The real Tennis thread.

Page 56 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Could be lol.

Was actually about Djokovic shenanigans in the final.
My impression is that the new guard has a better chance of beating Big Four on the way to the finals than in the finals itself.
The confirmation of the claim can be found in the basic statistics and it's nothing new. Also, the reasons for such a status aren't mysterious and every fan, let alone coach, is familiar with it. But a possible development of the sport can be surprisingly exciting... the current new guard might end caught up in the vacuum between Big Four and the next generation, staying emptyhanded or with far less success than expected.
Why could it be the case? Simply because there won't be enough time for them to establish their authority and stranglehold over the tour the way Big Four has done.
The other possibility is that ATP could start resembling WTA in regard to variability... 'cause the times are changing and what once wasn't sufficient - now is more than enough.
 
My impression is that the new guard has a better chance of beating Big Four on the way to the finals than in the finals itself.
The confirmation of the claim can be found in the basic statistics and it's nothing new. Also, the reasons for such a status aren't mysterious and every fan, let alone coach, is familiar with it. But a possible development of the sport can be surprisingly exciting... the current new guard might end caught up in the vacuum between Big Four and the next generation, staying emptyhanded or with far less success than expected.
Why could it be the case? Simply because there won't be enough time for them to establish their authority and stranglehold over the tour the way Big Four has done.
The other possibility is that ATP could start resembling WTA in regard to variability... 'cause the times are changing and what once wasn't sufficient - now is more than enough.
Who is the ‘fourth’ guy?
 
My impression is that the new guard has a better chance of beating Big Four on the way to the finals than in the finals itself.
The confirmation of the claim can be found in the basic statistics and it's nothing new. Also, the reasons for such a status aren't mysterious and every fan, let alone coach, is familiar with it. But a possible development of the sport can be surprisingly exciting... the current new guard might end caught up in the vacuum between Big Four and the next generation, staying emptyhanded or with far less success than expected.
Why could it be the case? Simply because there won't be enough time for them to establish their authority and stranglehold over the tour the way Big Four has done.
The other possibility is that ATP could start resembling WTA in regard to variability... 'cause the times are changing and what once wasn't sufficient - now is more than enough.
It's very logical they don't lose finals cause when they suck they can lose earlier and when they don't suck they don't lose except to each other. Young guys aren't taking over, they flat out have 0 chance if Djokovic, Nadal or Federer play their A game at a Grand Slam.

The current guard could win very little, I don't know. I think they're poised to win some Slams at some point. In any case they can't possibly be as unlucky as the lost generation even though these are probably even worse than your current 'new guard'. That said, Thiem falls a little inbetween and you could make an argument he's more a part of the Dimitrov/Raonic/Goffin generation than say the Medvedev/Zverev/Tsitsipas generation.

Big 3 will definitely leave a huge power vacuum, and I suspect the quality required to win Slams will go down when they're finished. Imagine it will be similar to the early 2000s before Federer took over. The new balls generation was young and exciting, you still had flashes from the 90s champions and you had some of the weaker Slam champions.
 
It's very logical they don't lose finals cause when they suck they can lose earlier and when they don't suck they don't lose except to each other. Young guys aren't taking over, they flat out have 0 chance if Djokovic, Nadal or Federer play their A game at a Grand Slam.

The current guard could win very little, I don't know. I think they're poised to win some Slams at some point. In any case they can't possibly be as unlucky as the lost generation even though these are probably even worse than your current 'new guard'. That said, Thiem falls a little inbetween and you could make an argument he's more a part of the Dimitrov/Raonic/Goffin generation than say the Medvedev/Zverev/Tsitsipas generation.

Big 3 will definitely leave a huge power vacuum, and I suspect the quality required to win Slams will go down when they're finished. Imagine it will be similar to the early 2000s before Federer took over. The new balls generation was young and exciting, you still had flashes from the 90s champions and you had some of the weaker Slam champions.
Yes, the early 2000s seem to be a fitting parallel. More so than the mid-nineties.
Junior Circuit might just be the most vibrant business market in the world at the moment.
Who is the ‘fourth’ guy?
Murray.
Just using the colloquial title.
 
