grand slams, he already has the longest time at No. 1 and better h2h v Nadal and Federer which is unlikely to change. How much longer he will dominate is hard to know as he is at an age where his level could drop suddenly and will be unable to attain it again. Just look at Nadal a few months back he looked invincible at RG, but against Djokovic and at times in the quarter final looked very vulnerable, Nadal looks unlikely to win a slam outside of RG now and may even struggle to win another there.

Federer is too old now to be a serious contender at GS level, probably the most naturally gifted player of all time, but, mentally weaker than both Djokovic and Nadal. I wouldn't be surprised by an early exit at Wimbledon, if he were to reach a semi final or final it would be a poor reflection on the quality of the next gen players. Personally I think there is a serious question mark about the competitiveness of the next gen players. Most apart from Tsitsipas are in their mid twenties but have struggled to consistently contend at the slams.

Djokovic is on course for the calendar Grand Slam and it would be quite fitting if he achieved it, reach 21 slam titles and confirm him as the greatest player ever. He doesn't really look to have any serious contender at the other slams ( getting over Nadal at RG was the biggest obstacle in his way) unless the next gen players step it up big time which they don't look cable of. Only injury or a serious dip in form can stop him now.

Slashermcguirk

The match goes to show again what I have always said, Djokovic is the one player who can always threaten Nadal on clay. He needs to play peak level but when he does he gives Nadal such unique challenges. He uses the angles so well on his forehand side and his penetrating backhand deep into the Nadal forehand is so effective.

He has the array of shots, deceptive power and his return of serve keeps the pressure on.

Girly Gal

Girly Gal wrote: »

When all is said and done and all 3 are finished playing I think Djokovic will be considered by most as the greatest player of all time, I expect him to get more than 20 grand slams, he already has the longest time at No. 1 and better h2h v Nadal and Federer which is unlikely to change. How much longer he will dominate is hard to know as he is at an age where his level could drop suddenly and will be unable to attain it again. Just look at Nadal a few months back he looked invincible at RG, but against Djokovic and at times in the quarter final looked very vulnerable, Nadal looks unlikely to win a slam outside of RG now and may even struggle to win another there.

.

eh you were one of the very people going just the other day on about how he was "passed his peak" and that the next gen should be beating them (and him - Djokovic).

Nadal is not finished yet at RG either - he could win another one there imo.

Some people have a huge recency bias based on one match tbh.

Langosta

Tennis players typically peak around 24 and decline slightly soon after. This is true of the big three. Federer's best season, and highest level was 2006 when he was 24, turning 25 in August. Nadal's best season and highest level was 2010, he turned 24 in June that year. Djokovic's best season, and highest level was 2011, he turned 24 in April that year.

Langosta

Langosta wrote: »

Tennis players typically peak around 24 and decline slightly soon after. This is true of the big three. Federer's best season, and highest level was 2006 when he was 24, turning 25 in August. Nadal's best season and highest level was 2010, he turned 24 in June that year. Djokovic's best season, and highest level was 2011, he turned 24 in April that year.

Djokovic has just played his best match of tennis at RG (not ever anywhere, best there) according to himself and several respected commentators agree

Fact is, being one of the best ever, he's still playing absolutely amazing tennis and "typically peak" does not apply to a completely untypical player.

We're not talking about Tim Henman here

The true true greats of certain sports can adapt their playing styles to compensate for aging beyond the "typical peak" (not forever obviously - see Fed) and leverage experience, pure skill, hunger and dedication to their craft.

Rob2D

walshb wrote: »

It is not some extraordinary effort or feat. Far from it,

Try it sometime :pac: And keep in mind, they're expected to do it several times a week.

SlickRic wrote: »

I don't think it's in question anymore.

He's the best ever.

I don't think so. He's not well rounded enough. Watch him try to volley or play doubles, it's horrendous. He does seem to getting a little better though in fairness. But he would have to seriously up his net game to be considered the GOAT in my eyes. Also he has questionable footwork that he's able to make up for with his stretchiness.

Of the 3, Fed has the best claim whether people like it or not. He's the most skilled across all aspects of the sport. But then if you extrapolate that, is he better than Laver? Probably not. So who knows.

Nadal on clay, yeah I guess you give it to him. But even so, I think Borg would have had him. Maybe. I dunno, it would be a hell of a match to see.

Girly Gal

glasso wrote: »

eh you were one of the very people going just the other day on about how he was "passed his peak" and that the next gen should be beating them (and him - Djokovic).

Nadal is not finished yet at RG either - he could win another one there imo.

Some people have a huge recency bias based on one match tbh.

I still think he's past his peak, but, still the best player around and playing to a high level just not as high as before which is understandable. It's just that his main competition (Nadal and Federer are further past their peaks) and the next gen players aren't strong enough to beat him. I think Djokovic of 5/6 years ago would beat the current version.

Girly Gal

Girly Gal wrote: »

I still think he's past his peak, but, still the best player around and playing to a high level just not as high as before which is understandable. It's just that his main competition (Nadal and Federer are further past their peaks) and the next gen players aren't strong enough to beat him. I think Djokovic of 5/6 years ago would beat the current version.

impossible to know really but going on yesterday, not the case at RG. (as he said himself)

walshb

Rob2D wrote: »

Try it sometime :pac: And keep in mind, they're expected to do it several times a week.

I am an old man.......no need for me to try it

I am not saying that they do not need to be fit, but what they are doing in terms of endurance and stress is not extraordinary at all.

They are young and fit and healthy athletes. They play tennis at the highest level.

Endurance and stamina are important, but not near to the same level as endurance and stamina are important in some other endurance/stamina dominated sports.

As said, most the points last 5-10 seconds at most, and they have 20-30 seconds rest, add on the other breaks and rests, and actual play time/effort is nothing extraordinary for elite tennis players.

Tennis is so much about natural talent and skill and mechanics..

walshb

Rob2D wrote: »

Nadal on clay, yeah I guess you give it to him. But even so, I think Borg would have had him. Maybe. I dunno, it would be a hell of a match to see.

Borg on clay be lucky to win a handful games vs Nadal/Nole, or Fed on any surface

The game has come on leaps and bounds....

walshb

Hafael wrote: »

Players always say they're better, than ever, it's just something they say, doesn't make it true.

Yes...exactly

Nobody can know when any of the top three were at their absolute best

There is no watch/measurement to do this....it is not like track/swimming etc, where one can measure performance...

Absolute peak is probably a mix of different years for them all

The 2009 Fed and 2012 Fed, for example, beats the 2006/2007 for me.......

2017 Fed in Australia was off the charts brilliant...

The 2009 Fed was more the complete player....more wise and experienced....as well as pure brilliant. Made all 4 slam finals if I am right. Win 2 and lost 2. Both losses were 5 setters?

2014 and 2015 Nole I feel was stronger all round compared to 2011.....

Nadal in 2010 and 2013 and some later years was a monster....

I think all at their complete bests would see very close scores across all surfaces..

Nole probably comes out just on top.....it's dead tight....

Even looking at some their big GS matches, there is a bounce the ball between wins/losses for all them....

They are too close for me to call

I simply think Fed is the GOAT, because of his talent, records, longevity and the way he plays the game...

Hafael

Hafael wrote: »

Players always say they're better, than ever, it's just something they say, doesn't make it true.

When was the last time that Djokovic said that?

Can't recall him saying that was the best that he'd ever played at a particular place...

He's just done the hardest thing in sports - beaten Nadal who was on form over 5 on clay - a 98.5% win-rate was his (Nadal's) record on that heretofore

How can you not believe him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYHMK-mL33U

MisterAnarchy

Rob2D wrote: »

T

I don't think so. He's not well rounded enough. Watch him try to volley or play doubles, it's horrendous. He does seem to getting a little better though in fairness. But he would have to seriously up his net game to be considered the GOAT in my eyes. Also he has questionable footwork that he's able to make up for with his stretchiness.

Of the 3, Fed has the best claim whether people like it or not. He's the most skilled across all aspects of the sport. But then if you extrapolate that, is he better than Laver? Probably not. So who knows.

Nadal on clay, yeah I guess you give it to him. But even so, I think Borg would have had him. Maybe. I dunno, it would be a hell of a match to see.

