Tennis Volume 7: Roger That!

[baxus]

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

Always keep in mind two really important things about these.

1) Federer has always been good enough to reach clay finals, while Nadal was not always good enough to reach hard court finals. This skews their head-to-head in favour of Nadal's best surface. They're  more closely matched on other surfaces.

2) Fed is much older than the other two. His prime was past as they entered theirs, accounting for most of their match-ups. Nadal vs Novak is a fair enough comparison, as their ages are much closer. But Fed is freakishly successful over a very long time period, and this means he has been playing essentially several generations of Tennis' best. Jimmy Connors did the same; his head-to-head also looks a bit unimpressive until you take into account how long he spent at or near the top of the tree.

Not denying any of those things.

Still, as I said, there have been match-ups between them when Nadal and Djokovic (especially Djokovic) were nowhere near their top level and Federer was at the top of his game, too. That needs to be taken into account, doesn't it?

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Still, as I said, there have been match-ups between them when Nadal and Djokovic (especially Djokovic) were nowhere near their top level and Federer was at the top of his game, too. That needs to be taken into account, doesn't it?

Not really, as they've faded from their peaks and stopped reaching finals and semi-finals - which is where top seeds are most likely to meet. Fed has played in record numbers of finals and semi-finals in so many tournaments that the others are outpaced. Meaning that, mostly, they've only been playing him at their peaks.

For instance, 11 of the first 20 matches (when it can be fairly said Nadal hadn't yet peaked) between Federer and Nadal were played on clay. Only 4 of these matches weren't finals. That's because Nadal hadn't yet hit the period when he could make finals away from clay. Nadal leads 13-2 on clay, compared to 13-10 on grass and hard courts.

Novak hasn't had the same tail-end to his career (yet) that the other two have had, and like most players he seems to be going into a respectable decline - still great but no longer the best. He didn't start to peak until 2011, well after Fed's best days were behind him. They still played a lot during the next few years, as Fed was good enough to keep pace, even if not to win. However, now that Novak's best days are past, he isn't meeting Fed in tournaments any more.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Would it be fair to say that at their peaks, Nadal's game was well suited to play Fed's and Novak's game was well suited to play Nadal's with Murray's being a lesser version of Novak's?

12 hours ago, Yukle said:

Novak hasn't had the same tail-end to his career (yet) that the other two have had, and like most players he seems to be going into a respectable decline - still great but no longer the best. 

I still think Novak can return to being the best player on the tour if injures quit holding him back. I can easily see him having another 2-3 year run where he picks up a handful of slams. 

[Yukle]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I still think Novak can return to being the best player on the tour if injures quit holding him back. I can easily see him having another 2-3 year run where he picks up a handful of slams. 

It's hard to tell these days, isn't it? Federer and Nadal have altered what we thought was the terminal decline of a late career. Even Martina Navratilova never did this - she was supremely excellent all through her career, without having the drop-off, steady decline and then sudden rise again. Goodness, she was amazing.

[Calibandar]

On 3/3/2018 at 0:04 AM, Risto said:

Of course he is a member as the construction was formulated having him in mind, but years after it was coined, the reality is different - we have three brilliant players, arguably three greatest players that have ever played tennis (one of them, Federer, most certainly and rightfully being called GOAT(btw, not related to Swiss livestock )). So, we have the three players for which you can easily argue that has done something the other two (and no one else) has done. They are almost equal in many areas. That is where Murray seems like an odd companion. He is amazing player, that is for sure and if he was born in some reality without these three, he would be almost unrivaled. For me, Murray simply never lived up to what many believed he was capable of. 

I would say it's the other way around. When first the term Big Four was coined I thought Murray wouldn't be able to keep up with the others. But as he then consistently found his way into the semi final or final of each Grand Slam or other major tournament, was a consistent top 4 ranked player, and then in more recent years became an even bigger competitors for the others by winning Slams/Olympics and many Masters tournaments, he actually did live up to being worthy of inclusion in this group.

If, going into any major tournament, there is always the same group of 4 heavy favorites, then you belong in that group of heavy favorites, even if you are the least likely to win of those 4.

On another matter, tennis really needs Murray and Djokovic, Nadal and Stan back in fine form. It is getting embarrassing.

