Talk About Tennis 2.0

I just don't know what holds Sinner back, but yes, he is in the mix now. Yesterday he played a very solid game (I know, Etcheverry is not a huge test but he did what he had to).

Pleasantly surprised by Rublev and Paul...disappointed with FAA and sinner...

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:11 pm Pleasantly surprised by Rublev and Paul...disappointed with FAA and sinner...

I like Paul's game a lot. Solid of both wings, moves very well. But I don't see him having a big shot, something to really dictate points and a match.
Unfortunately, he will go down to Novak by about the same score as Rublev. He has no game to trouble Novak.

I thought this was more of the same from Rublev, so not all that impressed. I'm truly not sure what was wrong with Rune in that match, but it seemed most other days Rublev would've managed to lose that one. And going out in a whimper to Novak isn't great for a top player, especially one that has beaten him before. I expected Novak to win, but that scoreline is rough.

I've sort of given up on Rublev at Slams at this point. I'm not set in stone like I am with Pliskova, if he starts to be more impressive at Masters, I could see changing my mind and having some level of belief it could happen, but he seems less and less like a contender each time.

I really like Rublev but like FAA and Sinner I think he is stuck. Jazz is right. When he starts doing better at M1000 he'll do better at Slams.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:51 pm I really like Rublev but like FAA and Sinner I think he is stuck. Jazz is right. When he starts doing better at M1000 he'll do better at Slams.

So I mostly think Sinner and FAA are young and need more time. For me, Sinner has shown me more against Top 10 competition than Rublev has and improved over the last year in some ways, even though he didn't make Masters final again (pretty sure he reached QFs in all the majors or 3 of the 4 for the first time). I thought FAA was stuck 2 years ago, but with his Wimbledon run in 2021 and his end of 2022 season form, I think he's getting there. I was more worried about FAA not regaining that Wimbledon form before the end of last year, now I'm much less concerned about him getting there after what he showed. But it's a bit concerning that indoor appears to be his best surface, I'd like to see more of that from him outdoors. Kind of makes me think there's a possibility his biggest win might be winning the ATP Tour Finals.

Rublev isn't giving me any of that unfortunately and that's why I'm looking at him so much less as a contender. He's also older and his game seems to have gotten to where it's going to get unlike Sinner and FAA, who are very clearly still working to tweak their games. But I'm hoping I'm wrong about that, because it could be that a new coach could get him over the hump, but his current game doesn't appear as if it will do the damage he was thinking it would to top players.

What was the game plan for Rublev? I saw some highlights. It was: THE SAME THING HE ALWAYS DOES. Blasting an inside-out FH right into Djokovic's best shot, his BH.
I know you can't completely get away from your strengths, but when your strength fits like a key on the lock of the other guy, you have to do something else.
His game is the same always. That will not cut it with Novak.
(To give him some leeway, nothing does, but that is another conversation).

What was the game plan for Rublev? I saw some highlights. It was: THE SAME THING HE ALWAYS DOES. Blasting an inside-out FH right into Djokovic's best shot, his BH.
I know you can't completely get away from your strengths, but when your strength fits like a key on the lock of the other guy, you have to do something else.
His game is the same always. That will not cut it with Novak.
(To give him some leeway, nothing does, but that is another conversation).

I had never taken Rublev seriously as a major contender so pleasantly surprised..same with Paul, though I love his willingness to volley, has a deft touch..but otherwise, yes, agree with all of you here.

Curiously looked at odds tonight.
Stefanos is only getting 4-1 - would need to be higher than that for me to do it.
Ah - set isn't good value either - it's 0.58 to 1.
Oddly There's some value in 0.9 to 1 for Novak to win more than 21 games total, if you think stefanos will take a set. For him to win it's 0.18 to 1

I cant understand people betting on how many games someone will win - those things are too random, really - great players know when to apply pressure, they dont do it all the time.. I would bet Djokovic will win (75% probability) but how many sets? who knows?

Betting on how many games the winner will get is a smaller range of possibilities. If you think he will win in three easy, it is only 18. Three hard fought, it is 21.
But people will bet on anything. That is the reason why it is such a huge industry (plus the money laundering possibilities).

There are so many options for betting on a match that it's overwhelming for me, even as someone who ardently follows tennis.
A buddy asked me some questions regarding odds for the final, so I was digging through the extra options. I wonder how many people actually do some of the unique ones; clearly it must justify the effort to craft the odds for all of them.
PS - the site I got that from doesn't do it, but there is another service that has micro-betting. You can bet on who will win the next point even. I did it once as an experiment to see how long I could "keep up." It was less than 2 games. (But to be fair, I was watching it on tv (it was also streamed within the betting app somehow), and the tv was lagging behind roughly 15 seconds which made it frustrating)

Fortunately for me, betting on sports is illegal where I live..else I would have dropped a fortune on it by now!

Does anyone here think Tsitsipas has more than a 10% chance? Remember, the last time they played was on clay..suits tsitsi much better than this relatively faster surface does....here, his topspun shots just sit up and beg to be hit...