Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colfax, NC
    Wow. Unseeded Kyle Edmund takes out Dimitrov. He is in a Grand Slam semi final, likely to play Nadal (2 sets to 1 up on Cilic as I write this). I saw Edmund play in the semi finals in WS last fall. This has got to be his best result in a major - by far I would think. Think he got a default to Kyrgios in the '16 USOpen, then from memory think he got beaten badly by Joker next round (maybe round of 16?).

  2. #22
    Wow... Nadal is out.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colfax, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Wow... Nadal is out.
    Yeah, WOW. Obviously didn't see that coming. But in fairness, didn't see any of it, and apparently Nadal was injured and retired down 2-0 in the fifth.

    Waters parting quite nicely for Roger. Quarterfinal tonight/tomorrow (probably late match in Sydney so technically tomorrow for us) versus Berdych looming large.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Wave Dukie View Post
    Yeah, WOW. Obviously didn't see that coming. But in fairness, didn't see any of it, and apparently Nadal was injured and retired down 2-0 in the fifth.

    Waters parting quite nicely for Roger. Quarterfinal tonight/tomorrow (probably late match in Sydney so technically tomorrow for us) versus Berdych looming large.
    Cilic ran Nadal side to side, and then would hit behind Nadal, causing repeated direction changes. Nadal had issues in his right hip, and used his last medical time out before starting the 5th set. The trainer was aggressively trying to stretch it out, so it was likely a cramp, but it was clear he wasn't going to be able to continue.

    Cilic was an offensive machine in the 4th set, Nadal was amazing not just for getting from sideline to sideline, but for hitting aggressive returns. What really impressed me was that Cilic would occasionally follow a shot into the net and Nadal would hit a top spin return that Cilic would have to reach for and volley about a foot off of the ground. At 6'6", Cilic would not only get the ball back over, he would hit winners. An amazing display of tennis.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Cilic ran Nadal side to side, and then would hit behind Nadal, causing repeated direction changes. Nadal had issues in his right hip, and used his last medical time out before starting the 5th set. The trainer was aggressively trying to stretch it out, so it was likely a cramp, but it was clear he wasn't going to be able to continue.

    Cilic was an offensive machine in the 4th set, Nadal was amazing not just for getting from sideline to sideline, but for hitting aggressive returns. What really impressed me was that Cilic would occasionally follow a shot into the net and Nadal would hit a top spin return that Cilic would have to reach for and volley about a foot off of the ground. At 6'6", Cilic would not only get the ball back over, he would hit winners. An amazing display of tennis.
    Agreed, Cilic was awesome. It was a miracle that Rafa won that third set. Cilic had easy service games while Nadal consistently struggled in HIS service games, and yet somehow it went to a tiebreaker in which Cilic choked on a putaway at 5-5 followed by Rafa finishing with a clutch serve-and-volley to win the tiebreak 7-5. It was typical Rafa really, gutting one out. I thought Cilic might mentally break down after losing the 3rd, but he stayed strong and Nadal eventually broke down physically.

    I hope you're right that it was just a cramp and not another major injury for Rafa.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Wave Dukie View Post
    Yeah, WOW. Obviously didn't see that coming. But in fairness, didn't see any of it, and apparently Nadal was injured and retired down 2-0 in the fifth.
    I'm not sure why you guys would be surprised (unless by "wow" you just meant "another big name out") by the No. 6 seed winning a QF match. It's not like Cilic hasn't been here before. I guess I always considered him the bigger threat to Nadal's Finals aspirations than Dimitrov, despite the No. 3 seeding for Grigor. I suppose he's earned that 3 seed with a strong finish to 2017, but he's still never managed to not fall apart on the big stage. I can't recall him ever beating one of Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray or Wawrinka in the later stages of a big tournament.

