Tennis Volume 6

[3CityApache]

Looks like they could have already given the trophy to Djokovic, saving everyone's time and effort. The only real contender left in the draw is Stan, and though I'm a big admirer of his talent, I don't think he can make it to the final this year. Anyone else would be swept away from the court I'm afraid. 

As for Nadal, I think and hope he will be back on tour, but I'm more and more inclined to think he would never return to his prime again.

[3CityApache]

2 hours ago, Leap said:

What about Murray? I'd say he has a better chance than Stan actually. He beat Novak recently on clay, as well as having a much better record at Grand Slams in general.

Everyone's welcome to his (or her) own opinion, but I simply refuse to believe that Murray is capable of beating today's Djokovic in Grand Slam, not to say Grand Slam final. Beating him on clay means practically nothing, Nadal being dominant in Paris for years also used to lose matches beforehand in other tournaments.

Stan, on the other hand, knows exactly how to defeat Novak in Grand Slam, the final included. He's been there, no? He's closest to a sort of nemezis for Djokovic. Not a real one, like Nadal used to be for Federer, but as far as one can get with Djoko I'd say.

[3CityApache]

10 minutes ago, Leap said:

I can't see how Stan has a better chance of beating Djokovic. Yes, he beat Djokovic most recently in a Grand Slam final (although Murray has done that too), but he has not managed to play that well since. His H2H with Djokovic is 19-4 (and two of those victories were a decade ago). Murray's is 24-10. Neither are particularly positive, but to say Stan Wawrinka is anything close to a rival for Djokovic, or at least that he's closer than Murray, is just wrong.

It's not. Wawrinka's overall H2H with Djokovic is almost like everyone elses, but in Grand Slams it's only 2-4 and three of these four defeats were fivesetters that could easily be victories, and the fourth was when Stan has retired. Murray's Grand Slam H2H with Djokovic is 2-7 and only two of these seven defeats were fivesetters.

It's just an impression, but for me Wawrinka is the only player from the top who refuse to loose against Djokovic in his own head even before the match starts. But like I said, we're discussing opinions here, not facts.

[3CityApache]

24 minutes ago, Leap said:

You don't think more recent Masters results are more important than GS results from years ago?

I don't, actually. There's a reason GS tournaments are much higher ranked than any other trophy a tennis player can raise. GS matches are simply different, mostly because of the best-of-five rule, that impacts both physical and psychological attitude to the match. Stan for some reason seems to be better suited for those longer battles. And he does bring more to Grand Slam, that's for sure. Anyway, just like you said - we will never know, no matter who wins their semifinal (provided they both show up at this point). 

As for who's the better player, they both won two GS titles after all, and that's all that matters. Two different titles at that. And Stan is just so damn entertaining to watch.

[baxus]

13 hours ago, Leap said:

I suspect Murray will beat Stan because, aside from being a better player, his success at Grand Slams is within a few % of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, whilst Wawrinka is not even close.

Murray's success at Grand Slams is within a few % of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? I don't have the stats, but that seems just wrong.

Murray's won two Grand Slams, while Federer's won 17, Nadal 14 and Djokovic 11 and while Murray is quite a bit younger than Federer, he's just a year behind Nadal and as old as Djokovic (I think they were born just a week apart). Once again, I have no stats at the moment but, if I remember correctly, Nadal has missed some Grand Slams due to injuries so it's likely Murray has taken part in roughly the same number of Grand Slams as he did.

Murray and Wawrinka have won the same number of Grand Slams, but Murray played in more Grand Slam semifinals and finals than Wawrinka. Still, saying one is right up there with the Big 3 and the other is not even close doesn't seem to have a basis in reality.

[3CityApache]

Stats are just that - stats only. Does the above mean, that Federer is already beaten by both Nadal and Djokovic as a greatest tennis player ever? Because of the win percentage? Of course not, his 17 Grand Slam titles will always be superior to any percentage of wins, at least until Novak or Rafael win their 18th title.

Wawrinka and Murray have both won two Grand Slam titles and Murray has significantly more semifinals and finals under his belt, which only means that Stan needs much less matches on this level to grab the title. If he wins another major and Murray doesn't, he's clearly a better player beyond any doubt, no matter the percentage of wins.  

[Gears of the Beast]

There's a funny clip going around of Haase losing a point for hindrance because he gets annoyed by his opponent's grunting. I think most can empathise with him. 

[Jeor]

What a great win for Muguruza.

Apart from the double faults, she played very well and basically beat Williams at her own game.

The second Grand Slam final that Williams fails to convert. She had a historically unbelievable record in Slam finals (21-4, with two of the losses coming to Venus, one to Sharapova and one to Stosur). 21-6 is still amazing but perhaps it's the start of the time when other women will feel they have a chance against Serena - previously most of them were half-defeated before they even began play.

