by ti-amie Rod Laver Arena
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Women's Singles • Round 4
A. Sabalenka 5 vs B. Bencic 12
Women's Singles • Round 4
M. Linette vs C. Garcia 4
Day session - Not before 10:30pm EST
Men's Singles • Round 4
A. Rublev 5 vs H. Rune 9
Night session - From 3:00am EST
Men's Singles • Round 4
A. de Minaur 22 vs N. Djokovic 4
Women's Doubles • Round 3
S. Hunter 4/E. Mertens 4 vs V. Golubic/M. Niculescu
Margaret Court Arena
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Legends' Doubles • Round 1
B. Schett/B. Bryan vs C. Black/M. Bryan
Day session - Not before 8:30pm EST
Women's Singles • Round 4
D. Vekic vs L. Fruhvirtova
Day session - Not before 10:00pm EST
Men's Doubles • Round 3
T. Brkic/G. Escobar vs R. Hijikata WC/J. Kubler WC
Day session - Not before 12:00am EST
Men's Singles • Round 4
R. Bautista Agut 24 vs T. Paul
John Cain Arena
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Women's Doubles • Round 3
A. Pavlyuchenkova/E. Rybakina vs S. Aoyama 10/E. Shibahara 10
Women's Doubles • Round 3
A. Kalinina/A. Van Uytvanck vs H. Chan 11/Z. Yang 11
Day session - Not before 10:00pm EST
Men's Singles • Round 4
B. Shelton vs J. Wolf
Women's Doubles • Round 3
B. Krejcikova 1/K. Siniakova 1 vs O. Kalashnikova/A. Parks
Kia Arena
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Men's Doubles • Round 3
W. Koolhof 1/N. Skupski 1 vs N. Cacic/A. Qureshi
Day session - Not before 9:00pm EST
Women's Singles • Round 4
K. Pliskova 30 vs S. Zhang 23
Day session - Not before 10:30pm EST
Women's Doubles • Round 3
M. Kato 16/A. Sutjiadi 16 vs C. Gauff 2/J. Pegula 2
Men's Doubles • Round 3
A. Bolt WC/L. Saville WC vs A. Mies 14/J. Peers 14
Mixed Doubles • Round 2
K. Birrell WC/R. Hijikata WC vs O. Gadecki WC/M. Polmans WC
Court 3
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Men's Doubles • Round 3
L. Harris/R. Klaasen vs M. Granollers 8/H. Zeballos 8
Day session - Not before 9:00pm EST
Men's Doubles • Round 3
R. Haase 16/M. Middelkoop 16 vs M. Arevalo 3/J. Rojer 3
Day session - Not before 10:00pm EST
Men's Doubles • Round 3
H. Nys/J. Zielinski vs R. Ram 2/J. Salisbury 2
Mixed Doubles • Round 2
G. Olmos 1/M. Arevalo 1 vs J. Ostapenko/D. Vega Hernandez
Women's Doubles • Round 3
M. Kostyuk/E. Ruse vs M. Kolodziejova/M. Vondrousova
Court 7
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
K. Feldbausch 1 vs M. Dodig
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
O. Choi Q vs S. Ishii 12
Day session - Not before 10:00pm EST
Men's Doubles • Round 3
B. Bonzi/A. Rinderknech vs J. Cabal 12/R. Farah 12
Mixed Doubles • Round 2
D. Krawczyk 3/N. Skupski 3 vs A. Parnaby WC/A. Harris WC
Mixed Doubles • Round 2
S. Mirza/R. Bopanna vs M. Ninomiya A/A. Behar A
Court 8
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
Z. Ludoski vs A. Dzhenev 15
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
N. Vargova 8 vs M. Jessup
Day session - Not before 10:00pm EST
Men's Doubles • Round 3
J. Chardy/F. Martin vs J. Lehecka/A. Molcan
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
R. Tiukaev/T. Zhang vs K. Feldbausch 3/K. Kang 3
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
E. McDonald 1/L. Udvardy 1 vs T. Evans/T. Rabman
Court 12
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
K. Kang vs D. Panarin 13
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
Y. Zhou 11 vs M. Dhamne
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
M. Krajci/A. Zimnokh vs S. Eriksson/P. Schoen
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
M. Coman 4/M. Dodig 4 vs C. Errey WC/M. Schoeman WC
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
H. Jones 5/D. Panarin 5 vs M. Dhamne/A. Shah
Court 13
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
Y. Bartashevich 14 vs Z. Larke WC
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
C. Kuhl vs A. Korneeva 9
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
