by ashkor87 Probably disruption due to Covid..there just haven't been that many tournaments lately.. still, it is astonishing
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote:Probably disruption due to Covid..there just haven't been that many tournaments lately.. still, it is astonishing
COVID for sure. And Krejcikova, Pegula, and Swiatek haven’t been around all that long, at least not winning enough matches week In and week out to build head to heads. That can take years of top 20 play.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ashkor87 True
by ashkor87 Krejcikova struggling with the heat..Americans, especially those who train in Florida, generally handle heat better..I remember Osaka brushing off a question on heat, saying this is nothing compared to what I am used to,every day.
by meganfernandez
ashkor87 wrote:Krejcikova struggling with the heat..Americans, especially those who train in Florida, generally handle heat better..I remember Osaka brushing off a question on heat, saying this is nothing compared to what I am used to,every day.
They should have misting fans on the court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by ponchi101 I went to college in Florida, prior to Climate Change. I would train at noon, on purpose.
You would squeeze your shirt, make a pool on the court, and by the time you were ready to serve again, the puddle was gone. So it is a very big advantage.
---0---
Lovely match from Maddie. I don't know now if I want Cornet or Keys to win the whole thing, but it would be a great story either way.
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote:I went to college in Florida, prior to Climate Change. I would train at noon, on purpose.
You would squeeze your shirt, make a pool on the court, and by the time you were ready to serve again, the puddle was gone. So it is a very big advantage.
---0---
Lovely match from Maddie. I don't know now if I want Cornet or Keys to win the whole thing, but it would be a great story either way.
Yeah either is a sentimental favorite. I’d choose Keys. I think her game has more Slam potential and I’d like to see her fulfill it.
I was close to moving to Florida a few years ago. At first, I was like, I’ll play tennis all the time!! Then I was like, I’ll never play tennis again. I couldn’t handle the heat and humidity.
by ashkor87 He he..people outside the US don't realise how hot it can be in some places
by ponchi101 Death Valley. I believe it still holds the record for highest temperature ever recorded.
by ponchi101 Basically a perfect set for Rafa. I don't know if that level can be sustained.
by Deuce
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:33 am
Krejcikova struggling with the heat..Americans, especially those who train in Florida, generally handle heat better..I remember Osaka brushing off a question on heat, saying this is nothing compared to what I am used to,every day.
ashkor87 wrote:Krejcikova struggling with the heat..Americans, especially those who train in Florida, generally handle heat better..I remember Osaka brushing off a question on heat, saying this is nothing compared to what I am used to,every day.
They should have misting fans on the court.
Not only should they have misting fans available, but when the 'heat index' that they use to measure the severity of the heat reaches, say, 3.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5), they should extend the time between serves to 35 seconds from 25. Because you want the playing field to be as level as possible - and when it's this hot, there is a decided and obvious advantage to those who live in hot climates.
Sure, there are advantages of playing surface for players who grew up playing on certain surfaces... but the goal should be to have an even playing field with elements that can't be controlled - like the heat. I've seen too many players not be able to handle the heat - which happens mostly on hard courts, because the heat is coming down from the sun AND up from the court. When players have difficulty handling the heat, not only is it not good (and potentially dangerous) for the player in question, but it's also not good for the people watching the match, as it robs them of a high quality match.
As well, those 'canopies' that they have over the player's benches/chairs should be left extended during play so that they keep the player bench area in the shade. Otherwise, the players are going to sit on a boiling hot bench, and by the time the stupid automatic canopy pops up, the area is only starting to cool down when the changeover time is finished.
But they want to show off their automatic canopy, just like they love showing off their ostentatious elevator umpire chair...
I'm also wondering why they didn't build the Laver stadium to provide shade to the playing area during the hottest part of the day. Maybe something to do with giving Aussie players an advantage?
by meganfernandez
Deuce wrote:
ashkor87 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:33 am
Krejcikova struggling with the heat..Americans, especially those who train in Florida, generally handle heat better..I remember Osaka brushing off a question on heat, saying this is nothing compared to what I am used to,every day.
ashkor87 wrote:Krejcikova struggling with the heat..Americans, especially those who train in Florida, generally handle heat better..I remember Osaka brushing off a question on heat, saying this is nothing compared to what I am used to,every day.
They should have misting fans on the court.
Not only should they have misting fans available, but when the 'heat index' that they use to measure the severity of the heat reaches, say, 3.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5), they should extend the time between serves to 35 seconds from 25. Because you want the playing field to be as level as possible - and when it's this hot, there is a decided and obvious advantage to those who live in hot climates.
