Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Djokovic cruises, and Federer survives a 5-setter. On to yet another top-3 matchup in the semis.

    The more interesting of the quarters come tonight with Nadal-Thiem and Zverev-Wawrinka.
    Although I'd love to see Fed win, I have to admit that the 38 year old has to be an underdog against Djokovic who, to me, just looks better than everyone else right now.

  2. #22
    I wouldn't be she shocked to see a walkover here. Miraculous win from Fed last night. He looked better in the 5th (pain killers? seeing the finish line? just being awesome?), but if he's feeling anything like he felt in the 2nd and 3rd yesterday, he'll have trouble even winning points against Djokovic.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by robed deity View Post
    I wouldn't be she shocked to see a walkover here. Miraculous win from Fed last night. He looked better in the 5th (pain killers? seeing the finish line? just being awesome?), but if he's feeling anything like he felt in the 2nd and 3rd yesterday, he'll have trouble even winning points against Djokovic.
    Yeah, I'd be quite surprised if Federer beats Djokovic tomorrow night. Stranger things have happened, but Federer hasn't exactly looked convincing in this tournament and hasn't faced a seeded player yet. Big step up in competition to face Djokovic. And Djokovic should be fresh, having not dropped a set since the opening set tiebreaker of the opening match.

    Looking forward to the two matches tonight (well, okay, looking forward to watching them on replay for breakfast tomorrow). Hopefully some high-quality tennis from four REALLY good players.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    I'm just trying to absorb the whole Margaret Court fistouche. Didn't see that coming at all, but then again I haven't seen her in decades.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Nadal gone. What a great match.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    I'm going to do the opposite because +250 on Thiem (the current price) is too juicy, especially since I think Thiem will win. Nadal hasn't looked good, imo. Watched a lot of the Kyrgios match, and it really was just Kyrgios out-gagging Nadal at times. Both played a very nervy match.

    Totally agree with you on Novak looking like a machine so far. He's going to play all night-time matches from here on out, so the cool weather plus the slow court will make his defense almost impenetrable. Big favorite to win to win his 8th Aussie.
    Cha-ching!

    Entertaining match for sure as both guys can create angles using their topspin that most players can't, and both guys hustle their butts off to defend against those angles.

    One might think that a match that had 3 tiebreakers "could've gone either way" but I would argue that over the latter part of Nadal's career, he's become a choker. Which is shocking because he was such a mental giant earlier in his career. Still a great player (as obviously he's currently ranked #1) but I just knew Thiem would play the big points better than Rafa. Watching the match, I never had the urge to hedge out of my bet; it just felt like it was going to be Thiem all the way even when things got tight.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Cha-ching!

    Entertaining match for sure as both guys can create angles using their topspin that most players can't, and both guys hustle their butts off to defend against those angles.

    One might think that a match that had 3 tiebreakers "could've gone either way" but I would argue that over the latter part of Nadal's career, he's become a choker. Which is shocking because he was such a mental giant earlier in his career. Still a great player (as obviously he's currently ranked #1) but I just knew Thiem would play the big points better than Rafa. Watching the match, I never had the urge to hedge out of my bet; it just felt like it was going to be Thiem all the way even when things got tight.
    I think "choker" is a substantial overstatement for a guy who has won 5 of the last 12 majors. I think it's more that he isn't a guy that wins a ton of easy points (though his serve and volley game is getting better) to win, and it gets harder to win as a grinder in your mid-30s. Nadal still has as much stamina and grit as anyone, but he's not quite as quick or as indefatigable as he was in his 20s. And without that big serve or superhuman forehand to hit easy winners, his margin for error is smaller now than it was then.

    I also disagree with the assessment that it could not have gone either way. I thought Thiem played a great Nadal match, ever so slightly better than Nadal himself. Thiem looks like the next era's Nadal (once Nadal runs out of gas); great grinder, great spin rates, great will. He just has had the misfortune of spending too much of his career overlapping with the original.