H. Roh vs C. Williams 8
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
N. Daubnerova 3/R. Stoiber 3 vs M. Gae/L. Taylor
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
A. Frusina/J. Hrazdil vs W. Chang/R. Hattori
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
A. Anazagasty-Pursoo 7/M. Crossley 7 vs C. Kuhl/E. Seidel
Court 15
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
T. Pires vs R. Sakamoto 6
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
R. Munk Mortensen Q vs T. Rabman
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
J. Leroux/T. Pires vs F. Cina/K. Edengren
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
A. Bowers/N. XU vs Z. Larke WC/A. Nayar WC
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
R. Munk Mortensen/K. Sidorova vs O. Choi/S. Tsujioka
Court 16
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
E. Jones vs T. Valentova 2
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
H. Kinoshita 16 vs E. Yaneva LL
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
P. Marinkov WC/Z. Viiala WC vs J. Filip/M. Mrva
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
E. Jones/W. Sonobe vs R. Dencheva/Y. Konstantinova
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
R. Gilheany WC/S. Webb WC vs L. Morreale/E. Yaneva
Court 17
Day session - From 7:00pm EST
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
J. Fonseca 10 vs V. Kalina
Junior Girls' Singles • Round 2
F. Urgesi vs A. Ibragimova
Junior Boys' Singles • Round 2
A. Blockx 3 vs A. Karahan
Junior Boys' Doubles • Round 1
D. Fix/V. Kalina vs L. Jones 8/H. Matsuoka 8
Junior Girls' Doubles • Round 1
R. Jamrichova/F. Urgesi vs I. Balus 8/N. Vargova 8
by ponchi101 Because Deminaur is so fast, and will run forever, and Novak has his injury, I will give Alex TWICE his usual chances of beating him.
2%.
by ti-amie Bencic was up 4-2 first set. Sabalenka is now up 5-4. Bencic levels it at 5 all.
by Deuce It's rather ironic that Sabalenka won the 1st set on a double fault...
by ashkor87 Nobody does drive volley like Bencic!!
by Deuce Bencic is disappointing thus far.
She had the 1st set by the collar... Sabalenka was frustrated and making errors... Then Bencic just disappeared and Sabalenka has taken full advantage.
by ti-amie Bencic is doing Bencic things. It's why I never think she's going to do well in a major.
by
Deuce ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:34 am
Bencic is doing Bencic things. It's why I never think she's going to do well in a major.
I have that view about Sabalenka in Majors.
by
ti-amie Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:39 am
ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:34 am
Bencic is doing Bencic things. It's why I never think she's going to do well in a major.
I have that view about Sabalenka in Majors.
I agree. They're two sides of the same coin.
by ponchi101 Doing well in a major, to me, is the quarters.
And both Aryna and Belinda have been there. They have done well before.
by
Deuce ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:02 am
Doing well in a major, to me, is the quarters.
And both Aryna and Belinda have been there. They have done well before.
Yes, generally...
But I think that when you're in the top 10 or so in the rankings (and/or among the top 10 seeds or so in a Major), the standards should be higher... to the point where multiple participations without at least making the Finals can be seen as underachieving.
by Deuce All three women's matches currently being played are intriguing...
Magda Linette hung in there and stuck around after being behind in the first set... got it to a tiebreak, which she won rather decisively.
Garcia has to do more efficient problem solving if she is to win this one against a stubborn opponent...
Vekic won the 1st set easily - 6-2 - over Linda Fruhvirtova... but the kid came back to win the 2nd 6-1. Going to the 3rd now...