Sure, there are advantages of playing surface for players who grew up playing on certain surfaces... but the goal should be to have an even playing field with elements that can't be controlled - like the heat. I've seen too many players not be able to handle the heat - which happens mostly on hard courts, because the heat is coming down from the sun AND up from the court. When players have difficulty handling the heat, not only is it not good (and potentially dangerous) for the player in question, but it's also not good for the people watching the match, as it robs them of a high quality match.
As well, those 'canopies' that they have over the player's benches/chairs should be left extended during play so that they keep the player bench area in the shade. Otherwise, the players are going to sit on a boiling hot bench, and by the time the stupid automatic canopy pops up, the area is only starting to cool down when the changeover time is finished.
But they want to show off their automatic canopy, just like they love showing off their ostentatious elevator umpire chair...
I'm also wondering why they didn't build the Laver stadium to provide shade to the playing area during the hottest part of the day. Maybe something to do with giving Aussie players an advantage?
Let’s leave the elevator chair out of this. I like it.
What about ice vests? Seriously, could players choose to play in an ice vest? An “athletic cut” one so it’s not bulky? Santas wear them under their suits!
Meanwhile, just a couple brain farts by Shapo and he’s down a set and a break. He’s playing well but you have to be phenomenal vs Rafa when he’s in form.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by meganfernandez Brad Gilbert: “The trainer has the weirdest clap I have ever seen.” Shapo’s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by Deuce I'm not at all surprised that this is Nadal's match. He simply has an extra gear that others don't have. And that 'extra gear' is not so much in physical ability (though there is that advantage, as well), but more in the area of drive and determination. And experience over youngsters like Denis, too, of course.
He's just in a different category.
Still.
And the only umpires who use the elevator chair should be those who are physically unable to climb the steps to the chair. Otherwise, it is the very definition of 'unnecessary' and 'ostentatious' .
by meganfernandez
Deuce wrote:I'm not at all surprised that this is Nadal's match. He simply has an extra gear that others don't have. And that 'extra gear' is not so much in physical ability (though there is that advantage, as well), but more in the area of drive and determination. And experience over youngsters like Denis, too, of course.
He's just in a different category.
Still.
And the only umpires who use the elevator chair should be those who are physically unable to climb the steps to the chair. Otherwise, it is the very definition of 'unnecessary' and 'ostentatious' .
Me neither! I picked Nadal to win the tournament and thought he’s win this is 4 at the most. He’s healthy and he’s motivated. Only about 2 people can beat him in this form. However, Shapo was had chances.
Elevator chair is cool. Unnecessary but so is this phone in my hand. Not everything has to be necessary! It’s fun and cool. Maybe this actually is an accessibility thing though. I read about the Australian architecture firm that designed them. Anyway, you keep climbing stairs. I’ll take the funicular.
by JazzNU
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:10 am
I went to college in Florida, prior to Climate Change. I would train at noon, on purpose.
You would squeeze your shirt, make a pool on the court, and by the time you were ready to serve again, the puddle was gone. So it is a very big advantage.
---0---
Lovely match from Maddie. I don't know now if I want Cornet or Keys to win the whole thing, but it would be a great story either way.
Doesn't even have to be Florida that you're used to is the thing here. Late spring and summer in plenty of places on the East Coast, parts of the Midwest, Louisiana, Texas and many Southern states, will get you plenty used to the heat and humidity. Camp, practice, other outdoor activities, they only get cancelled when the index reaches levels that equal unhealthy, and even then, I remember we still went out for tennis camp for 2-3 hours one day, just did in the morning before it the worst of the heat settled in. You just roll with it because that's how it is most days, can't cancel everyday for heat and humidity. Doesn't feel like an advantage when you're out in it, but glad it's good for something.
Deuce wrote:
And the only umpires who use the elevator chair should be those who are physically unable to climb the steps to the chair. Otherwise, it is the very definition of 'unnecessary' and 'ostentatious' .
Elevator chair is cool. Unnecessary but so is this phone in my hand. Not everything has to be necessary! It’s fun and cool. Maybe this actually is an accessibility thing though. I read about the Australian architecture firm that designed them. Anyway, you keep climbing stairs. I’ll take the funicular.
From a 'Batman' episode (the hilarious TV show):
Dick Grayson (Robin): We'd better get home.