    So, no double slam will be achieved at the Australian. Djokovic will try for #17 and Federer will try to get breathing room from Nadal and Djokovic, and two youngsters will look for their first major. Looking forward to a potential rematch of Thiem and Nadal on their best surface in a few months.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I think "choker" is a substantial overstatement for a guy who has won 5 of the last 12 majors. I think it's more that he isn't a guy that wins a ton of easy points (though his serve and volley game is getting better) to win, and it gets harder to win as a grinder in your mid-30s. Nadal still has as much stamina and grit as anyone, but he's not quite as quick or as indefatigable as he was in his 20s. And without that big serve or superhuman forehand to hit easy winners, his margin for error is smaller now than it was then.
    Respectfully disagree. Rafa's still a great player that can win titles by bulldozing over the competition (especially on clay obviously), but in tight matches nowadays, he tends to miss too many easy forehands and volleys in big moments. Maybe my actual word choice is too harsh -- if so, substitute "unclutch" -- but there's something there. In fact, I remember him discussing it in an interview once about how when he was young, he played more freely and without expectations.

    Also, I *do* think Rafa's enjoyed a superhuman forehand for most of his career, and it's still amazing on clay even now in his old age.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I also disagree with the assessment that it could not have gone either way. I thought Thiem played a great Nadal match, ever so slightly better than Nadal himself. Thiem looks like the next era's Nadal (once Nadal runs out of gas); great grinder, great spin rates, great will. He just has had the misfortune of spending too much of his career overlapping with the original.
    Definitely agree there that Thiem out-Nadaled Nadal. I've called Thiem the Prince of Clay for a few years now, and he's improving on hard, too, with his better return-of-serve of late. I think he's the only hope for a competitive final against Djokovic.

    As for being the "next era's Nadal," as long as we're being reasonable about projected slam count. I can see Thiem winning something like 3 French Opens and a couple hardcourt slams in addition, something like that. I think we're going to really appreciate how great the Big Three are when all the up-and-comers fail to reach double-digit slams.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    I think "choker" is a substantial overstatement for a guy who has won 5 of the last 12 majors
    Couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for saying this.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Respectfully disagree. Rafa's still a great player that can win titles by bulldozing over the competition (especially on clay obviously), but in tight matches nowadays, he tends to miss too many easy forehands and volleys in big moments. Maybe my actual word choice is too harsh -- if so, substitute "unclutch" -- but there's something there. In fact, I remember him discussing it in an interview once about how when he was young, he played more freely and without expectations.
    Gonna have to agree to disagree on this. Especially because there's really no way to prove it one way or the other. With so many "big moments" in these guys' seasons in tennis, one can always point to matches in which a key shot was missed or made and attribute that to whatever one wants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Also, I *do* think Rafa's enjoyed a superhuman forehand for most of his career, and it's still amazing on clay even now in his old age.
    Nadal absolutely has had an incredible forehand. But it's moreso in bludgeoning the ball with so much topspin that it keeps opponents off-balance and uncomfortable. But it's not the same "hit it for outright winners" shot that others have (whether it be a monster forehand or big serve or both). That was my point. He can/could just wear you down with those extremely heavy topspin returns, making it difficult to hit attacking shots. All the while, he would be getting nearly everything back with his will and athleticism, and make you make mistakes trying to play too perfect a shot. He's also one of the more strategic players on tour in terms of making changes during the match to keep opponents off balance.

    It's not that he can't hit winners with his groundstrokes; it's just that he doesn't have nearly as many winners on his racquet than the other big names. His strong suit is, as Tsitsipas put it, an incredible ability to make you play badly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Definitely agree there that Thiem out-Nadaled Nadal. I've called Thiem the Prince of Clay for a few years now, and he's improving on hard, too, with his better return-of-serve of late. I think he's the only hope for a competitive final against Djokovic.
    Yeah, I think Thiem, Nadal, and "on his A game" Wawrinka would be the only ones of the remaining to threaten Djokovic. I don't think any will, but I really don't think Federer or Zverev will do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    As for being the "next era's Nadal," as long as we're being reasonable about projected slam count. I can see Thiem winning something like 3 French Opens and a couple hardcourt slams in addition, something like that. I think we're going to really appreciate how great the Big Three are when all the up-and-comers fail to reach double-digit slams.
    Oh I definitely don't expect Thiem to approach 12+ French titles and 20+ grand slams like Nadal has (or likely will have before he's done). These three guys are on the absolute shortest of lists for greatest players ever. Just that I think he'll take over as the dominant claycourter in the world and win at least a few titles there. Possibly/probably even reach #1 in the world. He might even get his first French title this summer.

  11. #31
    Having a hard time picking between Thiem and Zverev tomorrow. I really think there's something to Zverev feeling more motivated and less pressure in a Slam because everyone was talking up Medvedev and Tsitsipas from that generation. He has definite headcase tendencies, but the talent was always there. He played a great match after the first set against Stan-really the best he's looked in a long time.

