2022 French Open

[CDu]

Good 3rd round match up tomorrow between the American Korda and Alcaraz. Would think on clay Alcaraz would be too tough to beat, but a buddy told me Korda beat him last time they played (not sure the surface). And don’t look now but Greensboro’s own John Isner is in the third round. Would not have bet on that happening.

Yeah, Alcaraz hasn’t looked invincible so far either. Maybe Korda can give him a tough battle. Would like to see a relevant American again on the Mens’ draw.

So far Djokovic and Nadal have cruised towards their potential quarters matchup, although we haven’t yet hit the stage of the tournament that these guys would typically get tested.

[Green Wave Dukie]

Yeah, Alcaraz hasn’t looked invincible so far either. Maybe Korda can give him a tough battle. Would like to see a relevant American again on the Mens’ draw.

So far Djokovic and Nadal have cruised towards their potential quarters matchup, although we haven’t yet hit the stage of the tournament that these guys would typically get tested.

And 2 other men who have not looked invincible are Tsistipas and Zerev. Each has also been pushed to 5 sets (like Alacarez), and Zerev was actually down 2 sets to none. And I think they both got pushed to 7-5 in that 5th set.

As you alluded to CDu, will be fun as the better players start matching up against each other.

[Tooold]

Agree with you on adjusting rankings to take into account special circumstances; lost point opportunities over the past year due to injuries, ability on the specific surface, etc. But even then, tennis, unlike most other sports I can think of, allows for the randomness of placing seeds in a draw. The #1 seed, for instance, has just a good of chance to play the #5 seed in the quarters as they do the #8. So, unless they made either Nadal or Alcaraz #2, they could still meet Djokovic (assuming they kept him at #1) in the semis, or earlier (case in point this year). I like the randomness of the way tennis does it, but I'm used to it. I could certainly see why it would bother others (note, Toooold, this is not directed at you).

No worries….
I guess it bothers me this year because it seemed to have turned out so imbalanced. To have Djokovic and Nadal meet so early, and to also have the current hottest player (Alcarez) also on the same side, seems unfair. One side seems stacked, and the other side is full of good players who may not be both 1) really good on clay and 2) playing well right now. Full disclosure, I am a Nadal fan, and this seems like the worst possible draw for him. To have the #5 player, who also is the consensus best clay court player, meet the #1 player before the semis seems just wrong.

While I would like to see Nadal get one more French Open title (this may be the last year for him), I don’t see it working out, given the draw.

[Bluedog]

No worries….
I guess it bothers me this year because it seemed to have turned out so imbalanced. To have Djokovic and Nadal meet so early, and to also have the current hottest player (Alcarez) also on the same side, seems unfair. One side seems stacked, and the other side is full of good players who may not be both 1) really good on clay and 2) playing well right now. Full disclosure, I am a Nadal fan, and this seems like the worst possible draw for him. To have the #5 player, who also is the consensus best clay court player, meet the #1 player before the semis seems just wrong.

While I would like to see Nadal get one more French Open title (this may be the last year for him), I don’t see it working out, given the draw.

Well, maybe getting Djoker earlier in the tournament is better for Nadal, as I feel like he (Novak) hasn't been invincible as of late and may be getting better as more days go on so Nadal's chances of beating him in the quarters may be better than beating him in the finals...

(Of course, if on opposite eneds, increased likelihood he wouldn't have to play him at all.)

I agree that them meeting in the quarters seems "wrong" according to our "March Madness" mindset, but tennis draw creation brings more randomness into the fold...Just unlucky that Nadal slipped to #5 and then there was a 25% chance of him getting placed in Djoker's quarter. But I agree that Roland Garros should follow the Wimbledon method of seeding, and then Nadal would have certainly been a higher seed.

Go Isner! Just started against Spaniard Bernabé Zapata Miralles. Zapata Miralles had to go through qualies to get into the draw which is not easy oftentimes and has since gone on to defeat #13 seeded American Taylor Fritz in the second round. Still, Isner should be favored but you never know on clay. He's a 25-year old ranked 131 in the world (certainly will be going up after this).

[snowdenscold]

Agree with you on adjusting rankings to take into account special circumstances; lost point opportunities over the past year due to injuries, ability on the specific surface, etc. But even then, tennis, unlike most other sports I can think of, allows for the randomness of placing seeds in a draw. The #1 seed, for instance, has just a good of chance to play the #5 seed in the quarters as they do the #8. So, unless they made either Nadal or Alcaraz #2, they could still meet Djokovic (assuming they kept him at #1) in the semis, or earlier (case in point this year). I like the randomness of the way tennis does it, but I'm used to it. I could certainly see why it would bother others (note, Toooold, this is not directed at you).