Each tournament is an easy Federer win. Apparently Djokovic might make a return in Miami. Murray maybe a tentative return in a month. Stan is back to where he was, has to withdraw all the time, same for Nadal. Nishikori also needs to come back fully fit.

[Calibandar]

Anyone else watching the hardcourt tournaments of Indian Wells and Miami?

Federer looked weary and after a finals loss to Del Potro in Indian Wells took an early exit in Miami against Kokkinakis, one of the biggest talents on Tour.

Del Po just beaten in the semi finals by a resurgent John Isner who is coming out of nowhere, playing excellently.

Other thoughts from seeing the games the last two weeks:

Raonic is back and in Miami he looked very good, only beaten by Del Potro in a great and very tight match.

Nishikori has just returned but he looks far from his best.

Djokovic has played two games and was beaten easily in each of the first rounds.

It's been mostly of interest to me to see the biggest talents at work. Zverev had a lousy start to to the year but has suddenly found form in Miami, I expect he will make the final. Kokkinakis, seeing him at work has been very nice, definitely a future hit. Shapovalov to me is probably the most exciting yougster, only 18 years old and such a great shot maker. He reminds me of of Nadal because he's a lefty and so good at such a young age, but he has a really different flair and plays much more aggresively. Needs to work on his returns though, and this baseline stability. Finally, Coric is kind of the opposite of Shapovalov, much more dull to watch but Djokovic like in how extremely solid he is from the baseline.

 

[Yukle]

Nadal just notched up set #38 in a row on clay, a new record (in case he needed another clay record).

Given his return to #1 following Fed's slip last month, it's on him not to drop any points on clay to retain his lead. Which, it seems, entirely likely he'll do now. He's only ahead by 100, and Fed's not competing in the clay season again (as far as we know), but it's not out of the question he'll extend his lead. Especially if he turns last year's QF finish in Rome into a championship.

Defending Roland Garros looked to be a hard ask last year, with his age clearly getting to him. Now he's a man reinvigorated.

I'd kind of like Fed to win the duel, though, and finish the year atop.

[Yukle]

The duel continues!  

Fed is back to #1 despite skipping the clay season after Rafa didn't defend his points in Madrid!

So far this year: Rafa for 7 weeks, Roger for 6 weeks, Rafa for 6 and now back to FedEx.  

ETA: Although if Rafa wins the Rome masters he's back on top. It's incredible to think that Federer is skipping the clay season and relying on his remaining tournaments... and will be at worst world number 2.

[Yukle]

Jokeavic is out of the French Open. As is his wont when he loses, he has decided he is injured and may miss Wimbledon. He annoys me so much. When he wins, he's gracious. When he loses, he was secretly injured the whole time.

[3CityApache]

It's a shame the rain interrupted yesterday's impressive run by Schwartzman, it was really possible Rafa might have had a much bigger problem with him than today. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Rafa is 86-2 at Roland Garros……

[Yukle]

Rafa has more French Open championships than all but three other men have grand slam singles titles.

But I can't help but feel he isn't as good as Federer or Djokovic (much as it pains me to say the latter). His dominance on a single surface is impressive - but there are usually only 2 tournaments in an entire season that grass specialists can play: Wimbledon and their warm up for Wimbledon.

Clay gets three Masters and then a few 500s, as well.

Rafa is obviously very good on other surfaces, too, but there's something to be said for the fact that his dominance disproportionately rests on clay, and that this isn't readily available to grass specialists.

The idea that the counting of Grand Slams is a measure for excellence is only 30-ish years old; before that top tier players didn't necessarily bother competing in them all of the time (even Agassi didn't).

Rafa is good, but I think the people saying he is better than anyone else playing, let alone the best ever, is not quite right.

[Yukle]

Also... anyone else get the feeling that one day the whispers about Nadal's steroid use might be worth investigating?

And Serena...

... and most top tier players. Tennis really, really, reeeeaaaaallly needs a clean-out, and an anti-doping system that actually does stuff.

[Jeor]

Tennis has never been particularly strong on drugs...I think Petr Korda got done in the late 90s but there really hasn't been much noise on it since. The testing is pretty random and I don't know how state of the art it is, although apparently top players get tested fairly often.

[lessthanluke]

8 hours ago, Yukle said:

Also... anyone else get the feeling that one day the whispers about Nadal's steroid use might be worth investigating?