It's very logical they don't lose finals cause when they suck they can lose earlier and when they don't suck they don't lose except to each other. Young guys aren't taking over, they flat out have 0 chance if Djokovic, Nadal or Federer play their A game at a Grand Slam.

The current guard could win very little, I don't know. I think they're poised to win some Slams at some point. In any case they can't possibly be as unlucky as the lost generation even though these are probably even worse than your current 'new guard'. That said, Thiem falls a little inbetween and you could make an argument he's more a part of the Dimitrov/Raonic/Goffin generation than say the Medvedev/Zverev/Tsitsipas generation.

Big 3 will definitely leave a huge power vacuum, and I suspect the quality required to win Slams will go down when they're finished. Imagine it will be similar to the early 2000s before Federer took over. The new balls generation was young and exciting, you still had flashes from the 90s champions and you had some of the weaker Slam champions.
The "Big 3" will leave a power vacuum because - for whatever reasons - they are probably the three best to ever play the game, with the possible exception of Bjorn Bjorg on clay.

Their longevity is just unnatural. Federer is only a year younger than Safin and Ferrero, 6 months younger than Lleyton Hewitt and is a full year older than Andy Roddick who were all world no. 1 and Grand Slam winners. Meanwhile Djokovic is the same age Sampras was when he retired and still improving. When he's in trouble, Djokovic just somehow turns into this brick wall and chokes his way to the win, it's uncanny.

Of all the matches I watched during the Aus Open the only players who looked anything like the same level were Thiem, Zverev most of the time and Kyrgios if/when he actually wanted to play.

I for one can't wait for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to retire. Combined with Murray, this level of dominance since 2004 is just out of order.
 
The "Big 3" will leave a power vacuum because - for whatever reasons - they are probably the three best to ever play the game, with the possible exception of Bjorn Bjorg on clay.

Their longevity is just unnatural. Federer is only a year younger than Safin and Ferrero, 6 months younger than Lleyton Hewitt and is a full year older than Andy Roddick who were all world no. 1 and Grand Slam winners. Meanwhile Djokovic is the same age Sampras was when he retired and still improving. When he's in trouble, Djokovic just somehow turns into this brick wall and chokes his way to the win, it's uncanny.

Of all the matches I watched during the Aus Open the only players who looked anything like the same level were Thiem, Zverev most of the time and Kyrgios if/when he actually wanted to play.

I for one can't wait for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to retire. Combined with Murray, this level of dominance since 2004 is just out of order.
Literally all other players in the mid 30s fall off quite a lot. They're not nearly their best anymore. These young 'talents' aren't what they used to be. I think Thiem would be a worthy RG champion in another era but wouldn't do too much off clay. Zverev and Kyrgios just aren't it.
 
Sorry, but Murray doesn’t belong in that conversation. He’s nowhere near the big 3, even before the injuries.
That’s a tough call, because before the injuries he was very good across a four year stretch, reaching 8 slam finals, winning three and two Olympic golds. Adding to that the tour finals win in 2016 and 8 further slam semi-final appearances across a five year period.

It’s easy to forget just how good he used to be and more than deserve his place in the ‘big-four’ conversation.
 
That’s a tough call, because before the injuries he was very good across a four year stretch, reaching 8 slam finals, winning three and two Olympic golds. Adding to that the tour finals win in 2016 and 8 further slam semi-final appearances across a five year period.

It’s easy to forget just how good he used to be and more than deserve his place in the ‘big-four’ conversation.
How many slams does he have? If we put him in the top 4 then we need to put in Wawrinka up there as well, making it a big 5.
 
How many slams does he have? If we put him in the top 4 then we need to put in Wawrinka up there as well, making it a big 5.
Perhaps, but his overall record still wasn’t as good over that period, in terms of wins/losses.

Your original point was that even before injuries Murray wasn’t as good as the other three, stats show in the previous few years that is not true. His record was just as good as Nadal and Federer, whilst Djokovic did win more.
 
Perhaps, but his overall record still wasn’t as good over that period, in terms of wins/losses.

Your original point was that even before injuries Murray wasn’t as good as the other three, stats show in the previous few years that is not true. His record was just as good as Nadal and Federer, whilst Djokovic did win more.
Let's be realistic here, shall we? Federer 20 slams, Nadal 19 slams, Djokovic 17 slams, Murray 3 slams. It's not even close. Murray went three years between his 2nd and 3rd slam, in the prime of his career.
 
Let's be realistic here, shall we? Federer 20 slams, Nadal 19 slams, Djokovic 17 slams, Murray 3 slams. It's not even close. Murray went three years between his 2nd and 3rd slam, in the prime of his career.
Definitely, and as I’ve pointed out, over a spell of around 4 years before his injuries, Murray was every bit as good as the other three, and at times better. So you simply cannot say ‘he’s nowhere near the big 3, even before his injuries’. Because that is untrue and the stats back it up.

Overall career record and I’d agree with you. It’s a shame the guy had so many problems with his hip, because there’s no question in my mind he’d have ended up with a few more slams.
 
Lot of people forget Murray had more injuries than just the hip problem. His back *** him up when he was playing his best tennis in 2013 and it took him over a year after surgery to get close to that form.

Also in all stats apart from Grand Slam titles, Murray is basically closer to Djokovic, Nadal and Federer than the rest of the field.
 
Reactions: gregrowlerson
He never returned close to his previous level after the back surgery, his record against the other three literally fell from a cliff despite their decline compared to 2011/2012 and was forced to destroy his body (with them all injured at the time) to win another slam and grab the number one.
 
Reactions: Red Rick
Meanwhile Felix Auger Aliassime managed to make Monfils look like a clutch veteran player. Bad sign indicating he's got a very long way to go. Ruud winning a first title in Buenos Aires is nice, but I don't think he'll be much more than a fringe clay player who struggles off clay.

Clijsters just lost to Muguruza in her first match back. Didn't look bad, though if she's gonna need to slim down considerably if she's serious about getting results.
 
Last time he had a knee surgery when he returned he was playing almost standing still like a pole and then he ended the season after Wimbledon to recover properly so doesn't bode well for him. Anyone knows if it's the same knee?
 
This may be the beginning of the end for Federer. He'll be 39 in August. I wasn't expecting him to play a compact schedule, he was most likely going to pace himself again and play one or two smaller events but mostly play in Masters events, obviously grand slams and of course the Olympics. I think he may call it quits at the end of the season. If everything goes well and he is back by Wimbledon he won't just magically play well and make it to the final again, especially at his age. The Olympics may be an opportunity for him, as could the hard court swing in N. America and the Us Open, but again, he can't miraculously start playing great after such a surgery and even without pain, he'll be rusty. I honestly don't see him playing past this season. If he does and he is still relatively competitive, then all credit to him and his team. He missed such a huge opportunity to distance himself a bit from Nadal and Djokovic at Wimbledon last year that I think it's still in his head. Now he has an injury to think about.
 
I thought Federer would continue beyond 2020 due to the duration of his Uniqlo contract and his comments how he doesn't want to retire yet, and I figured he or at least his sponsors would want it announced way in advance.

Tennis wise I think there's a very clear drop off if he stops being a top 5/top 8 or so HC player cause at that point his ranking falls off a cliff, which would mean harder draws, might mean no byes in 6 out of 9 M1000s which makes it pretty much impossible for him to challenge in those, and which makes Wimbledon basically his only decent chance at making a deep Slam run. I've checked the stats and Fed's game% stats aren't generally higher than his HC stats. While game% is generally lower on grass, I do think it means Fed can't possibly win Wimbledon without being at least in competent form on HC.

Federer will go into the grass season with around 3500 points while immediately defending 1700 of them in Halle/Wimbledon. There's a tiny chance for him to be seeded #4 at Wimbledon if he scores big in Stuttgart/Halle (is he even playing those) and Medvedev literally bricks everything from here on out. Med could happen cause he got bageled by Gilles Simon of all people yesterday.

Meanwhile, I do he's eyeing the Olympics and he could potentially return earlier than the grass season, playing clay doesn't give him anything. Olympics however are a bad tournament for him in that it's a 64 draw and it's played over like 8 days. It's a really packed schedule.

Olympics are also the reason I think it's weird Djokovic added MC to his schedule while already playing Dubai next week, and why I think it's weird Nadal is playing Acapulco with presumably the full clay season up ahead.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
BroDeal Non-Cycling Discussions 0
T Non-Cycling Discussions 24

ASK THE COMMUNITY