Bruce Wayne (Batman): No, there's no time for that.
We'll change into our spare Bat-outfits in the limousine and leg it to police headquarters.
Dick Grayson (Robin): Leg it? How about a taxi?
Bruce Wayne (Batman): Arriving at Commissioner Gordon's office in a taxi might be deemed a trifle ostentatious, Dick.
Dick Grayson (Robin): But that's three miles from here.
Bruce Wayne (Batman): A sound mind in a sound body!
Deuce wrote:
And the only umpires who use the elevator chair should be those who are physically unable to climb the steps to the chair. Otherwise, it is the very definition of 'unnecessary' and 'ostentatious' .
Elevator chair is cool. Unnecessary but so is this phone in my hand. Not everything has to be necessary! It’s fun and cool. Maybe this actually is an accessibility thing though. I read about the Australian architecture firm that designed them. Anyway, you keep climbing stairs. I’ll take the funicular.
From a 'Batman' episode (the hilarious TV show):
Dick Grayson (Robin): We'd better get home.
Bruce Wayne (Batman): No, there's no time for that.
We'll change into our spare Bat-outfits in the limousine and leg it to police headquarters.
Dick Grayson (Robin): Leg it? How about a taxi?
Bruce Wayne (Batman): Arriving at Commissioner Gordon's office in a taxi might be deemed a trifle ostentatious, Dick.
Dick Grayson (Robin): But that's three miles from here.
Bruce Wayne (Batman): A sound mind in a sound body!
Convenience is the enemy of mankind.
Okay we are living in different worlds. Which is fine.
This match is heating up!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
by jazzyg OK, I've seen one too many comments about Cornet as a possible tournament winner.
She is going to have a hard time winning games against Collins in the quarters if Collins is healthy.
by Deuce
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:05 am
OK, I've seen one too many comments about Cornet as a possible tournament winner.
She is going to have a hard time winning games against Collins in the quarters if Collins is healthy.
If Collins is healthy physically or mentally?
She has a reputation of allowing her rage - which is a product of nervousness and frustration - affect her play negatively.
I think Cornet has a definite chance to win this match - not only because Collins can be hot or cold and prone to mental 'meltdowns', but also because Cornet will fight for points as much as Collins will (she'll just do so less loudly and brashly). And this is the closest that Cornet has ever been to a Major final - and it could well be the last time she's in this position - so that'll be extra motivation.
The only potential negative I see for Cornet is the heat. But she's not THAT old - only just turned 32. We tend to think she's older because she's been around forever. And she did handle the heat well yesterday vs. Halep - so maybe it'll actually be Collins melting from the heat.
In any case, I think it'll be an interesting and fairly close match.
Denis is definitely playing better now than he was in the first two sets...
But Nadal will kick it into that extra gear.
I don't see anyone but Nadal winning this match.
by mick1303 I agree that these conditions are built-in disadvantage for European/Canadian players. I'm still sure that Hingis would've easily won that match against Capriati if not for the heat.
by Suliso
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:05 am
OK, I've seen one too many comments about Cornet as a possible tournament winner.
She is going to have a hard time winning games against Collins in the quarters if Collins is healthy.
That's an exaggeration, but I agree that at most there is one more win for Cornet in this tournament.
by Suliso
Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:18 am
Denis is definitely playing better now than he was in the first two sets...
But Nadal will kick it into that extra gear. I don't see anyone but Nadal winning this match.
Correct, but it is taking him a lot more effort than I anticipated after the first hour of the match.
Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:18 am
Denis is definitely playing better now than he was in the first two sets...
But Nadal will kick it into that extra gear. I don't see anyone but Nadal winning this match.
Correct, but it is taking him a lot more effort than I anticipated after the first hour of the match.
Yeah - I wasn't anticipating the upset stomach. But even with that, I never doubted he'd win. He pretty much always finds a way to win the important matches - except sometimes when Federer or Djokovic are around. He's not going to lose to someone like Denis at a Major. He's just much more contained, disciplined, and mature than Denis - much less 'wild'.
It''s a good thing that he gets 2 full days off to rest and recover now, though.
I'm not at all a fan of Nadal's heavy topspin game - I prefer a more creative variety - but I admire his drive and determination, and he's always been a class act both on and off the court.
by Suliso I think Medvedev will take him down if there is such a match of course.
by Suliso Barty is crushing Pegula like a pesky bug. I really see no one other than Keys who could hinder her romp to the title.
by Liamvalid Barty’s a funny one for me. Personality wise, she is one of my favourites and I think it is great to have her as the number one player and a role model for young women. But I just don’t enjoy her matches that much
by Deuce Monfils can definitely win this match.