Pliskova steamrolled Zhang 6-0 in the 1st... Now on serve at 4-4 in the 2nd...
by Fastbackss Oof - Garcia was hanging tough and then a double double fault.
Linette serving for match - at same time Vekic breaks to do the same
by ponchi101 Tough and good win by Linette.
I think OTHER is looking really good on that original poll.
by
JazzNU ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:34 am
Bencic is doing Bencic things. It's why I never think she's going to do well in a major.
OCC did no favors in how I view Bencic. Her frustration gets to her in a way that I don't think it does many other of the top players right now. Like Sabalenka's standoff with Tursonov is probably the #1 all time OCC exchange, but it was just the once. Bencic let loose on so many different occasions that I just struggle to think she'll get it done at a major, because I think she'll have to manage her emotions enough to get there. To me, if she hadn't been so frustrated (and I thought exasperated) by Raducanu, that was her golden opportunity to get her GS.
Sabalenka was better today, but Bencic yet again was frustrated and couldn't keep it together enough to not get the obscenity warning.
by JazzNU Whatever the heck Pam has unlocked in Vekic is doing wonders for her. Donna performing up to the expectations that many once had for her.
by Deuce Linette is a stubborn type of player. She doesn't really excel in any aspect of the game - but she just doesn't go away.
She's 30 years old, and she's never before done this well in a Major.
If she wins this thing, it would be even beyond 'Other'...
by ponchi101 And that is the reason why there is a rule that you can't go to the bathroom in the middle of a set.
Rune just asked to go to the bathroom (apparently to change his shorts) in the middle of the set. He did not take long, but one can only wonder how long before the players that engage in gamesmanship will use that "tactically".
by
skatingfan ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:42 am
And that is the reason why there is a rule that you can't go to the bathroom in the middle of a set.
Rune just asked to go to the bathroom (apparently to change his shorts) in the middle of the set. He did not take long, but one can only wonder how long before the players that engage in gamesmanship will use that "tactically".
At the same time, that is his one and only bathroom break for the entire match. Given the heat, and the physical game that he plays I think he'll be drinking a lot of fluids, and may have to keep his legs crossed if the match goes five sets.
by
ashkor87 ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:52 am
Tough and good win by Linette.
I think OTHER is looking really good on that original poll.
You always think that!
by JazzNU Rublev vs. Rune underwhelming thus far from the time I've been watching. Thought this one would be fun, but not so much just yet.
by
ponchi101 ashkor87 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:22 am
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:52 am
Tough and good win by Linette.
I think OTHER is looking really good on that original poll.
You always think that!
Well, look who's left. Pegula, Sabalenka and OTHER. And other includes Rybakina, Ostapenko, Pliskova, Linette and the other OTHERS.
by jazzyg I would make Sabalenka and Pegula the two favorites going forward, but OTHER is in a strong position, too. Still lean to the not other at this point.
by ashkor87 revised updated:
Men: entirely depends on whether Djokovic is really injured or not..
if he isnt.
Djokovic 90%
Rublev 5%
Tsitsipas 5%
If he is,
Djokovic 60%
Tsitsipas 20%
Rublev 10%
The field 10%
Women: Sabalenka 60%, Rybakina 30%, Pegula 10%
(of these, only Pegula was not in my original list..)
by ponchi101 I can hear Novak's speech already. "It was a very tough tournament, with the (insert injury, disease, malady here) I was dealing with, and I want to congratulate (name of victim) for a great match (2, 4 & 0)".
by
skatingfan JazzNU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:56 am
Whatever the heck Pam has unlocked in Vekic is doing wonders for her. Donna performing up to the expectations that many once had for her.