    Anyway, I wouldn't put it past Cilic to win this tournament, but it certainly looks like Roger's to take if he's on his game. Would be interesting to see a rematch of the Wimbledon Final from last year where Federer and some injuries combined to just emotionally destroy Cilic.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colfax, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    I'm not sure why you guys would be surprised (unless by "wow" you just meant "another big name out") by the No. 6 seed winning a QF match. It's not like Cilic hasn't been here before. I guess I always considered him the bigger threat to Nadal's Finals aspirations than Dimitrov, despite the No. 3 seeding for Grigor. I suppose he's earned that 3 seed with a strong finish to 2017, but he's still never managed to not fall apart on the big stage. I can't recall him ever beating one of Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray or Wawrinka in the later stages of a big tournament.

    Anyway, I wouldn't put it past Cilic to win this tournament, but it certainly looks like Roger's to take if he's on his game. Would be interesting to see a rematch of the Wimbledon Final from last year where Federer and some injuries combined to just emotionally destroy Cilic.
    Yeah, my wow had nothing to do with Dimitrov, who I fully expected to lose to Kyrgios in the round of 16. But I was surprised to see Nadal lose a quarterfinal match at a major in which he was up 2 sets to 1. That was what surprised me. Doesn't seem to me like that is any kind of frequent occurrence, though sure it has happened previously once or twice.

    Mal, you may be correct with Cilic being a definite threat to win it all. I was overlooking him for sure.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Whoa, congrats to Wozniacki.

    I think I long ago pegged her as someone who would never win a Slam. Sort of like a Danish version of Kournikova or something. Her draw at this year's Aussie was REALLY good for her, but she still had to win the matches and she still had to beat in the final World #1 Halep, who has had her own issues in Slams.

    Rooting for Fed tonight to get #20.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colfax, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post

    Rooting for Fed tonight to get #20.
    Me, too, brother. 3:30am alarm gonna come pretty early, but I look at it like it is a chance to see history. I am 53 and at this point, I would not at all be surprised if no one gets past 20 grand slams in my lifetime. Obviously, a LOT can happen in the future (just ask Doc & Marty), but I just love watching Roger play.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Wave Dukie View Post
    Me, too, brother. 3:30am alarm gonna come pretty early, but I look at it like it is a chance to see history. I am 53 and at this point, I would not at all be surprised if no one gets past 20 grand slams in my lifetime. Obviously, a LOT can happen in the future (just ask Doc & Marty), but I just love watching Roger play.
    Same. I think he would be safe from anyone overtaking him at 20 Slams.

    Really, if Novak (elbow), Andy (hip), and Rafa (everything) continue to have health problems over the next few seasons, you could even say Roger outlasted his rivals despite being much older than them. A lot of credit would have to go to his natural talent to play a graceful style of tennis that ends points early. That's how he's still playing so well at 36 years of age and maybe why the relative-to-him defensive grinders are having issues physically.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Wave Dukie View Post
    Me, too, brother. 3:30am alarm gonna come pretty early, but I look at it like it is a chance to see history. I am 53 and at this point, I would not at all be surprised if no one gets past 20 grand slams in my lifetime. Obviously, a LOT can happen in the future (just ask Doc & Marty), but I just love watching Roger play.
    I believe you'll be able to watch it tomorrow on replay on espn.com. I mean, if you really need your beauty sleep.

    Just watch it as soon as you get up, you don't want to inadvertently catch any sports news. I can't stand to know the ending ahead of time, that's the best thing about sports.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Watching carolina Go To HELL!
    Címon Roger! One more set!
    Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!

    Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
    9F 9F 9F
    http://www.EGLEW.com


  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    And there's #20! Congrats to Federer, who has seemingly gotten more clutch later in his career, among his many wonders.

    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I believe you'll be able to watch it tomorrow on replay on espn.com. I mean, if you really need your beauty sleep.

    Just watch it as soon as you get up, you don't want to inadvertently catch any sports news. I can't stand to know the ending ahead of time, that's the best thing about sports.
    Fed's worth getting up for, though. It's doubtful we'll ever see someone win 20 Slams again, and rarely does a great player come along who plays an aesthetically pleasing game with such variety. And the combination of the two -- aesthetically pleasing 20 Slam winner -- is going to be impossible to duplicate.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Colfax, NC

    Federer

    The guy is just incredible.