Yeah it confused me at first, as I was used to the NCAA format where 1 always plays 8, 2 always plays 7, etc.

But since tennis rankings are a cumulative 52-weeks of points (unlike a committee assigning you a seed days before the tournament), they have to have some randomness to avoid seeding manipulation for match-up purposes leading into grand slams, where players might be deliberately losing or other weird stuff in the lead-up tournaments.

[snowdenscold]

Oh forgot to add above, I would also support seeding adjustment based on past FO (and/or clay court) performance.

It is a shame Nadal and Djokovic meet before at least the semis.

Wimbledon uses TWO prior years of grass results in their formula.

[CDu]

Yeah it confused me at first, as I was used to the NCAA format where 1 always plays 8, 2 always plays 7, etc.

But since tennis rankings are a cumulative 52-weeks of points (unlike a committee assigning you a seed days before the tournament), they have to have some randomness to avoid seeding manipulation for match-up purposes leading into grand slams, where players might be deliberately losing or other weird stuff in the lead-up tournaments.

It also helps avoid having the exact same draw every event if the top 4 stay in place over time.

I don’t mind the approach, but sometimes things get wonky. This is an outlier driven by injury to a star and an ascendant young player.

[snowdenscold]

It also helps avoid having the exact same draw every event if the top 4 stay in place over time.

I don’t mind the approach, but sometimes things get wonky. This is an outlier driven by injury to a star and an ascendant young player.

Yes, ty, forgot to mention that! Since they play tournaments most weeks of the year (unlike a once-a-year NCAA tournament with fundamentally different teams year to year from the same school), you need a little entropy there too.

[Bluedog]

Isner down two sets to one. On serve in the fourth. Come on John!

[CDu]

Djokovic and Nadal each move on in straight sets, and so are each one win away from a quarterfinal main event. Djokovic will face the pesky Schwartzman; Nadal will face the up-and-coming Auger-Aliassime. Neither favorite has dropped a set yet.

Alcaraz has the late match today against Korda. That could be fun with two youngsters going at it.

[Bluedog]

Isner down two sets to one. On serve in the fourth. Come on John!

Isner lost in five sets. Huge tournament for Zapata Miralles, someone who had to get in via the qualifying tournament. His previous 3 showings in Grand Slams were 2 first rounds and 1 second round. He didn't qualify for the Aussie Open earlier this year.

[Tooold]

It also helps avoid having the exact same draw every event if the top 4 stay in place over time.

I don’t mind the approach, but sometimes things get wonky. This is an outlier driven by injury to a star and an ascendant young player.

That is a good point. Altho, in recent years, the top 4 have been more constant that #5-16, and the random assignment for each of the latter groups of 4 doesn’t affect the placement of the top four. I might argue that the minor fluctuations in ranking of #5-16 would accomplish the same thing.

The Nadal injuries and time off resulted in a drop in his ranking, but then he had super bad luck in the draw. And he is the one who may be hurt the most by this, as he really needed the time to get his game back yet again after his broken rib earlier this spring.

[snowdenscold]

That is a good point. Altho, in recent years, the top 4 have been more constant that #5-16, and the random assignment for each of the latter groups of 4 doesn’t affect the placement of the top four. I might argue that the minor fluctuations in ranking of #5-16 would accomplish the same thing.

The Nadal injuries and time off resulted in a drop in his ranking, but then he had super bad luck in the draw. And he is the one who may be hurt the most by this, as he really needed the time to get his game back yet again after his broken rib earlier this spring.

I think the top 4 seeds at grand slams have fluctuated much more in recent years than around a decade ago, where it was Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for seemingly ~20+ grand slams in a row. And David Ferrer was often at #5.

[Tooold]

I think the top 4 seeds at grand slams have fluctuated much more in recent years than around a decade ago, where it was Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray for seemingly ~20+ grand slams in a row. And David Ferrer was often at #5.

Either way it supports my point. Placing each set of 4 players in quarters by a random draw in order to avoid having the same players meet at the same points is only effective if there really is consistency in the rankings from year to year. If multiple players move up or down even by just a few points, that alone will change the respective quarters to which they are assigned.

And, on a separate issue, once again I am pretty perturbed by the TV coverage (or lack of it). I don’t get Tennis channel, and I refuse to pay up for Peacock Premium. I hope NBC gives us more than just an hour or two of matches!