I didn't realize that Shriver was working Vekic. That explains why she's in Australia when none of the other American ESPN commentators are.
by skatingfan If Rune does play Djokovic in the next round it will be interesting to see who is more injured during the match.
by ponchi101 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).
by
skatingfan 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.
by Deuce 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.
by
skatingfan 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.
by Deuce 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.
by JTContinental 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.
by Deuce 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.
by
nelslus 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.)
by skatingfan de Minaur doing a nice job of donating free points to Djokovic's title run - too many mid-court misses on routine shots.
by ashkor87 American men doing well this time, and better than American women, which is unusual ..
by
nelslus 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.....)
by Deuce 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.
by mick1303 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.
by
mick1303 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.
by
skatingfan 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.
by
Deuce 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.
.
by
mick1303 Deuce wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 11:46 am
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.
.
Thank you!
For the moment it is relatively safe. The key word is "relatively". Who knows what these chronies up north will do next...
Yes, we will watch tennis no matter what, regardless of the record books. But these moments when history is on the line as well add something extra, IMO.
by Owendonovan I'm not buying the injured Novak narrative. It's just an extension of his and his family's inferiority complex revolving around Serbia not winning the war they started in '91 in case he loses, and if he wins he triumphantly rose above it. Forever victims, the Djokovic's.
by
mick1303 Owendonovan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 1:59 pm
I'm not buying the injured Novak narrative. It's just an extension of his and his family's inferiority complex revolving around Serbia not winning the war they started in '91 in case he loses, and if he wins he triumphantly rose above it. Forever victims, the Djokovic's.
He did not hit open stance backhands in the previous matches. It has nothing to do with Serbia or inferiority complex. And everything to do with a pulled muscle.
by
atlpam 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).
I was wondering about this since it seemed there were more than the usual number of 5 set matches. On the other hand, today is the first morning I didn’t have any live tennis to watch over breakfast.
by
ti-amie skatingfan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 9:14 am
de Minaur doing a nice job of donating free points to Djokovic's title run - too many mid-court misses on routine shots.
by JazzNU Novak's obnoxious fans are of course taking shots at Alex not being any good, but clearly there's skepticism in the locker room when Novak keeps bringing attention to his supposed injury, one that would have to be strained by the movement he does on court, and yet he's moving like a gazelle out there.
by ti-amie
deMinaur left himself wide open to abuse from Djokovic fans with that comment.
by
JazzNU ti-amie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:08 pm
Rune was a little shady in that match. Was he actually even injured? Having some kind of medical emergency? Because the performance didn't line up at all to the point that all the conversation by the international commentators was all about, and I do mean all about, how his wrist or ankle must be injured. Calls the physio and doctor to seemingly get treatment on one or both of them and gets his pulse and BP checked instead from what we could tell. It was strange and he was miraculously playing considerably better after that break he caused in Rublev's rhythm to calm himself down and get his head back in the game. Maybe it's because he's so young that the occasion was getting to him or something (though he's been to the RG Quarters already), but if he pulls this kind of thing again, I'd assume this is a Djokovic type strategy he might employ going further when he's down in a match to someone he thinks/knows he can beat.
Now, Rublev should've just won this match and not played just a terrible game to give Rune the advantage in the 2nd set. Rublev did the Rublev things he does in slams and Masters but almost never at the 500 level. But, Rublev was rightly confused by what he was seeing on the other side of the court and the miraculous turnaround when Rune seemed to verbally indicate he was near retiring from the match.
by ponchi101 I saw the entire match. His behavior on court is very, very displeasing, to say the least. He left the court mid way through the first set to change shorts. he never stops talking to his box, yelling and telling them to shut up (they were silent). By now, the "raising hands to encourage the crowd to cheer" when they are already cheering is getting boring (not only from him, I have to admit), and he does it all the time.
He is not an enjoyable player to watch, for me. Too many little silly details that take away from the strokes (which are gorgeous, except for the serve).
by
JazzNU ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:49 pm
I saw the entire match. His behavior on court is very, very displeasing, to say the least. He left the court mid way through the first set to change shorts. he never stops talking to his box, yelling and telling them to shut up (they were silent).