It might all depend on how much he wants to (which is often the case with him).
by mick1303 Since I consider Nadal possible winning AO as a big downside to the sport of tennis overall given the circumstances of Djokovic absence, I have to look now at who can stop him. I have more faith in Berretini than in Monfils here. Talking about the final is premature, because we don't know what kind of form will other finalist bring after quarters and semis.
If someone other than Nadal wins it - ok this win will be somewhat asterisked, but nobody of other players here contests for the title of the best ever. But Nadal does. And if he will surge ahead when Djokovic is absent for reasons not related to tennis, this would invalidate all future discussions on the matter. And it would be sad IMO.
by Deuce Down 2 sets to love now, Monfils can no longer win. He had several chances in the 2nd set, but let them go.
Now, it's showtime - he'll hit some fancy shots to show everyone what he can do.
It's too bad he's always been more interested in showing off his athleticism than in winning the big matches.
by Deuce
mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:39 am
Since I consider Nadal possible winning AO as a big downside to the sport of tennis overall given the circumstances of Djokovic absence, I have to look now at who can stop him. I have more faith in Berretini than in Monfils here. Talking about the final is premature, because we don't know what kind of form will other finalist bring after quarters and semis.
If someone other than Nadal wins it - ok this win will be somewhat asterisked, but nobody of other players here contests for the title of the best ever. But Nadal does. And if he will surge ahead when Djokovic is absent for reasons not related to tennis, this would invalidate all future discussions on the matter. And it would be sad IMO.
I wouldn't say that whoever wins this is not a legitimate winner. Djokovic made a choice. He knew what the conditions were to play, and he chose not to abide by those conditions. In that sense, it's no different than if he wanted to play with a racquet that was longer than the rules permit, and refused to play with any other racquet. In other words, he disqualified himself. If he were arrested for murder and didn't play because he was in prison, it would be similar - he would be absent via his own actions.
He's not playing entirely through his own doing. Not due to injury or some fluke occurrence - but by his own decision. Just like Tennys Sandgren, who also chose not to abide by the conditions.
These guys had the option of getting vaccinated. They chose not to. Sandgren had no illusions about manipulating the system in order to get into the tournament. Djokovic did. He knew the rules and thought he was above them; thought he could get in through a crack. He was wrong. He gambled and lost.
So, to take credit away from the eventual winner here because of Djokovic's entirely voluntary actions would be wrong.
mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:39 am
Since I consider Nadal possible winning AO as a big downside to the sport of tennis overall given the circumstances of Djokovic absence, I have to look now at who can stop him. I have more faith in Berretini than in Monfils here. Talking about the final is premature, because we don't know what kind of form will other finalist bring after quarters and semis.
If someone other than Nadal wins it - ok this win will be somewhat asterisked, but nobody of other players here contests for the title of the best ever. But Nadal does. And if he will surge ahead when Djokovic is absent for reasons not related to tennis, this would invalidate all future discussions on the matter. And it would be sad IMO.
I wouldn't say that whoever wins this is not a legitimate winner. Djokovic made a choice. He knew what the conditions were to play, and he chose not to abide by those conditions. In that sense, it's no different than if he wanted to play with a racquet that was longer than the rules permit, and refused to play with any other racquet. In other words, he disqualified himself. If he were arrested for murder and didn't play because he was in prison, it would be similar - he would be absent via his own actions.
He's not playing entirely through his own doing. Not due to injury or some fluke occurrence - but by his own decision. Just like Tennys Sandgren, who also chose not to abide by the conditions.
These guys had the option of getting vaccinated. They chose not to. Sandgren had no illusions about manipulating the system in order to get into the tournament. Djokovic did. He knew the rules and thought he was above them; thought he could get in through a crack. He was wrong. He gambled and lost.
So, to take credit away from the eventual winner here because of Djokovic's entirely voluntary actions would be wrong.
.
There is more than one way to look at this. But since the issue is beaten to death, I don't want to discuss it further. Hope Matteo wins in 4.
by Deuce Going against his history and reputation, Monfils is actually hanging in there (with a lot of help from Berrettini). After he lost the 2nd, I truly thought he'd be gone in 3 - or in 4 at the most.
Maybe the security of marriage has served as motivation - and increased maturity. Maybe he actually has a desire to win now.