[3CityApache]

Well, despite this first set, it is still the definition of being swept off of the court, like I thought. We'll never know if Wawrinka could have done better.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Would be great if Djokovic can win the Grand Slam this calendar year. That will take him to 14 Major titles. Then it would just take 1 win the following year to move into outright second spot behind Federer. I think getting to 17 wins might be a bridge too far, given his age. These days it becomes very tough to stay at the top once you hit 30.

[Jamie's left hand]

May well go down as the greatest ever, congratulations Novak RG at last!

[Jeor]

6 hours ago, Leap said:

Enjoyed the Muguruza-Williams match yesterday much more. Women's tennis moving towards a more genuinely competitive state, whilst Men's Tennis has been bereft of that for a while now. 

Yes I also enjoyed the women's final more. More new names coming up and three consecutive first-time Grand Slam winners (Panetta, Kerber, Muguruza) is probably unprecedented in the Open Era. It's not exactly a complete lottery though - big names are still getting through to the final stages (e.g. Williams), it's just that they can be beaten.

[baxus]

I guess there's never been a better time to leave Serbia for a week or two.

Djoković fandom has hit the regular highs but I think it will get even worse in days to come.

14 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Would be great if Djokovic can win the Grand Slam this calendar year. That will take him to 14 Major titles. Then it would just take 1 win the following year to move into outright second spot behind Federer. I think getting to 17 wins might be a bridge too far, given his age. These days it becomes very tough to stay at the top once you hit 30.

He's just recently turned 29 so he could have 2-3 seasons at this level, if he manages to avoid any serious injury.

Given the current state of affairs in men's tennis, Djokovic winning 2 Grand Slams a year for next three years would hardly be that much of a surprise, wouldn't it?

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, baxusz said:

I guess there's never been a better time to leave Serbia for a week or two.

Djoković fandom has hit the regular highs but I think it will get even worse in days to come.

He's just recently turned 29 so he could have 2-3 seasons at this level, if he manages to avoid any serious injury.

Given the current state of affairs in men's tennis, Djokovic winning 2 Grand Slams a year for next three years would hardly be that much of a surprise, wouldn't it?

Yes, that would be a great outcome for him. However, I read an article stating that both Federer and Nadal hardly won any majors after the age of 29. In fact, Nadal didn't win anything after 27 or something like that. Of course, the counter argument is that they could not do so because of Djokovic!

Anyway, if he does the full Grand Slam this year, I think he can do it. Then he just needs 3 more major wins in his career. Tough, but not impossible for him.

 

[baxus]

Winning 6 Grand Slams in a row would be an astonishing feat, considering only 3 players ever won four in a row last of which happened over 50 years ago.

Federer won two Grand Slams aged 29 or over, and won 2 more in the year he turned 29 and Nadal started having serious problems with injuries at that age so I'm not sure he should be compared to Federer and Djokovic.

[Calibandar]

18 hours ago, Leap said:

 

Enjoyed the Muguruza-Williams match yesterday much more. Women's tennis moving towards a more genuinely competitive state, whilst Men's Tennis has been bereft of that for a while now. 

I'd agree that the women's final was better. Muguruza seems like a genuine talent. she's a hardhitter like Serena and at 6'0 she has very good height for a female player as well. I don't see why she would not be able to challenge Serena on the other surfaces either. She looks legit, unlike some of the other women that occasionally win a slam and then fall back, not be seen with any consistency again.

That said, don't agree that women's tennis is more competitive really. I mean maybe, in the sense that outside of Serena, anyone can beat anyone, there is not much difference in class. On the other hand the women's field has been dominated by Serena just like Djoker dominates the men's game. And at least in the men's game you've got some really excellent other players, some of them very young vaulting into the top 15 now, who are able to challenge the top 4 at least, even if they can't beat Djokovic yet. The men's field is much more exciting IMO.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/16044538/maria-sharapova-suspended-two-years-international-tennis-federation-positive-drug-test-meldonium

Woah.

[Gears of the Beast]

If anything it's lenient, Hingis got 2 years for cocaine. The fact that it's 2 years means they're not classifying it as PED use. 

[Which Tyler]

Cocaine is classified as PED in season; recreational in the off-season - last time I looked.

It's also changed in (WADA) classification a few times; so luck with the date could also make a difference.

 

Basically, it can improve performance for short-burst events like sprinting; and WADA doesn't differentiate as to whether it would enhance or diminish performance for the sport you actually play; it's just just banned or not.

[Gears of the Beast]

6 hours ago, Leap said:

Supposedly Gasquet only got a few months for cocaine use. I think it's pretty moronic that Hingis got 2 years for it, is it a genuinely PED? I doubt it. 

He only got a few months because he barely had any in his system and his story was that he ingested when he kissed someone who had it on their lips. If it weren't for that he would have gotten 2 years as well. 

Which Tyler, you're right that WADA doesn't differentiate between banned substance or PED - what I'm referring to is the the decision the tribunal makes as to whether you took the banned substance to enhance performance. Most people use cocaine recreationally, most people do not use anabolic steroids recreationally. If the tribunal deemed that she took meldonium to gain a performance advantage then she would have received 4 years.