And Serena...

... and most top tier players. Tennis really, really, reeeeaaaaallly needs a clean-out, and an anti-doping system that actually does stuff.

Nope. 

Drugs are great and make sport better.

[baxus]

A friend of a friend who's into cycling told me a couple of years ago that in a period between two top level tennis player doping tests a top level cyclist is tested a dozen times or more.

Now, he might've been wrong but if he was right that's just plain wrong.

I remember only two players who are anywhere near the top level ever getting in trouble for doping - Viktor Troicki (best ranking #12 or something like that, was ranked ~30 at the time) for giving only urine sample and not giving blood sample for testing and Marin Cilic, who was suspended but his suspension was revoked after 3-4 months. Now, it might be that tennis is so clean that there are no other cases but I seriously doubt it. It's like with football - case of players failing doping and drug testing are few and far between and even then it's usually positive results for cocaine. In sports where players make millions it's too naive to think that players are that clean.

Back to tennis, such indifferent attitude towards doping control and cleaning the sport up has resulted in all kinds of nutjob conspiracy theories. For example, for years now you can hear that Nadal, Federer and, most recently, Djokovic have been busted for doping and their injuries breaks were actually suspensions that have been kept on the down low.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

I remember only two players who are anywhere near the top level ever getting in trouble for doping - Viktor Troicki (best ranking #12 or something like that, was ranked ~30 at the time) for giving only urine sample and not giving blood sample for testing and Marin Cilic, who was suspended but his suspension was revoked after 3-4 months. Now, it might be that tennis is so clean that there are no other cases but I seriously doubt it. It's like with football - case of players failing doping and drug testing are few and far between and even then it's usually positive results for cocaine. In sports where players make millions it's too naive to think that players are that clean.

Back to tennis, such indifferent attitude towards doping control and cleaning the sport up has resulted in all kinds of nutjob conspiracy theories. For example, for years now you can hear that Nadal, Federer and, most recently, Djokovic have been busted for doping and their injuries breaks were actually suspensions that have been kept on the down low.

Yes, that's more or less correct.

Tennis has an enormous doping problem. They also have "loser targeted testing," where winners of a tournament are exempt from being tested in that tournament.

Furthermore, as the leaks of Nadal's medical records show, the ITF also sanctions much of the doping that happens. Nadal is taking steroids, and has been for most of his career, related to medical certificates issued to him by his team doctor. Similarly, Serena Williams apparently has ADHD - along with an astonishing 1/3 of America's tennis players, which just so happens to entitle them to use some masking agents and performance enhancing substances for medical reasons.

Sharapova was doing this, with the three massive differences that:

1) Her drugs were originally not on the banned list and were only added well after she started using them.

2) She admitted to fault and accepted the punishment.

3) She wasn't the only player caught, but others protested - truthfully - that the half-life of meldonium (or whatever it's called) is about 30 days. Meaning they could have stopped in December and still tested positive in January. Sharapova was left hung out to dry for being honest about her infraction, perhaps in the naive expectation that others would follow her example.

[Mladen]

18 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Sharapova was doing this, with the three massive differences that:

1) Her drugs were originally not on the banned list and were only added well after she started using them.

2) She admitted to fault and accepted the punishment.

3) She wasn't the only player caught, but others protested - truthfully - that the half-life of meldonium (or whatever it's called) is about 30 days. Meaning they could have stopped in December and still tested positive in January. Sharapova was left hung out to dry for being honest about her infraction, perhaps in the naive expectation that others would follow her example.

Yeah, the greatest irony of this case is that she has been punished for her honesty, not the transgression itself. It seems that she should have kept her mouth shut.

[baxus]

I forgot about Sharapova. Even then it wasn't a case of "here is a player caught doping" but more of a "she's been using this medicine for years and now it's banned" in order to avoid anything even remotely resembling a scandal that could ruin the sport's reputation.

[Calibandar]

I've pretty much slept through Roland Garros as clay tennis is so boring in my opinion, yet now the grass court season has started and Wimbledon looms.

Fed still the major favorite to win Wimbledon? Bookies certainly think so.

Outsiders? Nadal seems unlikely to me despite his clay form, Djokovic....., Raonic, Kyrgios, Zverev. Interested to see Shapovalov on this surface as well.