That would be a good thing, as he's obviously enormously talented. A little late, though, at 35 years old.
These guys are going 5 sets and close to 4 hours (by the end), and their reward is to play Nadal. Perhaps the factor that evens out that eventual matchup to a degree is that Nadal had to play in the hot sun, whereas these guys are playing at night.
The chair umpires are being rather bold at this tournament, with a few of them directly admonishing people in the crowd. Like right now, where the umpire said directly to a person - or group - in the crowd "If you don't want to watch, please leave."
I like that.
by meganfernandez
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:05 am
OK, I've seen one too many comments about Cornet as a possible tournament winner.
She is going to have a hard time winning games against Collins in the quarters if Collins is healthy.
It's a long shot but I do think she could make the final if Kanepi wins. I think Cornet could beat Collins but would lose to Swiatek. Bug what do I know. I haven't even seen Swiatek play this tournament. I think Swiatek is the clear favorite in the bottom half but anyone could make the final. What a huge opportunity!
by meganfernandez Same. Damn. People. in the quarters. Was really hoping Monfils would pull it off. Maybe Sinner can shake things up. Not giving Felix much of a chance. Maybe I should.
by jazzyg
Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:08 am
Yeah - I wasn't anticipating the upset stomach. But even with that, I never doubted he'd win. He pretty much always finds a way to win the important matches - except sometimes when Federer or Djokovic are around. He's not going to lose to someone like Denis at a Major. He's just much more contained, disciplined, and mature than Denis - much less 'wild'.
I'm just shaking my head. Shapovalov absolutely, positively had a chance to win that match, but you've made your intensely negative feelings about Shapovalov's game well known. You have your views on Canadian players and refuse to change them regardless of what happens. Yes, Shapovalov's looseness caught up to him at the end, but it was by no means inevitable. Nadal was lucky to win that match. If Shapo had converted any of the three break points he had early in the fifth set--and he had a good look at the last two--he would have been the clear favorite. Nadal's a 35-year-old coming off a six-month layoff, and Shapovalov has the perfect game to beat him. He won about five points with athletic plays at the net that would have been certain Nadal winners against anyone else left in the field.
I thought Nadal would lose going into that match, but now he has a chance to win the tournament because none of the players left have games that match up with his as well as Shapo's. Berrettini has the serve and willpower, but he does not have the speed. The number one factor in being able to beat Rafa is the ability to chase down his huge shots and get them back deep because anything short is a killer against him and once he gets on top of a point, he almost never loses it.
Medvedev is a terrific talent and has the belief and results to beat Rafa, but he plays too far behind the baseline and is not aggressive enough during rallies. If he beats Rafa, it will be because of his confidence because the matchup itself is a problem.
Tsitsipas has the will power and the speed, but I'm not sure he's playing very well right now. Have not seen any of his matches.
Sinner does not play defense well enough and can't come to the net to finish off points.
Auger-Aliassime is too up and down from day to match and within matches, although if he really puts it together, he matches up with Rafa the best of the remaining players because of his serve, firepower and movement.
Regardless, it should be interesting. Every quarterfinalist deserves to be there and has serious game.
The truly inevitable result was Berrettini winning the fifth set easily over Monfils. On one side, you had a player who cares immensely about winning and puts in the time to ensure it happens. On the other side, you had a player who cares about entertaining and competing but is not consumed about winning or getting in tip-top shape and always comes up empty when it matters in slams. This one was reminiscent of the match Monfils lost to Murray at Roland Garrros years ago when he rallied from a two-set deficit to equalize and had the entire stadium rocking as darkness approached, then lost the fifth set in like 20 minutes when his game disintegrated.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:05 am
OK, I've seen one too many comments about Cornet as a possible tournament winner.
She is going to have a hard time winning games against Collins in the quarters if Collins is healthy.
It's a long shot but I do think she could make the final if Kanepi wins. I think Cornet could beat Collins but would lose to Swiatek. Bug what do I know. I haven't even seen Swiatek play this tournament. I think Swiatek is the clear favorite in the bottom half but anyone could make the final. What a huge opportunity!
First off, I've shown in the past that like anyone, I have the infinite capacity to be wrong, but I watch every point of almost every match Halep plays on TV, and she simply played terribly against Cornet, likely in large part to being sick. She hit brilliant shots on the first two match points she faced, and she played a gorgeous point on the very first point of the match. Other than that, it was by far her worst performance of any of her seven this year, as typified by the incredibly lame service return into the bottom of the net on the final match point.