    But Thiem seems due, especially since he got over the Nadal hump in one of the big ones.

    I'm leaning Thiem right now, but if Zverev brings his A level, he could win. Regardless, I think it will be a grinder that goes at least 4.

    Also, amazing that Zverev has said he's donating 10 grand per win to bushfire relief, and the whole winners check (!). That is a super large sum of money, even for someone as rich as Sasha Zverev.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Gonna have to agree to disagree on this. Especially because there's really no way to prove it one way or the other. With so many "big moments" in these guys' seasons in tennis, one can always point to matches in which a key shot was missed or made and attribute that to whatever one wants.
    Yep, agreed. And yes, I know I haven't quantified it (because it would take a lot of work, and for free!). But absent statistical proof, I will continue to think Rafa gags in big moments nowadays, and apparently you will think otherwise. Agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Nadal absolutely has had an incredible forehand. But it's moreso in bludgeoning the ball with so much topspin that it keeps opponents off-balance and uncomfortable. But it's not the same "hit it for outright winners" shot that others have (whether it be a monster forehand or big serve or both). That was my point. He can/could just wear you down with those extremely heavy topspin returns, making it difficult to hit attacking shots. All the while, he would be getting nearly everything back with his will and athleticism, and make you make mistakes trying to play too perfect a shot. He's also one of the more strategic players on tour in terms of making changes during the match to keep opponents off balance.

    It's not that he can't hit winners with his groundstrokes; it's just that he doesn't have nearly as many winners on his racquet than the other big names. His strong suit is, as Tsitsipas put it, an incredible ability to make you play badly.
    Right, it's more a stylistic choice rather than lack of capability. For most of his career, he's had an overpowering inside-out forehand when he chooses to flatten it out and go for the winner. And even now, his crosscourt two-handed backhand is a laser. The dude has weaponry, all-time great weaponry, but it's just not always deployed.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Yeah, I think Thiem, Nadal, and "on his A game" Wawrinka would be the only ones of the remaining to threaten Djokovic. I don't think any will, but I really don't think Federer or Zverev will do it.
    Right, I was thinking Thiem and Wawrinka because they have the power to consistently hit through the slow court with a chance of getting through Djokovic's defense.

    Nadal hasn't won a set from Djokovic on hardcourt in 7 years.

    At the same time, I'm seeing Federer as a 6 to 1 underdog tonight and I might just take a small stab at that. Because those odds have probably never happened before to Federer. It's funny to even look at.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Right, I was thinking Thiem and Wawrinka because they have the power to consistently hit through the slow court with a chance of getting through Djokovic's defense.
    This would seem counter to the "Nadal has firepower" argument you made above, no? If you think those two guys have the power to have a chance to get through Djokovic's defense, but Nadal doesn't, doesn't that kind of illustrate my point about Nadal's game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Nadal hasn't won a set from Djokovic on hardcourt in 7 years.
    They've also only played on hard courts a handful of times in since then, some of which Nadal was battling injury. So while I'd absolutely favor Djokovic over Nadal (or anyone else) in a head-to-head on hardcourts, I wouldn't rule him out the way I would Zverev and (to a lesser degree) Federer. Although a year ago I'd probably have put Fed as comfortably more likely than Nadal to beat Djokovic. Age, his "bad" year last year, and the labor he put in to get to the semi is probably too much for Federer.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    This would seem counter to the "Nadal has firepower" argument you made above, no? If you think those two guys have the power to have a chance to get through Djokovic's defense, but Nadal doesn't, doesn't that kind of illustrate my point about Nadal's game?
    No, because as mentioned, I think it's Nadal's choice to keep his weaponry holstered. Wawrinka goes for it against Djokovic and when Stan is on, he pushes Djokovic around with his power. We think Thiem at least has the chance to do the same. But with Rafa, we've seen him play Djokovic passively over and over again; he tries to get into long rallies with a guy who can out-defend him (at least off clay), which is why Novak has dominated him.

    But when deployed, Rafa's power is as good as Thiem's and Wawrinka's.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Djokovic wins in 3 to position himself for a chance at title #17. That would put him 2 behind Nadal and 3 behind Federer.

    Fed made the first set interesting, but after dropping the tiebreak the inevitable seemed to happen.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Djokovic wins in 3 to position himself for a chance at title #17. That would put him 2 behind Nadal and 3 behind Federer.