And his mom was in his box! And he's apparently, according to the commentators, told her to GTFO in the past when he's angry during a match. Like what? For all the business Andy Murray used to give to his box, when his mom was in as his coach, he was a damn choir boy towards his player's box.
by
skatingfan JazzNU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 5:16 pm
And his mom was in his box! And he's apparently according to the commentators told her to GTFO in the past when he's angry during a match. Like what? For all the business Andy Murray used to give to his box, when his mom was in as his coach, he was a damn choir boy towards his player's box.
Last year's French Open.
https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/roland ... tory.shtml
by
meganfernandez atlpam wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:32 pm
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).
I was wondering about this since it seemed there were more than the usual number of 5 set matches. On the other hand, today is the first morning I didn’t have any live tennis to watch over breakfast.
Two years ago at the US Open, there were like 30-some. It was a big storyline.
by
JTContinental 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.
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.
That won’t be boring at all. In fact, I’m looking forward to it.
by Deuce Re: Rune...
I have no opinion of him, pro or con. I haven't seen nearly enough of him to have an opinion (and I have watched some of his matches).
It is clear, though, that he has become the favourite target of some, obviously. Mostly the favourite target of the hypocrites who regularly call for others to be 'nice' and 'tolerant' of everyone, and who criticize others for being terribly 'judgmental', while claiming that they themselves are not 'judgmental' at all, of course.
And then others pile on...
Murray behaves in a very similar way toward his 'box' during matches - and has done so for a decade. But he gets a free pass because he was fortunate enough to not be branded a 'little brat' early in his career (probably because the people who do the branding simply chose someone else to target at the time), and because he's a member of the 'Big 4'.
None of us have even the slightest idea of what the relationship between Rune and his mother is, of course. No idea at all. But, sure - pretend you know all about it. Because you need a target to lambaste as you criticize others for not being 'tolerant'... Because only you are permitted to criticize - when others criticize, you call them 'intolerant' and basically terrible human beings... Because the call to be 'tolerant' only applies to other people, of course.
As usual.
Sigh...
by jazzyg On an earlier topic, the idea of making the winner of match tiebreaks have to win by at least 4 points is very strange.
The players had five sets to prove they were the better player (or three for the women) and couldn't do it, so the idea they need more separation in the tiebreak makes no sense. It's not like they did a random draw before the match and were sent directly to the tiebreak. They played for 3 to 4 hours and could not achieve separation. All of tennis is based on winning by 2 points, and now we're going to change it?
It's the same way I don't understand all the carping about NFL overtime during the regular season and not allowing a team a chance to tie if the other team scores a touchdown on its opening possession of OT. They had four quarters to win the game and could not do it, so now we're going to feel bad for them if their offense does not get to touch the ball because their defense failed at its job?
A change in the match tiebreak rule will never happen of course, but since it was brought up here and no one really responded, I just decided to respond.
by Owendonovan He's developed a bad reputation outside this forum as well. I don't gravitate towards people who are prone to outburst, public or private. Like I've said before, He certainly has the characteristics of someone raised with privilege who's parents raised talent, not a person.
by
Deuce jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:10 am
On an earlier topic, the idea of making the winner of match tiebreaks have to win by at least 4 points is very strange.
The players had five sets to prove they were the better player (or three for the women) and couldn't do it, so the idea they need more separation in the tiebreak makes no sense. It's not like they did a random draw before the match and were sent directly to the tiebreak. They played for 3 to 4 hours and could not achieve separation. All of tennis is based on winning by 2 points, and now we're going to change it?
It's the same way I don't understand all the carping about NFL overtime during the regular season and not allowing a team a chance to tie if the other team scores a touchdown on its opening possession of OT. They had four quarters to win the game and could not do it, so now we're going to feel bad for them if their offense does not get to touch the ball because their defense failed at its job?
A change in the match tiebreak rule will never happen of course, but since it was brought up here and no one really responded, I just decided to respond.
It actually makes perfect sense... And I believe that the manner in which Rublev won yesterday's match demonstrates that.
If the match is tied 6-6 in the fifth set, it is obviously because both parties failed to assert themselves enough to win the match. The match is therefore tied after 'regulation time' - just as in any sport which has an actual time limit.