If Collins' back is OK, she is going to hit about 20 service return winners against Cornet. I can see a scoreline of 6-2, 6-2 if Cornet gets frustrated. If not, Cornet is capable of hanging close in one of the two sets. She was down 6-4, 4-1, 30-0 to Zidansek in the third round while Zidansek was playing hurt. Collins is a better player with a lot more self belief on hard courts than Zidansek.
Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:08 am
Yeah - I wasn't anticipating the upset stomach. But even with that, I never doubted he'd win. He pretty much always finds a way to win the important matches - except sometimes when Federer or Djokovic are around. He's not going to lose to someone like Denis at a Major. He's just much more contained, disciplined, and mature than Denis - much less 'wild'.
I'm just shaking my head. Shapovalov absolutely, positively had a chance to win that match, but you've made your intensely negative feelings about Shapovalov's game well known. You have your views on Canadian players and refuse to change them regardless of what happens.
^ No - I refuse to change my perspective BECAUSE of what happens.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pm
Yes, Shapovalov's looseness caught up to him at the end, but it was by no means inevitable.
^ Yup - it was inevitable.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pm
Nadal was lucky to win that match.
^ Nope - Nadal won because he has a much more mature desire to win than Denis does.
And because he's got much more experience.
That's why it was inevitable (barring injury).
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pm
If Shapo had converted any of the three break points he had early in the fifth set--and he had a good look at the last two--he would have been the clear favorite.
^ He might have been the 'clear favourite' in that circumstance vs. some other players, but not vs. Nadal. Regardless of what Denis did, Nadal was going to win that match if he remained physically healthy enough. Denis is simply not in the same league.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pm Nadal's a 35-year-old coming off a six-month layoff,
^ No - he's a little more than that. Just slightly...
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pmand Shapovalov has the perfect game to beat him. He won about five points with athletic plays at the net that would have been certain Nadal winners against anyone else left in the field.
^ Denis is still much too wild and immature and inconsistent. Therefore, he doesn't "have the perfect game to beat Nadal" - because the game consists not only of physical ability, but also of mental fortitude - and Nadal is miles ahead of Denis in that very important category.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pmThe number one factor in being able to beat Rafa is the ability to chase down his huge shots and get them back deep because anything short is a killer against him and once he gets on top of a point, he almost never loses it.
^ I think the primary factor in beating Nadal is to be mentally stronger than him; to want to win more than him - and that's much, much, much easier said than done.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pmAuger-Aliassime is too up and down from day to match and within matches, although if he really puts it together, he matches up with Rafa the best of the remaining players because of his serve, firepower and movement.
^ Felix is too inconsistent, but Denis isn't??
As inconsistent as Felix is, Denis is even more inconsistent. Part of that is because he plays a much riskier game than Felix. Another part of it is because Felix is considerably more mature than Denis.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pmRegardless, it should be interesting. Every quarterfinalist deserves to be there and has serious game.
^ I agree on both counts.
jazzyg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:14 pmThe truly inevitable result was Berrettini winning the fifth set easily over Monfils. On one side, you had a player who cares immensely about winning and puts in the time to ensure it happens. On the other side, you had a player who cares about entertaining and competing but is not consumed about winning or getting in tip-top shape and always comes up empty when it matters in slams. This one was reminiscent of the match Monfils lost to Murray at Roland Garrros years ago when he rallied from a two-set deficit to equalize and had the entire stadium rocking as darkness approached, then lost the fifth set in like 20 minutes when his game disintegrated.
^ I agree here, too.
by ponchi101 The only tournament win I will ever put an asterisk on is the 1973 Wimbledon, which has an asterisk because the entire tour boycotted it (ATP). If you put an asterisk on every tournament in which the top player in the world was unable to play, wow, that disqualifies a lot of history.
by mick1303
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:59 pm
The only tournament win I will ever put an asterisk on is the 1973 Wimbledon, which has an asterisk because the entire tour boycotted it (ATP). If you put an asterisk on every tournament in which the top player in the world was unable to play, wow, that disqualifies a lot of history.