    Fed made the first set interesting, but after dropping the tiebreak the inevitable seemed to happen.
    I really like Federer, but I'm not sure he's going to be able to hold off the Joker or Nadal for all time titles. Just doesn't seem likely.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I really like Federer, but I'm not sure he's going to be able to hold off the Joker or Nadal for all time titles. Just doesn't seem likely.
    Wimbledon really hurt. You have to think Rafa will tie in May, and there haven't been signs that he'll slow down in Paris for at least a couple years after. And then there's Novak, who will add one more in a couple days. Who knows how many he'll get to.

    However, being a biased Fed fan, he'll always be the GOAT to me. IMO there's an aesthetic beauty that simply isn't there with Djoker or Nadal. We tend to be numbers-centric though, so they'll obviously be a compelling argument for the one with the most Slams.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
    Quote Originally Posted by robed deity View Post
    Wimbledon really hurt. You have to think Rafa will tie in May, and there haven't been signs that he'll slow down in Paris for at least a couple years after. And then there's Novak, who will add one more in a couple days. Who knows how many he'll get to.

    However, being a biased Fed fan, he'll always be the GOAT to me. IMO there's an aesthetic beauty that simply isn't there with Djoker or Nadal. We tend to be numbers-centric though, so they'll obviously be a compelling argument for the one with the most Slams.
    This is so true for GOAT arguments in any sport. I would say Roger at his prime is the best that has ever played, but of course there is no way to ever prove that. Eras make it impossible too. Statistics and titles skew things. For instance, Certainly Marino was one of the greatest QB's ever, but he is rarely in the argument. Same goes for Bradshaw for opposite reasons. Anyway, growing up watching Conners, Borg, Mac, Lendl, Samprass, and today's big three as well as so many others has been a treat. Borg was my hero in High School, but I would have to say his countryman is the best. I say that because I can visualize Fed with a standard size wooden racquet setting up points they way they used to do.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Reddevil View Post
    This is so true for GOAT arguments in any sport. I would say Roger at his prime is the best that has ever played, but of course there is no way to ever prove that. .
    It's a hard argument to make in my opinion. Remember that Rafa beat him at Wimbledon in his prime and Roger never really came close to Rafa at Roland Garros, though he did manage to win a set against him several times. Thought experiment: how many majors would each have won if one of the hard court majors had been played on clay instead of hard? Nadal's dominance on clay over a 15 year span is incredible. And you have to add that Nadal now has 4 US Open titles to Federer's 5, so it's not like he can't win on the hard courts. Federer may have been more "stylish" though. You are right of course that there will never be an answer we could all accept.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by howardlander View Post
    It's a hard argument to make in my opinion. Remember that Rafa beat him at Wimbledon in his prime and Roger never really came close to Rafa at Roland Garros, though he did manage to win a set against him several times. Thought experiment: how many majors would each have won if one of the hard court majors had been played on clay instead of hard? Nadal's dominance on clay over a 15 year span is incredible. And you have to add that Nadal now has 4 US Open titles to Federer's 5, so it's not like he can't win on the hard courts. Federer may have been more "stylish" though. You are right of course that there will never be an answer we could all accept.
    Yeah, but Rafa only has 1 Aussie title compared to Federer's 6. It's hard to argue against Fed being the clearly better player on two of the three surfaces. Roger's also won 6 of their past 7 head-to-head meetings (including Wimby last year), which is an incredible feat since he is 38 years old, five years older than Nadal. I believe it's unprecedented in tennis history for the older rival to turn around the head-to-head late in his career. Usually the older guy dominates early in the rivalry and the younger guy dominates late. See, for example, Connors-McEnroe.

    It's unfortunate that Fed gagged away the Wimbledon final against Novak last year. If he had held on, the GOAT debate (at least among those three) would've been over, imo. I just can't see Rafa and Novak playing as well as Roger has been playing in his late 30s.

Similar Threads

  1. 2020 International Basketball Thread
    By awhom111 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-02-2020, 01:12 AM
  2. 2019 Australian Open
    By Troublemaker in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 01-27-2019, 02:22 PM
  3. 2018 Australian Open
    By Troublemaker in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-31-2018, 09:30 PM
  4. 2017 Australian Open
    By Troublemaker in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 02-02-2017, 02:15 PM
  5. Australian Open 2010
    By snowdenscold in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 12:03 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
  •