[jimsumner]

And, on a separate issue, once again I am pretty perturbed by the TV coverage (or lack of it). I don’t get Tennis channel, and I refuse to pay up for Peacock Premium. I hope NBC gives us more than just an hour or two of matches!

Yep. why show the first two sets of the Madison Keys match and switch to a senior golf tournament right as they're beginning to go to a decisive third set, a third set that Keys won in the tiebreaker btw? Commit to properly covering a major or let someone else do it.

[Tooold]

Yep. why show the first two sets of the Madison Keys match and switch to a senior golf tournament right as they're beginning to go to a decisive third set, a third set that Keys won in the tiebreaker btw? Commit to properly covering a major or let someone else do it.

Exactly. This has frustrated me for a while…the ATP, WTA, the Majors, the USOpen series...they should all WANT to increase the visibility and popularity of tennis. Tennis Channel cannot do it unless they maintain contracts with all the cable networks as well as with carriers like YouTube TV (but they aren’t doing that). NBC Sports doesn’t seem interested or committed…they cover the beginning of a match which could be of interest in the US market, and just when it gets good, their coverage switches to a premium channel. It becomes a vicious cycle…people don’t watch tennis because it isn’t widely covered and available to them, and carriers don’t want to cover it because it isn’t widely watched. It is very shortsighted by groups that should want to draw more fans to tennis.

[CDu]

Medvedev and Tsitsipas both are unable to take advantage of their weaker half of the draw. The bottom half of the draw is now a quagmire.

On the top half? It's been all chalk, and today has two massive matchups between Zverev/Alcaraz as the undercard and Djokovic/Nadal as the main event.

[snowdenscold]

Medvedev and Tsitsipas both are unable to take advantage of their weaker half of the draw. The bottom half of the draw is now a quagmire.

On the top half? It's been all chalk, and today has two massive matchups between Zverev/Alcaraz as the undercard and Djokovic/Nadal as the main event.

Yeah it's really unfortunate we got the draw we did. While Rune, Ruud, Rublev and Cilic are all fine players, it will definitely feel like a letdown if one of them wins after seeing the names on the top half.

And while only 3 of the 9 matches Nadal and Djokovic have played at the FO have been in the Finals, it still feels like a slap in the face that the tournament refuses to go beyond just the computer rankings and gives us a QF matchup this year.

[CDu]

Yeah it's really unfortunate we got the draw we did. While Rune, Ruud, Rublev and Cilic are all fine players, it will definitely feel like a letdown if one of them wins after seeing the names on the top half.

And while only 3 of the 9 matches Nadal and Djokovic have played at the FO have been in the Finals, it still feels like a slap in the face that the tournament refuses to go beyond just the computer rankings and gives us a QF matchup this year.

Yeah, today really should be the semifinals at least, and split between them. I'd not blink an eye to see a Djokovic/Alcaraz and Nadal/Zverev semifinals. Crazy that it's a quarterfinals. But, alas. Hopefully the winner of this half wins it all (and I expect they will). I agree it would feel absurd for someone on the other half to win the French this year.

[snowdenscold]

Yeah, today really should be the semifinals at least, and split between them. I'd not blink an eye to see a Djokovic/Alcaraz and Nadal/Zverev semifinals. Crazy that it's a quarterfinals. But, alas. Hopefully the winner of this half wins it all (and I expect they will). I agree it would feel absurd for someone on the other half to win the French this year.

Anyone know how to watch if you don't have Tennis Channel?

I used to have it with my cable package, but it comes and goes, and right now it's gone.

I've been watching some matches thru MASN, which is re-broadcasting the Tennis Channel 2 feeds (so basically not the primary match TC is showing).
The rest I've caught thru NBC when they've actually been on-air, and also watched a little bit on Peacock (which we had forgotten to cancel since finishing Yellowstone).

I echo the sentiments above about NBC's historically bad coverage windows, where they'll just pop on in the middle of a match, and leave just as suddenly, because they have that 11 AM - 2 PM block or whatever it is and make no adjustments. I really have appreciated ESPN's first ball to last ball coverage of AO, Wimbledon and USO the past decade+ or so.

Of course, having said that, ESPN moved a lot of their AO coverage this past January over to ESPN+, which would be an additional charge on top of my cable package. Plus, it defeats the benefit of how quickly/easily I can watch sports when I have it all recorded on my set-top box DVR, as the fast forward options are infinitely better than trying to do it via an app on my Firestick.