The players are absent due to "natural" reasons: injuries, loss of form. It is tennis related. No asterisks needed. But when someone stabs the player with a knife or "Open" tournament becomes not so open for political reasons - this is not about tennis. I consider these reasons "not natural". But that is just me.
by ponchi101 Serious question. As you say that the tournament is not open for political reasons: do you think that Djokovic not being allowed to enter the country was for political reasons? Why would Australia want to ban Novak? If they wanted, wasn't it like 8 slams too late? And Australia has a very large Serbian migrant population, which says that they are not anti-Serbian (Tomljanovic is of Serbain parents, and almost all Aussie tennis players are from foreing parenets). I am really curious.
by JazzNU I'll repeat what I said yesterday, the ATP has a real likability problem at the top of the sport. What a brat.
by mick1303
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:01 pm
Serious question. As you say that the tournament is not open for political reasons: do you think that Djokovic not being allowed to enter the country was for political reasons? Why would Australia want to ban Novak? If they wanted, wasn't it like 8 slams too late? And Australia has a very large Serbian migrant population, which says that they are not anti-Serbian (Tomljanovic is of Serbain parents, and almost all Aussie tennis players are from foreing parenets). I am really curious.
That was basically their official explanation. Not because he violated some rules (the court established that the he's done exactly what was told to him). But because of the possibility of "civil unrest". Many observers say that federal officials exploited the outrage of local people "he is allowed to enter not vaccinated, while we are suffering".
But this is one layer of this story. Another layer is that some company digging for natural resources was seen off from Serbia. And this company they say have some connections to Australian PM relative. Whatever was done to Djokovic (they gave him the visa and then basically arrested upon arrival) was a payback.
Deuce I did not see your post until play actually began and as is sometimes the case with me it took me a minute to understand what had happened. If I had seen your post I would've left mine as it was.
Thanks for posting the link to the full OoP.
by Liamvalid We all know Djokovic has Rafa’s number on this surface, but there are still people in the draw who have/can beat Djokovic on hard. Putting an asterisk next to someone’s AO title because Djokovic didn’t play would be the same entitlement BS that has turned people against him in the first place
He is reaping what he sowed by posting all over social media that he was exempt from the rules
by meganfernandez
ponchi101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:01 pm
Serious question. As you say that the tournament is not open for political reasons: do you think that Djokovic not being allowed to enter the country was for political reasons? Why would Australia want to ban Novak? If they wanted, wasn't it like 8 slams too late? And Australia has a very large Serbian migrant population, which says that they are not anti-Serbian (Tomljanovic is of Serbain parents, and almost all Aussie tennis players are from foreing parenets). I am really curious.
I think it was somewhat and possibly largely political, but not at all about Djokovic getting to 22 or not. Those leaders don't care. They care about money and power. The whole exemptions process between TA and State of Victoria was probably somewhat political, although more so financial. Sounds like TA & Victoria really got their wires crossed with the federal government on the exemption, and that was the root of the problem. Unless it was almost entirely political and TA/Victoria didn't expect the feds to interfere.
I'm resigned that I'll never fully understand and what happened behind closed doors. This should have been much more black and white - here are the entry requirements, here are the valid reasons for an exemption, here's who decides if Novak qualifies for an exemption and therefore entry, done. It became something totally different.
Definitely no asterisk. He didn't even win the previous Slam - he wasn't a lock for the title. Favorite but not a lock. We saw how he cracked under the pressure of making history at the US Open. Same thing could have happened. And he might have gotten injured or sick. Or just lost a close match, as people do.
by JazzNU
Liamvalid wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:42 pm
We all know Djokovic has Rafa’s number on this surface, but there are still people in the draw who have/can beat Djokovic on hard. Putting an asterisk next to someone’s AO title because Djokovic didn’t play would be the same entitlement BS that has turned people against him in the first place
He is reaping what he sowed by posting all over social media that he was exempt from the rules
I agree with everything but the first part. Rafa had Djokovic's number at RG and then 2021 happened. The matches need to be played, the results shouldn't be presumed.
Also, a good number of you were saying Djokovic wanted the Golden Slam last year and were certain he wouldn't skip the Olympics and when I said his Gold wasn't guaranteed and listed possible players that could beat him, you all laughed at me for thinking he could lose. No idea why anyone is still assuming a specific result even if he was in the draw.
There is no asterisk for whoever wins this GS title. Novak made his bed and has to live with his choices.
by mick1303 I think ppl put different meaning into the asterisk. Of course, nothing is 100% certain. Nobody deals in absolutes. But Novak's dominance in Australia was exceeded only by Nadal's dominance in Roland Garros. I have to remind you that some Nadal fans wanted to put an asterisk to RF 2009 win, because he did not beat Nadal.
by MJ2004 Rafa answered a couple of questions regarding Shapo's comments, primarily in the first eight minutes, and in doing so offered a free lesson on how to be the bigger person:
by ponchi101
mick1303 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:08 pm
I think ppl put different meaning into the asterisk. Of course, nothing is 100% certain. Nobody deals in absolutes. But Novak's dominance in Australia was exceeded only by Nadal's dominance in Roland Garros. I have to remind you that some Nadal fans wanted to put an asterisk to RF 2009 win, because he did not beat Nadal.
Oh, of course, if you want to, ALL tournaments have an asterisk. It is the history of the tournament, what was going on at the moment, and such. For example, the 1999 USO has a great history to it. Not only did Agassi won it, but the four 1998 semi-finalitst were unable to compete, each one for a different reason.
But in the vernacular, "putting an asterisk" next to a victory usually is meant as saying that such a victory was suspect. That was the reason I was asking.
So, for example, if FAA were to win the tournament, I would wonder if any asterisk would still be warranted for the event.
by Deuce
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:22 pm
Rafa answered a couple of questions regarding Shapo's comments, primarily in the first eight minutes, and in doing so offered a free lesson on how to be the bigger person:
As I said - he's miles ahead of Denis in the maturity department.
The difference is greater than the difference between their ages, with Denis being immature even for his age.
Deuce I did not see your post until play actually began and as is sometimes the case with me it took me a minute to understand what had happened. If I had seen your post I would've left mine as it was.
Thanks for posting the link to the full OoP.
No problem at all.
I just happened to see that the Order of Play wasn't complete in your post at that time, and I had it open on the Aussie Open site in another tab, so I simply linked to it.
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:22 pm
Rafa answered a couple of questions regarding Shapo's comments, primarily in the first eight minutes, and in doing so offered a free lesson on how to be the bigger person:
As I said - he's miles ahead of Denis in the maturity department.
The difference is greater than the difference between their ages, with Denis being immature even for his age.
I think it is the case when the essense of the message is getting lost because of the messenger. Yes, Denis is indeed immatury, but at the same time Rafa indeed gets preferential treatment with how he manages play interruptions to his advantage. Just denying it with a smile on his face is not "being mature", it is just experience in dealing with a media.
MJ2004 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:22 pm
Rafa answered a couple of questions regarding Shapo's comments, primarily in the first eight minutes, and in doing so offered a free lesson on how to be the bigger person:
As I said - he's miles ahead of Denis in the maturity department.
The difference is greater than the difference between their ages, with Denis being immature even for his age.
I think it is the case when the essense of the message is getting lost because of the messenger. Yes, Denis is indeed immatury, but at the same time Rafa indeed gets preferential treatment with how he manages play interruptions to his advantage. Just denying it with a smile on his face is not "being mature", it is just experience in dealing with a media.
Ok - I can accept that. The top players do get preferential treatment - as do the players who are known to complain the most - because the umpires simply don't want to deal with them.
Of course, there are some things which can't be overlooked no matter who the offender is - like hitting a lineswoman in the throat with a ball as a random, once hypothetical example .
I do maintain that Nadal is mature in the way that he comports himself, not just experienced.
My B.S. meter is quite accurate, and I view Nadal as being sincere 99% of the time.
Deuce wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:32 am
As I said - he's miles ahead of Denis in the maturity department.
The difference is greater than the difference between their ages, with Denis being immature even for his age.
I think it is the case when the essense of the message is getting lost because of the messenger. Yes, Denis is indeed immatury, but at the same time Rafa indeed gets preferential treatment with how he manages play interruptions to his advantage. Just denying it with a smile on his face is not "being mature", it is just experience in dealing with a media.
Ok - I can accept that. The top players do get preferential treatment - as do the players who are known to complain the most - because the umpires simply don't want to deal with them.
Of course, there are some things which can't be overlooked no matter who the offender is - like hitting a lineswoman in the throat with a ball as a random, once hypothetical example .
I do maintain that Nadal is mature in the way that he comports himself, not just experienced.
My B.S. meter is quite accurate, and I view Nadal as being sincere 99% of the time.
This was probably one of those cases falling under remaining 1% ))
I think it is the case when the essense of the message is getting lost because of the messenger. Yes, Denis is indeed immatury, but at the same time Rafa indeed gets preferential treatment with how he manages play interruptions to his advantage. Just denying it with a smile on his face is not "being mature", it is just experience in dealing with a media.
And what is the difference between those two things?
.