Therefore, there needs to be a way to decide the winner - just as in other sports where the score is tied after regulation time.
I propose a 4 point difference simply because a 4 point difference will create a greater margin between the winner and the loser than will a mere 2 points.
If the match would have been decided in 'regulation time', it would have been decided by at least 2 games - we know this as fact. And each of those 2 games would have required a 2 point difference. Therefore, literally in this case, 2+2=4... a 2 point difference in each of those 2 games of difference equals a 4 point difference.
And so it makes absolutely no sense to then decide the winner and the loser of the entire match via a mere 2 point difference.
Also, prior to the new implementation of the final set tiebreak, 3 of the 4 Majors were playing out the fifth set until one player would be declared the winner by being 2 games (at least 4 points) ahead of the other player.
And so - again - to go from at least a 4 point difference to a 2 point difference in declaring the winner is to cheapen the victory.
I suggest that the ONLY reason it is done this way is for expedience - to end the match as
quickly as possible, rather than as fairly and justly as possible - because every sport seems to be going in this direction, catering to the ever-decreasing attention spans of the fans (we need only look at the absurd and asinine new rules that Major League Baseball has implemented for the sole purpose of ending tie games as quickly as possible).
There is a huge difference between winning and losing a match. The winner moves on; the loser goes home. This could make an enormous difference for players for whom the prize money actually means something (the lower ranked players). And to have that decided by a mere 2 points is ludicrous. And one (or both) of those 2 points could be a lucky shot - like Rublev's net cord yesterday. Do we honestly want matches decided by one lucky net cord??! I most certainly don't.
In such a scenario, you have two players who have battled each other for hours... They both put much sweat and effort into those hours of trying to come out the winner. But, at the point where the final set was tied, no winner had been determined. To allow only a mere 2 point difference to determine the winner - after such a long and drawn out battle (as all 5 set matches inherently are) is ridiculous (as we saw yesterday). The players deserve better than that.
Yes, making it a 4 point difference in the final set tiebreak might sometimes (not always) add 10 or 20 minutes to the match, as opposed to a mere 2 point difference. But so what? It won't happen every time. And the added time will bring fitness into play even more, which will create even a greater difference between the winner and the loser, thus making the winner much more deserving of the win than a mere 2 point difference does. It just simply makes sense.
To me, the 2 point difference in a final set tiebreak to decide the winner of a match is equivalent to the stupid 3 on 3 overtime in hockey. Or the idiotic new baseball rules for extra innings (putting a free and undeserved runner on 2nd base to begin each half of every extra inning). It's all suddenly changing the rules of play.
As I said previously - if you're going to play a tiebreak where only a two point margin is required, you might as well just flip a coin or draw straws. It is that ridiculous. And how ridiculous it is was demonstrated very clearly in yesterday's Rublev - Rune match.
Saying that the 4 point difference "will never happen of course" is rather silly, given that several changes in how to decide the final set when it's tied at 6-6 have already been made recently, and they are still trying to figure out the best formula.
I will be strongly suggesting the 4 point difference to the tennis people I know - including players - to see what kind of feedback I get.
by
Deuce Owendonovan wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:01 am
He's developed a bad reputation outside this forum as well. I don't gravitate towards people who are prone to outburst, public or private. Like I've said before, He certainly has the characteristics of someone raised with privilege who's parents raised talent, not a person.
Tell me that after he's been on the tour for 5 years or so, and has matured into adulthood, and has behaved like an ass more often than not, and I likely wouldn't challenge it.
But right now, given his age and his being new to the tour - which means that all of us barely know him - I say that the criticism he is receiving is blatantly unfair.
And that the criticism is coming largely from the 'politically correct' faction that loves to tell others what terrible human beings they are for being 'intolerant' and 'judgemental' of others makes it all the worse.
To these people, it's intolerable and wholly unacceptable for anyone to criticize someone who they like - but it's entirely acceptable for them to criticize someone that they've decided they don't like.
The hypocrisy is not only blatant, it's absurd.
by
Owendonovan 
Just don't talk smack about Borna.