I don't think that you can categorically say which player is the Goat, there are too many different variables.
Tennis is a game that has changed dramatically over the years due to advances in technology and science.

There have been huge changes in racket composition and size.
The heads are much larger now, the frames are lighter.
String technology has dramatically changed the game, and handed the advantage to returners and more defensive style players.
Serve and volley is now non existent.

Court surfaces have been slowed down, as has the ball.

Grips that would have been unusable on older wooden rackets are now commonplace.
Technique is nowhere near as important as it used to be, the rackets overcome alot of that.
Footwork isnt as important.
Players can take a huge swing at the ball now, with huge racket heads and generate previously impossible spin rates.

Its a whole different ball game.

Hafael

Hafael wrote: »

I'd wager he's said similar numerous times of the past 10 years. He beat a better version of Nadal in hot conditions in 2015 in straight sets, that is a more impressive win. Last night the conditions favoured Djokovic as the match went on into the evening.

Nadal played poorly in 2015 and it was an easy straight sets win

7-5, 6-3, 6-1

All available logic pointed to a Djokovic victory. For starters, Nadal arrived in Paris on the back of some uncharacteristically uncertain form, his confidence shaken by four defeats on European clay in the build-up to this tournament. Djokovic did not need long to beat him 6-3, 6-3 in their recent Monte Carlo semi-final. Nadal dropped a set to the unseeded American, youngster, Jack Sock on Monday.

Nadal was playing well last night and started off in a possessed fashion that would have broken the spirit of any other player.

Djokovic had to beat a proper Nadal yesterday.

That is a much greater achievement.

Why the new user!?

Hafael

Hafael wrote: »

Nadal started off well because the conditions favoured him more early in the match. 2015 Nadal was better than 2021 Nadal.

Djokovic won 76% of 1st serve points in 2015, 65% last night.

he was off-form on clay coming into RG 2015 so no he actually wasn't.

Girly Gal

glasso wrote: »

When was the last time that Djokovic said that?

Can't recall him saying that was the best that he'd ever played at a particular place...

He's just done the hardest thing in sports - beaten Nadal who was on form over 5 on clay - a 98.5% win-rate was his (Nadal's) record on that heretofore

How can you not believe him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYHMK-mL33U

Players, managers and commentators say this all the time about all sports, doesn't mean it's true. It certainly wasn't one of Nadal's best games in Paris, also I think Djokovic has played better against a better Nadal between 2012-16 at RG, winning once and losing a few times.

The level of sport isn't a straight trajectory where it's getting better every year, there's dips and peaks, for tennis 2005-2016 was an upward curve peaking from around 2008 to 2016, it's been dropping slightly since 2016, still a high level but, not as high as before. It will drop further when Djokovic and Nadal retire.

Hafael

Hafael wrote: »

The 2013 match was probably their highest level playing each other at Roland Garros.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kat7HyhoiR0

Well Nadal was very most "probably" better in RG 2013 than he was during the 2015 clay court season, where it's well documented that he was off-form, I'll give you that :pac:

the only mystery here is what double identity poster we are dealing with here

Girly Gal

Hafael wrote: »

Really, you think Nadal was in form on clay this year. He lost to Rublev at monte carlo and zverev at Madrid. He rode his luck to win Barcelona and Rome saving match points along the way.

He believes Djokovic is better now than ever and doesn't consider that the competition he faces isn't as strong as 5- 10 years ago, despite the fact people are already looking past the next gen players to the likes of Sinner for better competition

Girly Gal

Girly Gal wrote: »

He believes Djokovic is better now than ever and doesn't consider that the competition he faces isn't as strong as 5- 10 years ago, despite the fact people are already looking past the next gen players to the likes of Sinner for better competition

I didn't say that he's better than ever and I certainly don't change my mind like a goldfish after every match!

Hector Savage

Well well well welll .... what a match.

Djokovic has saved tennis, if he wins tomorrow he is the GOAT - winning the career double slam will confirm it.

Hafael

Hafael wrote: »

Recency bias makes people put more weight and exaggeration on recent performances.

If the 100m was not a timed event there would be people convinced that Usain Bolt was better than ever when he won the Olympics. The reality is he peaked in 2009 at 22, it was a gradual decline from there which you can see by looking at his times. Tennis players don't peak at 34, they usually peak by 24.

absolutely brilliant whataboutery there

tennis is not a purely physical event and performance is also about the context of the battle between the two players - e.g. coming back from 5-0 in the first set to be able to turn it around win a match against a Nadal who started off in unplayable fashion was an amazing achievement. nobody had ever beaten Nadal on clay ever over 5 after losing the first set. and then you have the third set which was absolutely epic.

on that basis I'm agreeing with Djokovic that it was his best match at RG

https://twitter.com/enricomariariva/status/1403473214832091140?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1403473214832091140%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fscroll.in%2Ffield%2F997329%2Ftennis-doesnt-get-better-than-this-reactions-to-djokovic-s-historic-win-against-at-french-open

Girly Gal

glasso wrote: »

I didn't say that he's better than ever and I certainly don't change my mind like a goldfish after every match!

Neither do I, have always felt in recent years Djokovic was favourite for all slams outside RG and that Nadal was his main opposition in the other slams, (obviously Nadal favourite at RG) that hasn't really changed mainly because the next gen are so inconsistent, but, Nadal is in his mid thirties now and there are obvious signs of decline this year which is likely to continue, it's still not beyond him to win outside of RG, but , more unlikely, also the aura of invincibility at RG has been damaged somewhat by the manner of yesterday's result, Nadal visibly tired as the match went on, something I haven't really seen before at RG, age probably catching up with him, Djokovic still looked fairly fresh at the end

to my mind personally all this "past their peak" and "Djokovic 2011 beats Djokovic 2021" is moot.

what counts is can they still win or not

how they win can evolve over the years - maybe the player is a bit slower (I don't know this for sure but it's likely) over 3 metres than years ago, but true greats can evolve their game to be still unbelievably effective. Experience, mental resilience and clutch play can make up for some physical degradation.

they are still capable of amazing tennis - when it counts. and winning the key moments, when it counts.

Federer has degraded too far at this point and being honest he never had the level of mental toughness that Djokovic and Nadal had either.

He was able to take advantage of Djokovic's "mental / marriage issues" a few years ago to get another couple of slams and fair play to him.

Djokovic is maybe not as consistent over a whole match as he used to be but he can still be better than anyone else out there at winning the majority of the sets.

and just because the "next gen" are younger and "not past their peak" does not give them any right or indeed an expectation from the public to beat him. they have to go out there and do it.

android1

Do you ever feel embarrassed about your posts? Like even a little bit?

android1

android1 wrote: »

Do you ever feel embarrassed about your posts? Like even a little bit?

who?

if I posted something like the above purely to stir up sh1t I would feel so yes :pac:

walshb

android1 wrote: »

Do you ever feel embarrassed about your posts? Like even a little bit?

Do you ever think, what's the point?

Girly Gal

glasso wrote: »

to my mind personally all this "past their peak" and "Djokovic 2011 beats Djokovic 2021" is moot.

what counts is can they still win or not

how they win can evolve over the years - maybe the player is a bit slower (I don't know this for sure but it's likely) over 3 metres than years ago, but true greats can evolve their game to be still unbelievably effective. Experience, mental resilience and clutch play can make up for some physical degradation.

they are still capable of amazing tennis - when it counts. and winning the key moments, when it counts.

Federer has degraded too far at this point and being honest he never had the level of mental toughness that Djokovic and Nadal had either.

He was able to take advantage of Djokovic's "mental / marriage issues" a few years ago to get another couple of slams and fair play to him.

Djokovic is maybe not as consistent over a whole match as he used to be but he can still be better than anyone else out there at winning the majority of the sets.

and just because the "next gen" are younger and "not past their peak" does not give them any right or indeed an expectation from the public to beat him. they have to go out there and do it.

Saying Federer only won because of Djokovic's "mental/marriage issues " is disingenuous, the same could be said about any player, e.g. Djokovic only winning because Federer past his best, etc.I agree the next gen players have no right to win anything they have to earn it as all players do, they have shown themselves to not be up to the task so it's fair to say they are not good enough. That said of course they could win multiple slams when Djokovic and Nadal retire, but, they won't really be held in high regard if they fail to win slams while Djokovic and Nadal are still playing to a decent level

yerwanthere123

Hope we're all well rested after last night's shenanigans, cause we all know the *real* match of the weekend is happening now.

I'm a bit behind so only sitting down to watch now, but hoping we can at least get a good match here after the shambles of the women's draw the last fortnight.

Tbf to Krejcikova she does have a bit of variety to her game so there could be a nice contrast of styles here, but wouldn't be surprised to see an inconsistent, nervy affair.

yerwanthere123

Oh Anastasia

MisterAnarchy

Maybe if the womens final was best of 5 sets there might be less nerves.

Augme

This could be humiliating.

yerwanthere123

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Maybe if the womens final was best of 5 sets there might be less nerves.

It'd be interesting to see how bo5 on the women's side would affect things, and which players in particular would benefit most. I think people often underplay how different the conditions are, when you're down a set in bo5 it's obviously not good but you've got breathing room. When you're down a set in bo3 you're fighting to save the match.

Gives her the opportunity to make a match of it at least now if she can hold to go 3-0

Augme

I think a best of 5 for the slam finals would work well but I wouldn't want to see a whole tournament as a best of 5. I feel the quality of tennis would drop too much due to tiredness and fatigue.

yerwanthere123

Augme wrote: »

I think a best of 5 for the slam finals would work well but I wouldn't want to see a whole tournament as a best of 5. I feel the quality of tennis would drop too much due to tiredness and fatigue.

I think QF's onwards would be good to see, I think just for finals would be changing conditions too much for the one match they matter the most. Playing it in QF's & SF's would give them a chance to adapt. Either way, it's never going to happen.

I'm up for P over K here as K is too much of a pusher type player.

(but K then starts playing just when in danger of losing the set)

K not impressed with the treatment stoppage here.

whiterebel

I watched that match last night, and had no stake in who won. While I watched it, my son, who's a RN fan walked past and asked how it was going. I said, and this is TB in the 3rd, its brilliant - but its drama, not brilliant tennis. I wake up this morning and Roddick, Murray and Croft are in paroxysms over it. I'm scratching my head wondering did we watch different matches? Now, commentators have to believe everything is better now, particularly when. they show it on their channel - Football started in 1992 - Sky Sports syndrome. No teams before 92, no great players, no great goals. They have a vested interest, plus younger viewers don't remember the greats. How you can even have the discussion about GOAT in tennis without Laver is ludicrous. 11 slams, and forced to miss 20 when he dominated mens tennis. Talk of records for pre-Open era is conveniently forgotten. He won the slam of slams twice, 1962 and 1969.

Anyway, the match last night - one of the greatest? Nadal had 16 UEs before the TB in the 3rd set. 55 in total in 4 sets. 55 by the best player on clay we have ever seen. I'd say he has won tournaments with less UEs than that. Eurosport have the highlights up this morning, I watched it back, to make sure I wasn't dreaming. They started their highlights of a 4 set match, at the 3rd set. I had thought, while watching live, that the 3rd set would make it into a "greatest of all time" conversation, but there were terrible misses everywhere in that set, just less by ND.
Great drama, but definitely not great tennis. Nowhere near Nadal/Fed Wimbledon or Mac v Borg x 2.

The umpire deserves to take one massive boot in the ass for giving ND a violation, when Nadal, as usual slowed down the server. On break point, no less. In one tournament you've got Fed penalised for slowing down one of the slowest servers around, then Nadal is told he is fine versus Norrie, despite persistently slowing up the server. Then you've got the server being penalised last night because Nadal is giving himself a sponge bath in the corner followed by 27,000 tics that he has developed. This needs to stop, the 3rd set would have been done in less than an hour by 2 reasonably quicker servers last night. Nadal hit an ace last night, and you could clearly see he was nearly back to the towel by the time the clock started. No wonder they are not on obvious display for the TV cameras any more.

yerwanthere123

Think Krejcikova flew back to Prague there for a second at the end of the first set. Did the same thing against Muguruza in Dubai.

Furze99

Prefer to see the Russian Anastasia prevail here, nicer game to watch. Other one seems more limited tactics, though effective. Re Nadal, all that time delay is about game management and conserving his body. By end third set last night, he’d played a lot longer than his normal and just faded.