    After losing the 4th set he was down game points in the first 2 games of the fifth. Could have easily been down a break to start the last set - after serving a dismal 39% in the 4th. It was that tight. Johnny Mac made an interesting comment about the possibility of him losing his serve for a third straight time. He was really on the ropes.

    But he raised his level and battled back. He stood so close to the baseline during rallies, taking the ball on the rise on second service returns from inside the baseline, and hitting almost half-volleys on several rallies and keeping the pressure on Cilic; despite Marin being a bigger hitter.

    And he got incredibly emotional during the trophy presentation - as he has a tendency to do.

    Glad I got up for it. Just hope I don't fall asleep during church.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    And there's #20! Congrats to Federer, who has seemingly gotten more clutch later in his career, among his many wonders.



    Fed's worth getting up for, though. It's doubtful we'll ever see someone win 20 Slams again, and rarely does a great player come along who plays an aesthetically pleasing game with such variety. And the combination of the two -- aesthetically pleasing 20 Slam winner -- is going to be impossible to duplicate.
    I don’t know if it is doubtful. Folks were discussing a few years ago that it was unlikely anyone would ever get to his 17, yet Nadal will be a heavy favorite to do so in 5 months. It is certainly possible Nadal doesn’t get there, but I wouldn’t go as far as doubtful.

    Not to take anything away from Federer, who keeps winning well beyond when others have in the past, and continues to blaze trails of accomplishments. But I do suspect he won’t be the only guy of this group to get to 20.
    Last edited by CDu; 01-28-2018 at 08:49 AM.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Wave Dukie View Post
    Glad I got up for it. Just hope I don't fall asleep during church.
    I definitely had some some trouble with that this morning, my friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I don’t know if it is doubtful. Folks were discussing a few years ago that it was unlikely anyone would ever get to his 17, yet Nadal will be a heavy favorite to do so in 5 months. It is certainly possible Nadal doesn’t get there, but I wouldn’t go as far as doubtful.

    Not to take anything away from Federer, who keeps winning well beyond when others have in the past, and continues to blaze trails of accomplishments. But I do suspect he won’t be the only guy of this group to get to 20.
    Well, it'd have to Novak or Rafa getting there, right?

    Novak is sitting at 12 Slams and is considering surgery on his right elbow, which would knock him out of contention for this year. At the start of next year, he'll be 31.5 years old, 2.5 years removed from winning his previous Slam, and 8 Slams away from 20 Slams. I'd call him a longshot.

    Rafa is at 16 Slams, and I agree he should win his 17th Slam at Roland Garros, where he'll also celebrate his 32nd birthday. With how injury-prone he is, can Rafa really win 3 more Slams after turning 32? Especially since he's become a non-factor at Wimbledon in recent years, so he really only contends at three Slams a year (if healthy).

    I'm sticking with "doubtful" and you're more than welcome to remind me of that if Rafa or Novak (or both) reach 20 :-)

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    I definitely had some some trouble with that this morning, my friend.



    Well, it'd have to Novak or Rafa getting there, right?

    Novak is sitting at 12 Slams and is considering surgery on his right elbow, which would knock him out of contention for this year. At the start of next year, he'll be 31.5 years old, 2.5 years removed from winning his previous Slam, and 8 Slams away from 20 Slams. I'd call him a longshot.

    Rafa is at 16 Slams, and I agree he should win his 17th Slam at Roland Garros, where he'll also celebrate his 32nd birthday. With how injury-prone he is, can Rafa really win 3 more Slams after turning 32? Especially since he's become a non-factor at Wimbledon in recent years, so he really only contends at three Slams a year (if healthy).

    I'm sticking with "doubtful" and you're more than welcome to remind me of that if Rafa or Novak (or both) reach 20 :-)
    Weren't people making the same statements about Nadal in 2016? At that point, he'd not won a major in 2 years. He then went on to win 2 finals last year and was VERY close to taking a third. And he was playing as well as anyone before he suffered the muscle strain that knocked him out. If he wins 3 more French titles in his career, then he just needs one more major. Given that players are playing well later in their careers than in the past (and Federer is proof of that), I kind of think he's a reasonably good possibility to get there.

    I don't think Djokovic is at all likely to get there, but I'm not ready to completely write him off either. But he would need to either rebound to his career-best form, or stay fairly elite into his mid/late 30s. And/or he would need to win one or two this year rather than miss the season.

  18. #38
    Going back a year-plus, the thought of Fed/Nadal running off 5 straight (and counting) Slams would have seemed absurd. 6 now seems almost assumed, and continuing beyond that is hardly unlikely. These guys are something very very special.
    Demented and sad, but social, right?

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue in the Face View Post
    Going back a year-plus, the thought of Fed/Nadal running off 5 straight (and counting) Slams would have seemed absurd. 6 now seems almost assumed, and continuing beyond that is hardly unlikely. These guys are something very very special.
    The two most accomplished players ever, and on a short list with Laver (missed the slams in his prime because they were for amateurs only; only player to complete a single-year slam and only player to career slam twice) and Borg (rarely played the Aussie as it was the year-end tourney back then; retired in his prime at 26) for greatest players ever.

    No question they are the greatest post-30 players ever. Hard to argue that either is nearing done now, whereas as of late-2016 that was the conventional wisdom for both.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Weren't people making the same statements about Nadal in 2016? At that point, he'd not won a major in 2 years. He then went on to win 2 finals last year and was VERY close to taking a third...I don't think Djokovic is at all likely to get there, but I'm not ready to completely write him off either.
    With you on both of these. I'd go further on Djokovic. I know that only two years ago he looked like he might be threatening 20 by right NOW, but his drop has been pretty precipitous since then, even before the elbow issue that scuttled the second half of last season and has him still struggling to regain form. His resilience and movement are so critical to his game that he's likely to fall off pretty fast as Father Time starts putting his arm around Novak. I just don't see him having opportunities after about 2020, as a baseline defensive machine with a good but never top tier serve game. Of course, I thought Federer was done about 4 years ago, so what do I know?

    20's achievable for Nadal because of the clay. One of the interesting aspects of his career and success has been how no clay court specialist has emerged as a legitimate longterm threat to him in Paris. Ever. He's easily the greatest clay court player of all time, but who's been No. 2 on clay over the last 12 years or so? There's been no Gustavo Kuerten to come along and supplant Rafa. Soderling might have become that guy, but he retired at age 26. Ferrer or Gasquet maybe had a chance, or maybe Fognini or someone, and perhaps someone like Thiem can still get there, but at the end of the day none of those guys have even made a final at Roland Garros. Nadal's finals wins there have almost exclusively been against his biggest rivals who are better on hardcourts - Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka. That speaks to a lot of things - the overall quality of Fed and Novak et al, Nadal's own greatness as he knocks a lot of guys out in the QF and SF rounds, the growing trend away from specializing in clay as a straight business proposition, since 3/4 of the season is on other surfaces. The bottom line, though, is that there's no reason to think that Nadal won't win another 3 or 4 French Opens. Who's going to beat him there, even at age 32 through 35? He doesn't even have to win anywhere else to reach 20 slam titles.

Similar Threads

  1. 2018-19 Schedule
    By hallcity in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-18-2018, 11:36 PM
  2. 2017 Australian Open
    By Troublemaker in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 02-02-2017, 02:15 PM
  3. Future US Open, British Open, and PGA sites
    By throatybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 06:50 PM
  4. Australian Open 2010
    By snowdenscold in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 12:03 PM
  5. Australian School Answering Machine...very funny
    By DukieBoy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 05:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •