Talk About Tennis 2.0

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:58 am ESPN reporting that this is match #28 that has gone 5 sets at the open. The most ever (they don't say if at the Aussie, or all Slams).

Shelton-Wolf about to go to a 5th as well making it #29.

I still don't like that the winning margin only has to be 2 in final set tiebreaks. It leaves too much to chance and luck.
If things are even after playing 5 sets, then obviously a match is close. Deciding the winner by only 2 points is like a shootout in hockey, or penalty kicks in soccer. A close match should not be decided by only 2 little points (one or both of which might be lucky shots like net cords). The winner should have to prove more than that.
If they are going to play tiebreaks in the final set, they should require a 4 point difference to win - that leaves less to chance, and makes the win that much more decisive and deserving.

Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:37 am I still don't like that the winning margin only has to be 2 in final set tiebreaks. It leaves too much to chance and luck.
If things are even after playing 5 sets, then obviously a match is close. Deciding the winner by only 2 points is like a shootout in hockey, or penalty kicks in soccer. A close match should not be decided by only 2 little points (one or both of which might be lucky shots like net cords). The winner should have to prove more than that.
If they are going to play tiebreaks in the final set, they should require a 4 point difference to win - that leaves less to chance, and makes the win that much more decisive and deserving.

And then Rublev wins it on a net-cord.

Exactly.
This is precisely why a 2 point difference is a really bad thing in a final set tiebreak to decide the winner of a close match (it's obviously a close match if it goes to a final set tiebreak).
Might as well flip a coin or draw straws.
Ridiculous.

Let the winner EARN the victory - with a 4 point difference.

Shelton through to the QF in his first Australian Open. The commentators on the ESPN+ stream were saying that this is the first time that he has even traveled overseas.

I think that Shelton has also just gone one better than his dad's best result at a Major, which was 4th round...

Both Shelton and Wolf will now be in the top 50, they said.

JTContinental wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 7:56 am Shelton through to the QF in his first Australian Open. The commentators on the ESPN+ stream were saying that this is the first time that he has even traveled overseas.

This is SO insane!!!! We had the privilege of seeing Shelton last year in the Chicago final lose 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 to Roman Safiullin, in addition to other matches. His father was there the whole tournament, in addition to other support team members. You could see that Shelton had a lot of talent. But, what a quantum leap. No way I thought he'd beat JJ today. Insane, and geeked about this result. We also saw Brandon Holt win a few matches after qualifying, losing in the R16 6-4 in the third to Liam Broady. Ben is now listed at #43 in the ATP live rankings (a rankings jump of 46 spots. JJ at #47- a rankings jump of 20 spots. Sadly, Holt is at #187- a "jump" of 28 spots. Tracy Austin- start working those phones now, and get your kid WC spots at Indian Wells and Miami (AT least qualifying spots, if needed.)

KEEPING in mind that we also saw Raducanu lose the 2021 final in Chicago in a very entertaining match to the very talented (albeit currently injury-plagued) Tauson, 6-1, 2-6, 6-4. Of course, during this match, as impressed as we were with both players, I commented to John, "WELL, we sure haven't seen the US Open finalists in THIS match." I'd always been correct about this genius and gutsy inside-tennis-buzz commentary before.

All of these players I've listed here came off as very gracious in Chicago. Emma even stayed around after her matches, including her finals loss, to take photos with fans.

(Also, I'm gutted about Rajeev and joe losing today. But, they both have multiple Slam titles and the ATP doubles championship last year. So, there's that.)

de Minaur doing a nice job of donating free points to Djokovic's title run - too many mid-court misses on routine shots.

American men doing well this time, and better than American women, which is unusual ..

AND Tommy Paul in the QF. Guarantees that at least one American man will be in the SF. Well done and all that. (I am SLEEPY.....)

Now that Federer is retired, and Nadal and Murray are fading, having Djokovic the lone remaining member of the 'Big 4', and dominating so much... it's simply not good for the game.
Face it - it's boring.
What makes tennis interesting is parity between players. When Nadal and Federer and Djokovic (and, to a lesser extent, Murray) were all at their best, they fed off of each other... And even when they would easily roll over their other opponents, we tolerated it because we knew that they were on a collision course to meet one of their true peers in another member of the 'Big 4' in the latter rounds, and we knew that would be exciting.

But now, with Djokovic the only one remaining, it's no fun watching him destroy his opponents. It's extremely predictable. There is no longer a buildup to a meeting of 'Big 4' members.
Thankfully, it shouldn't last much longer.

This victory over De Minaur is so satisfying. I bet Djokovic did not forget that De Minaur joined the Novak bullying last year and publicly supported his deportation.

What will be really boring is that after Novak retires, all the record books will be set for a long while and nobody from new generations will not be able to touch these results from the era of titans.

Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:34 am Now that Federer is retired, and Nadal and Murray are fading, having Djokovic the lone remaining member of the 'Big 4', and dominating so much... it's simply not good for the game.
Face it - it's boring.
What makes tennis interesting is parity between players. When Nadal and Federer and Djokovic (and, to a lesser extent, Murray) were all at their best, they fed off of each other... And even when they would easily roll over their other opponents, we tolerated it because we knew that they were on a collision course to meet one of their true peers in another member of the 'Big 4' in the latter rounds, and we knew that would be exciting.

But now, with Djokovic the only one remaining, it's no fun watching him destroy his opponents. It's extremely predictable. There is no longer a buildup to a meeting of 'Big 4' members.
Thankfully, it shouldn't last much longer.

mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:11 am This victory over De Minaur is so satisfying. I bet Djokovic did not forget that De Minaur joined the Novak bullying last year and publicly supported his deportation.

Your definition of bullying needs work.

Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 10:34 am Now that Federer is retired, and Nadal and Murray are fading, having Djokovic the lone remaining member of the 'Big 4', and dominating so much... it's simply not good for the game.
Face it - it's boring.
What makes tennis interesting is parity between players. When Nadal and Federer and Djokovic (and, to a lesser extent, Murray) were all at their best, they fed off of each other... And even when they would easily roll over their other opponents, we tolerated it because we knew that they were on a collision course to meet one of their true peers in another member of the 'Big 4' in the latter rounds, and we knew that would be exciting.

But now, with Djokovic the only one remaining, it's no fun watching him destroy his opponents. It's extremely predictable. There is no longer a buildup to a meeting of 'Big 4' members.
Thankfully, it shouldn't last much longer.

mick1303 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:18 am What will be really boring is that after Novak retires, all the record books will be set for a long while and nobody from new generations will not be able to touch these results from the era of titans.

No, Mick - it won't be boring at all when Djokovic retires, because - hopefully - we'll have a more significant parity in the men's game. And that will make the tennis more interesting.
I'd much rather have a slightly 'lower quality' of tennis where the quality level of the players is quite equal than one player playing at a higher level and winning matches easily.
I'm not really interested in players chasing records. I'm much more interested in watching close matches.

As admirable as the exploits of the 'Big 4' were, any era where there is domination in any sport is less interesting than when there is more parity. We were lucky that there were 3 or 4 players at once who were dominant, because it was exciting when they played against each other.
Now that there is only one remaining at that level, it's not nearly as interesting.

Good to hear from you, Mick. I hope things at home are at least somewhat relatively safe.

.