-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
How, exactly, did she lose the final because of Kerber? Of course ... if Kerber had beaten her in the semi-final, she wouldn't have lost the final...
portugal11 said:
How, exactly, did she lose the final because of Kerber? Of course ... if Kerber had beaten her in the semi-final, she wouldn't have lost the final...
Let's face it, Halep should be at least happy she made it this far. She injured her ankle on day one, she probably wondered if she would even continue with the tournament, escaped three match points against Davis, escaped two against Kerber and she was fighting again today against Wozniacki. A tough road compounded with an injury. It sucks that she lost another GS final, but I she'll have other chances, yes, chances, plural.
She could become like Murray or Lendl and win multiple slams after losing the first 3 or 4. Lendl lost 4 finals before finally winning, Murray lost 5 before winning the 2012 US Open. She deserves one now more than ever.
She could become like Murray or Lendl and win multiple slams after losing the first 3 or 4. Lendl lost 4 finals before finally winning, Murray lost 5 before winning the 2012 US Open. She deserves one now more than ever.
Murray lost 4 finals before winning the USO, and was won the Olympics like 4 weeks after losing his first Wimbly final. Murray never really choked in Slam finals before that though, he just got outplayed or sucked. Halep could've won 3 Slams by now if she was more clutch, but I don't really blame her much for this final. She was physically done and fought to the end.BullsFan22 said:
Wanted Halep to win but had a feeling that the accumulated battles would wear her down not to mention her usual nerves. Wozniacki had a good tournament and deserved her win.
Re:
Overall, I think it was a good match, also for Cilic who managed to wash away the bad impressions from last year's Wimbledon final. Periodically, Cilic was the better player, and in that way I think he really succeeded in showing his potential against the greatest player of all time.
Impossible to say. Cilic played very well in the 2nd set, which could have gone both ways. In the 4th set, I agree, Federer basically gave Cilic the chance to come back and win it. It was a very weak set by Federer.portugal11 said:
Overall, I think it was a good match, also for Cilic who managed to wash away the bad impressions from last year's Wimbledon final. Periodically, Cilic was the better player, and in that way I think he really succeeded in showing his potential against the greatest player of all time.
Red Rick said:
Fascinating observation.
I am more of a fan of women's tennis, and have always felt that they should play best of 5 in GS's, but that they haven't due to: A) individuals not speaking up and suggesting strongly that they should play 5, B) time restrictions in the scheduling.
No GS could fit in all the early round matches if both men and women's singles were best of 5.
So my suggestion is that women play best of 5 from the quarter-final stage onwards.
I had never taken into account the extra effort that most of the top women players (Serena, plus maybe Pliskova on a good day aside) have to put in to win points, games, sets. Most men will have at least one service game a set where they serve 80% or more non-returnables; they're hardly spending much energy, whilst women winning points just off their serve is often at a premium. In addition to that, because of the reduced advantage on the serve for women, they have far more deuce games.
Having said all of that, I feel like women could still play best of 5. It's just a willingness of fans to accept a drop in overall standard, plus more tactical 'tanking'. Best of 5 would also benefit someone like Wozniacki more, and I like the idea of endurance playing an even greater part in the game.
Also on this subject; is it almost ridiculous that men play best of 5, for 7 matches, at Rolland Garros? Their serve doesn't have the same impact on clay.
Roger has been more dominant than ever in this season. he surpassed that strange mental block against nadal and now he doesn't have any challenger so he can win more than 10 titles this season. Tennis needs nadal and djoko so much... federer lost 4 sets in 2018...
Re:
It's just ridiculous how bad the competition is right now. Seeing how a Federer who was already labeled "past his prime" years ago can win by sheer will right now really makes me wonder if this Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era was a once in a lifetime generation.portugal11 said:
Re: Re:
of course it was... Federer, Nadal and Djoko are the 3 best tennis players of all timesGigs_98 said:
Re: Re:
Talent influx is way down in tennis, that's for sure. It's been down for a long time, but you don't immediately see that because it only affects the Tour some 15 years after or so.
Poly strings have changed the game. They've led to the modern forehand, the death of serve & volley, and now that all the upcoming youngsters have grown up with poly, maybe the end of all court players too. A lot of the skills and talents are developed very early, and if you have to grind on the baseline to get results in juniors you're limiting your skill cap in other departments for later on.
The level of the Big 4 will not be reached by any of the current youngsters on Tour. Their games all have major limitations. The overall level of the ATP tour is going down, and we don't know when it will kick back up again.
In terms of dominance, it likely is a once in a lifetime thing. But it's very easy to forget how weak the generation between Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Safin/Roddick was. And right now, the youngest player on Tour that holds a Slam title is 29. That's unprecedented too. So you have 4 really talented players and in the 8 years before and after them there's a whole big bag of nothing.
There's many partial answers to that question.Gigs_98 said:
Talent influx is way down in tennis, that's for sure. It's been down for a long time, but you don't immediately see that because it only affects the Tour some 15 years after or so.
Poly strings have changed the game. They've led to the modern forehand, the death of serve & volley, and now that all the upcoming youngsters have grown up with poly, maybe the end of all court players too. A lot of the skills and talents are developed very early, and if you have to grind on the baseline to get results in juniors you're limiting your skill cap in other departments for later on.
The level of the Big 4 will not be reached by any of the current youngsters on Tour. Their games all have major limitations. The overall level of the ATP tour is going down, and we don't know when it will kick back up again.
In terms of dominance, it likely is a once in a lifetime thing. But it's very easy to forget how weak the generation between Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Safin/Roddick was. And right now, the youngest player on Tour that holds a Slam title is 29. That's unprecedented too. So you have 4 really talented players and in the 8 years before and after them there's a whole big bag of nothing.
Del Potro wins his first Masters 1000 title, saving 2 MP on Fed's serve on the way. That was some heart in a hostile crowd.
Meanwhile, Federer goes on a 2 match losing streak and loses his #1 ranking by losing to Thanasi Kokkinakis in the 2nd round of Miami
Re:
The beginning of a bigger slide ? Del Potro could win a few tournaments if he can stay healthy and there is so much uncertainty about the big four re injuries etc.
Red Rick said:
The beginning of a bigger slide ? Del Potro could win a few tournaments if he can stay healthy and there is so much uncertainty about the big four re injuries etc.
Re: Re:
Anyway, he's announced he'll skip the clay season, will be back by Halle, unless he later decides to enter Stuttgart too. This is a bad loss for him, but Miami has always been his worst tournament on HC.
2017 was a ridiculous outlier for Federer, and basically every single thing that could go right went right, apart from having back issues in the US HC summer.
There's one thing in Federer's favour still.
The Tour is in more shambles than ever. Del Potro is the only one with some consistency on HC but he's no fitness animal and can't play that much either. He's considering skipping clay as well.
Federer is 36. Obviously the long term trend for him is downwards. His top level doesn't decline as quickly, but it's getting more infrequent, and crap matches are getting crappier. He wins most matches vs average opponents playing average, breaking a time or 2 and cruising on serve. Because of this, and his huge knack for *** up close matches, he's prone to bad but close losses. Federer really lets a lot of matches get closer than they should be based on his dominance ratio, and when points go 50/50 he loses pretty often.movingtarget said:
Anyway, he's announced he'll skip the clay season, will be back by Halle, unless he later decides to enter Stuttgart too. This is a bad loss for him, but Miami has always been his worst tournament on HC.
2017 was a ridiculous outlier for Federer, and basically every single thing that could go right went right, apart from having back issues in the US HC summer.
There's one thing in Federer's favour still.
The Tour is in more shambles than ever. Del Potro is the only one with some consistency on HC but he's no fitness animal and can't play that much either. He's considering skipping clay as well.
Speculation is that Djokovic would have orthorexia.
Meanwhile, Nadal wins Barca. Surprising. 46 consecutive sets won on clay, one 7-5 set, the rest all 6-4 or easier.
Meanwhile, Nadal wins Barca. Surprising. 46 consecutive sets won on clay, one 7-5 set, the rest all 6-4 or easier.
The streak is at an end.
Dominic Thiem beats Nadal 75 63 in the Madrid QF, after Nadal had won 50(!!) consecutive sets on clay. Nadal hasn't lost to any other player than Thiem on clay since 2016, when Nadal lost to Djokovic in Rome. He may be wildly inconsistent, but Thiem is definitely the best clay court player after Nadal. I just hope they he is drawn on the opposite side of Nadal at Rome and RG.
And as Nadal was defending his win from last year, Federer goes back to #1, and will remain there until the 2nd week of grass season unless Nadal wins Rome next week.
Dominic Thiem beats Nadal 75 63 in the Madrid QF, after Nadal had won 50(!!) consecutive sets on clay. Nadal hasn't lost to any other player than Thiem on clay since 2016, when Nadal lost to Djokovic in Rome. He may be wildly inconsistent, but Thiem is definitely the best clay court player after Nadal. I just hope they he is drawn on the opposite side of Nadal at Rome and RG.
And as Nadal was defending his win from last year, Federer goes back to #1, and will remain there until the 2nd week of grass season unless Nadal wins Rome next week.
Federer's schedule and Murray's road back
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/may/16/roger-federer-andy-murray-jamie-murray
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2018/may/16/roger-federer-andy-murray-jamie-murray
First Nadal/Djokovic match in a year, and it was a good one. Djokovic is slowly clawing his way back even though just dropped out of the top 20
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: QueenStagiaire
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram