TENNIS

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante »

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:That's quite interesting, but I still don't trust the fact that the size and shape of the "landing" always seems to be exactly the same, to my eyes anyway. Not every ball is whacked so I would have thought there would be some big differences.
I know what you mean, but I've been paying quite close attention to the shape of the ball landing thing on Hawk-eye of late and I've definitely noticed some that are much more circular than others.
OK, fair enough.
There was a good example yesterday of a looped shot which came down almost vertically, and the Hawkeye mark was virtually circular.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
User avatar
JimBentley
Fanatic
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by JimBentley »

Ryan Taylor wrote:
Martin Bishop wrote:I don't think Wimbledon loses too much money on balls. You can buy used match balls in the Wimbledon shop (or at least you could at some point). They might well make a profit on them.
Awesome. Always wondered what they did with them, I presumed they just offloaded them to the ballboys and ballgirls or something.
My parents' next door neighbours used to go to Wimbledon every year and always brought back loads of used match balls. If I didn't know where they'd come from I would have said they were brand new, you couldn't tell they'd ever been used at all.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

If Hawkeye is more accurate than the line judges, they might as well use it for every call. You might argue that it would waste time, but presumably the drawn-out simulation we see is just for dramatic effect, and it could do it all "in its head" in next to no time.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: TENNIS

Post by Clive Brooker »

Gavin Chipper wrote:If Hawkeye is more accurate than the line judges, they might as well use it for every call. You might argue that it would waste time, but presumably the drawn-out simulation we see is just for dramatic effect, and it could do it all "in its head" in next to no time.
Not sure about this. Firstly, assuming it's impracticable to make Hawkeye available on every court used in every professional tournament, you'd have a situation where the playing conditions differ greatly from match to match according to whether Hawkeye is in use or not. Whether you have independent verification or not isn't quite such a fundamental difference. Secondly, how is Hawkeye physically going to make the call? At the moment players expect a decisive and almost instantaneous call when a ball is out - absence of a call tells them that the point is still in progress and they get quite upset at even a momentary hesitation from a line judge. Maybe Hawkeye could be linked to a PA system and have a computerised voice yell "Out!" as quickly as a human judge, but I doubt whether it would catch on.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Clive Brooker wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:If Hawkeye is more accurate than the line judges, they might as well use it for every call. You might argue that it would waste time, but presumably the drawn-out simulation we see is just for dramatic effect, and it could do it all "in its head" in next to no time.
Not sure about this. Firstly, assuming it's impracticable to make Hawkeye available on every court used in every professional tournament, you'd have a situation where the playing conditions differ greatly from match to match according to whether Hawkeye is in use or not. Whether you have independent verification or not isn't quite such a fundamental difference. Secondly, how is Hawkeye physically going to make the call? At the moment players expect a decisive and almost instantaneous call when a ball is out - absence of a call tells them that the point is still in progress and they get quite upset at even a momentary hesitation from a line judge. Maybe Hawkeye could be linked to a PA system and have a computerised voice yell "Out!" as quickly as a human judge, but I doubt whether it would catch on.
I was just thinking maybe a noise in the umpire's ear and he says "out", but that introduces a delay.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4544
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: TENNIS

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Got a feeling this will be a classic..
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Matt Morrison »

Was better than the boxing by the reports, not that that made it classic. Fair play to Djokovic though, the winner I'd have hoped for I think. (Of the two.)
User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: TENNIS

Post by Adam Gillard »

I was uploading my Wimbledon 2011 photos to Facebook and this result came up via the automatic tagging feature:

Image
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: TENNIS

Post by Adam Gillard »

YES!
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Right then. Novak Djokovic has just won the French Open meaning that he is the first man to hold all four grand slam titles since Rod Laver when he won them all in 1969 (I think). The fact that it's not a "proper grand slam" because he hasn't won them all in the same calendar year seems little more than a semantic point to me.

So does this lift him up in the echelons of greatness more than simply winning the same grand slams but not holding them all at once? I certainly think it is a big deal, but let's compare some stats of the top players:

Number of grand slams:

1. Roger Federer - 17
2= Pete Sampras - 14
2= Rafael Nadal - 14
4= Roy Emerson - 12
4= Novak Djokovic - 12
6= Rod Laver - 11
6= Bjorn Borg - 11
8. Bill Tilden - 10
9= Fred Perry - 8
9= Ken Rosewall - 8
9= Jimmy Connors - 8
9= Ivan Lendl - 8
9= Andre Agasssi - 8

Most titles:

1. Jimmy Connors - 109
2. Ivan Lendl - 94
3. Roger Federer - 88
4. John McEnroe - 77
5. Rod Laver - 74
6. Rafael Nadal - 69
7. Novak Djokovic - 65
8= Bjorn Borg - 64
8= Pete Sampras - 64
10. Guillermo Vilas - 62
11. Andre Agassi - 60
12. Ilie Năstase - 58

Most weeks ranked number one:

1. Roger Federer - 302
2. Pete Sampras - 286
3. Ivan Lendl - 270
4. Jimmy Connors - 268
5. Novak Djokovic - 201
6. John McEnroe - 170
7. Rafael Nadal - 141
8. Bjorn Borg - 109
9. Andre Agassi - 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt - 80
11. Stefan Edberg - 72
12. Jim Courier - 58

Most consecutive weeks at number one:

1. Roger Federer - 237
2. Jimmy Connors - 160
3. Ivan Lendl - 157
4. Pete Sampras - 102
5. Novak Djokovic - 100
6. Lleyton Hewitt - 75
7. John McEnroe - 58
8. Rafael Nadal - 56
9. Andre Agassi - 52
10. Bjorn Borg - 46
11. Ilie Năstase - 40

I looked up most dominant individual year ever, and came across a few things, but I will give you some links. This, this and this.

Basically, in terms of win-loss percentage you get McEnroe 1984, Connors 1974, Federer 2005, Federer 2006, Borg 1979, Djokovic 2015. But that's not the only measure. As I said above, calendar years are arbitrary, and Djokovic has won all four grand slams consecutively. In terms of maximum ELO rating, Djokovic is top, one point ahead of Federer. But then by that measure, Kei Nishikori is 23rd.

Also, in some of the stuff I've read, it is said that Federer had an early career advantage because it was a weaker time for tennis before Nadal, Djokovic and Murray emerged. And while Federer was still at the top of his game, it became quite clear that Nadal had the beating of him. So although most people seem to say that Federer is the greatest, Nadal appeared to be better than him, and Djokovic looks like surpassing both.

With older players, it seems that Connors and Lendl underperformed in grand slams based on their time at number one and career titles. Sampras has a really good record overall but didn't do much in the French Open. It was harder to do well at all grand slams in those days though. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be a player before the current era with a really good claim to being the greatest.
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante »

Gavin Chipper wrote:Right then. Novak Djokovic has just won the French Open meaning that he is the first man to hold all four grand slam titles since Rod Laver when he won them all in 1969 (I think). The fact that it's not a "proper grand slam" because he hasn't won them all in the same calendar year seems little more than a semantic point to me.

So does this lift him up in the echelons of greatness more than simply winning the same grand slams but not holding them all at once? I certainly think it is a big deal, but let's compare some stats of the top players:

Number of grand slams:

1. Roger Federer - 17
2= Pete Sampras - 14
2= Rafael Nadal - 14
4= Roy Emerson - 12
4= Novak Djokovic - 12
6= Rod Laver - 11
6= Bjorn Borg - 11
8. Bill Tilden - 10
9= Fred Perry - 8
9= Ken Rosewall - 8
9= Jimmy Connors - 8
9= Ivan Lendl - 8
9= Andre Agasssi - 8

Most titles:

1. Jimmy Connors - 109
2. Ivan Lendl - 94
3. Roger Federer - 88
4. John McEnroe - 77
5. Rod Laver - 74
6. Rafael Nadal - 69
7. Novak Djokovic - 65
8= Bjorn Borg - 64
8= Pete Sampras - 64
10. Guillermo Vilas - 62
11. Andre Agassi - 60
12. Ilie Năstase - 58

Most weeks ranked number one:

1. Roger Federer - 302
2. Pete Sampras - 286
3. Ivan Lendl - 270
4. Jimmy Connors - 268
5. Novak Djokovic - 201
6. John McEnroe - 170
7. Rafael Nadal - 141
8. Bjorn Borg - 109
9. Andre Agassi - 101
10. Lleyton Hewitt - 80
11. Stefan Edberg - 72
12. Jim Courier - 58

Most consecutive weeks at number one:

1. Roger Federer - 237
2. Jimmy Connors - 160
3. Ivan Lendl - 157
4. Pete Sampras - 102
5. Novak Djokovic - 100
6. Lleyton Hewitt - 75
7. John McEnroe - 58
8. Rafael Nadal - 56
9. Andre Agassi - 52
10. Bjorn Borg - 46
11. Ilie Năstase - 40

I looked up most dominant individual year ever, and came across a few things, but I will give you some links. This, this and this.

Basically, in terms of win-loss percentage you get McEnroe 1984, Connors 1974, Federer 2005, Federer 2006, Borg 1979, Djokovic 2015. But that's not the only measure. As I said above, calendar years are arbitrary, and Djokovic has won all four grand slams consecutively. In terms of maximum ELO rating, Djokovic is top, one point ahead of Federer. But then by that measure, Kei Nishikori is 23rd.

Also, in some of the stuff I've read, it is said that Federer had an early career advantage because it was a weaker time for tennis before Nadal, Djokovic and Murray emerged. And while Federer was still at the top of his game, it became quite clear that Nadal had the beating of him. So although most people seem to say that Federer is the greatest, Nadal appeared to be better than him, and Djokovic looks like surpassing both.

With older players, it seems that Connors and Lendl underperformed in grand slams based on their time at number one and career titles. Sampras has a really good record overall but didn't do much in the French Open. It was harder to do well at all grand slams in those days though. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be a player before the current era with a really good claim to being the greatest.
I heard a relatively recent analysis that put Connors on top. Not sure of the metric, but his large number of title-wins seems to support that to an extent.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Callum P
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:35 am

Re: TENNIS

Post by Callum P »

Hm, I appreciate that Djokovic is an incredible player and can't help but admire what he's doing. But he's making tennis a bit boring and his style isn't really exciting.
Peter Mabey
Kiloposter
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: TENNIS

Post by Peter Mabey »

Callum P wrote: ... he's making tennis a bit boring ...
Superfluously :twisted: :mrgreen: :evil:
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I think Federer's two grand slam titles this year make his claim for greatest ever stronger than it was before. As I alluded to before, Nadal had generally had the better of him in grand slam finals, so winning the Australian Open against Nadal definitely makes a difference. And Nadal is still playing good tennis - look how he won the French this year. I would argue that this year has been crucial for Federer in fact. Had Nadal won the Australian Open final and Federer not won Wimbledon, Federer would now be leading Nadal by 17 slams to 16 instead of the 19-15 that it is now. And if Nadal did overtake Federer in terms of slams won, I think his record against Federer would work in Nadal's favour. Federer has also now won two grand slams at the age of 35 and people won't shut up about that, so he's definitely won some breathing space over Nadal.

Djokovic has faded of late, when at one time it looked like he might dominate for a while and stake his own claim for greatest.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Federer, GOAT.
message ends
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Zarte Siempre
Series 78 Champion
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: TENNIS

Post by Zarte Siempre »

The best player ever is quite clearly Dustin Brown and I won't hear another word said on the matter.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...
User avatar
JimBentley
Fanatic
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by JimBentley »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:12 pm I think Federer's two grand slam titles this year make his claim for greatest ever stronger than it was before. As I alluded to before, Nadal had generally had the better of him in grand slam finals, so winning the Australian Open against Nadal definitely makes a difference. And Nadal is still playing good tennis - look how he won the French this year. I would argue that this year has been crucial for Federer in fact. Had Nadal won the Australian Open final and Federer not won Wimbledon, Federer would now be leading Nadal by 17 slams to 16 instead of the 19-15 that it is now. And if Nadal did overtake Federer in terms of slams won, I think his record against Federer would work in Nadal's favour. Federer has also now won two grand slams at the age of 35 and people won't shut up about that, so he's definitely won some breathing space over Nadal.

Djokovic has faded of late, when at one time it looked like he might dominate for a while and stake his own claim for greatest.
Thing is, Federer and Nadal haven't finished yet. We don't know the end of this story.

I just think it's fantastic that we're living through a time where there's four fantastic players - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray - all competing at the same time and when they're all fit, it's pretty much anyone's guess who's going to come out on top. We're being spoiled, really.
Matt Bayfield
Devotee
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 8:39 am
Location: Seated at a computer

Re: TENNIS

Post by Matt Bayfield »

Federer is one of a small number who has a valid claim to be the greatest men's singles tennis player of all-time, and his men's singles results of 2017 strengthen that claim.

Greatest tennis player of all-time is an entirely different matter, and must also include career achievements in men's doubles, ladies' singles, ladies' doubles, and perhaps also mixed doubles. By this metric, Federer would appear to be lagging well behind players including McEnroe (J), Navratilova, Graf, and Williams (S). And outside of the highest profile disciplines, Esther Vergeer would be another contender.

I would have loved to have seen Federer play more doubles during his career, and when his singles dominance finally wanes, I hope he continues to play doubles well into his 40s, as other tennis greats have done.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I think until recently, it could have been argued that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Murray) have dominated the men's game for so long because we just happened to get a bunch of truly great players turn up at around the same time. But the longer it goes on (when one or more are injured, there's always at least one left to be the dominant player), the more it seems obvious (to me at least) that a lot of this is down to the fact that there just aren't the top players coming through any more. I don't know why that is (less funding, less interest etc.) but it's definitely a thing. The fact that Nadal managed to get through to the Australian Open final without dropping a set (I think) and then still get thumped by Djokovic is an indication that there's no depth there. It seems quite likely that Djokovic will be the last to fade away of these top players and might therefore be able to dominate with no real opposition and then easily top the grand slam winners list. But will that make him the greatest or just in the right position at the right time?
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante »

I'd suggest that those 3/4 are all very very good players, and I'm guessing there are many other factors at work slowing the emergence of other greats to replace them - mostly I think that they are so good that it's unlikely anyone will reach that level again for a number of years, simply because it's so high. I also suppose to an extent that the next gen, some of whom may have the skills to match them, are to an extent psychologically dominated by them, and maybe the expectation of their demise, which has been around for much of this decade, has dulled their efforts a little.

More generally, I think that it's all part of the natural cycle of things - there are great eras (we're at the end of one now), and there are lulls inbetween, such as that time when Sampras and Agassi bowed out, a number of players came to prominence briefly (Hewitt, Roddick), who were proved to be good but not great in the fullness of time when Federer et al swept them away. Similar cycles can be seen in snooker to an extent, like the Davis/Hendry transition period where relative mediocrities like Gary Wilkinson and Steve James were in the top 10.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:17 am I think until recently, it could have been argued that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Murray) have dominated the men's game for so long because we just happened to get a bunch of truly great players turn up at around the same time. But the longer it goes on (when one or more are injured, there's always at least one left to be the dominant player), the more it seems obvious (to me at least) that a lot of this is down to the fact that there just aren't the top players coming through any more. I don't know why that is (less funding, less interest etc.) but it's definitely a thing. The fact that Nadal managed to get through to the Australian Open final without dropping a set (I think) and then still get thumped by Djokovic is an indication that there's no depth there. It seems quite likely that Djokovic will be the last to fade away of these top players and might therefore be able to dominate with no real opposition and then easily top the grand slam winners list. But will that make him the greatest or just in the right position at the right time?
With Nadal beating Djokovic in the French Open final, I came here to make this post, but it seems I've already made it. I found this website. It only goes up to 2013 (and only includes men) but it's quite telling. Federer has won a grand slam at the age of 36, Nadal 34 and Djokovic 32. Prior to these three, the last man winning a grand slam at 32+ was Andre Agassi in 2003 but before that you're going back to 1972 with Andres Gimeno and Ken Rosewall. Prior to this era, once you hit 30/31, you were pretty ancient and winning was rare. So Djokovic at 33 is the youngest of the big three, but he is still ancient by tennis terms.

In fact Federer seemed to be following that trajectory at first. He was on this crazy run of always reaching at least the semi-final of every grand slam, and then that broke at Wimbledon in 2010 when he was still 28. He managed to scrape one more grand slam win at Wimbledon in 2012 (at 30) and that looked to be it - until he suddenly started winning again in 2017.

I'm sure modern techniques in training and allowing the body to recover have played some role, but how long can this go on? You get the odd new winner (e.g. Dominic Thiem at the US Open - although Djokovic being disqualified would have helped), but no new truly top male tennis players have emerged for years.

What's the furthest into the future that one of Federer/Djokovic/Nadal (or Murray if you want) can still win a grand slam? When will someone else be ranked number 1?
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:59 am What's the furthest into the future that one of Federer/Djokovic/Nadal (or Murray if you want) can still win a grand slam? When will someone else be ranked number 1?
I think you have to include Murray - he managed close to a year at #1, and nobody else has broken the hold of those three.

Give it two years, someone else will get there.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Nadal will probably still be winning the French Open when he's 50 :lol:

Looking at the rankings, Thiem (in 3rd place) could potentially get number 2 spot as he isn't that far behind. However, catching Djokovic would require a serious run of success, and also for Djokovic to not post the crazy results he has been doing. I honestly think it's unlikely we'll see one of the "next gen" get to number one spot for at least a couple more years, possibly not even before 2023. Obviously this is pure speculation - but really the slams are still being dominated by the same people. If Djokovic hadn't been defaulted at the US Open it's highly unlikely he wouldn't have ended up lifting the trophy.

As for Murray - I'd love for him to get back to a competitive standard again but it doesn't look likely. His performance against Wawrinka was a pretty sorry showing, and he'd need to radically alter his game in a way similar to what Federer has done (keep the points short, try and close them out early) because the longer the rallies drag on the less chance he's going to have of winning them now. His shots are still there - he can still hit good forehands and backhands, but he doesn't have the movement that he used to and as such you're going to find in darn near impossible to outrally the best players. I wouldn't say I don't believe it's possible for him to adapt, just that it's a very steep hill to climb now.
Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: TENNIS

Post by Conor »

Thiem looks like the best shot for getting to No. 1 outside the big 3. I can see one or more of Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas making a breakthrough and winning a grand slam in the coming years but they don't have the consistency to challenge for no. 1. Especially as Djokovic is super consistent in both slams and the Masters events. But I wouldn't expect a no. 1 other than Nadal or Djokovic for the next 2 years at least. A lot depends on the fitness of Nadal and Djokovic, but also level of motivation. I do wonder if Nadal could pull ahead of Djokovic by 5 grand slams whether he'd still have the belief he can catch him.

Federer didn't win a slam between 2012 and 2017 but he did lose 3 finals all to Djokovic, so he was still competing at a very high level. A lot has been made of his renaissance, but Nadal's is just as impressive: after winning the 2014 French he didn't even reach a grand slam semifinal until the 2017 Australian, and looked besieged by injury. To come back and win 6 slams is incredible.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

This BBC article discusses the GOAT question.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I'm very interested to see how the whole Naomi Osaka thing plays out. With mental health being considered a much bigger deal than it used to be, I wonder if the tennis authorities might have shot themselves in the foot with their heavy-handed approach - fines and threats of expulsion.

The BBC are not above making jokes about the dangers of media duties. The headline to this article from the main tennis page, though not in the article itself is "Kvitova pulls out of French Open with freak injury sustained during media duties".
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:17 pm I'm very interested to see how the whole Naomi Osaka thing plays out. With mental health being considered a much bigger deal than it used to be, I wonder if the tennis authorities might have shot themselves in the foot with their heavy-handed approach - fines and threats of expulsion.

The BBC are not above making jokes about the dangers of media duties. The headline to this article from the main tennis page, though not in the article itself is "Kvitova pulls out of French Open with freak injury sustained during media duties".
She needs help for sure and depression affects everyone differently, i would have found playing tennis, let alone giving interviews difficult when i have had clinical depression
I thiink sports media are worried if players can opt out of giving interviews more will pull out
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Would the sport, or sports generally, lose out much without some of these (mostly boring it has to be said) interviews? Also players not giving interviews can add to their "enigma".

I'm sure we all remember when Ayrton Senna crashed out of the lead of the 1988 Monaco GP - he just pissed off back to his home (in Monaco) and wasn't seen for days. It makes a better story than "I lost concentration for a second and hit the barrier and that was it."

This is a story that's remembered over 30 years later and it never would have happened if bans had been handed out for this sort of thing.

Obviously most non-interview situations wouldn't be interesting but the overall point still stands.

Also they could use carrot rather than stick - free carrots for doing interviews!
User avatar
Bradley Horrocks
Acolyte
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:53 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Bradley Horrocks »

I'd argue that Djokovic's French Open win is his best slam achievement to date - beating the undisputed king of clay, who wasn't hampered by injury, and coming back from 2 sets down twice. The first to beat Nadal and win the title in RG in the same tournament.

It's also hard to see Djokovic not coming out with the most slams now, and I say that as someone who doesn't want to be calling him the GOAT! I'd be shocked if Nadal and Fed win another hard court slam, and we now know Novak can beat these two on their specialist surface. The only person to beat a fit Novak on a hard court slam in the last 3 years is, er, himself.
"And PANTIES, thank you for that, that cheers us up enormously" - NH
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Bradley Horrocks wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:57 pm I'd argue that Djokovic's French Open win is his best slam achievement to date - beating the undisputed king of clay, who wasn't hampered by injury, and coming back from 2 sets down twice. The first to beat Nadal and win the title in RG in the same tournament.

It's also hard to see Djokovic not coming out with the most slams now, and I say that as someone who doesn't want to be calling him the GOAT! I'd be shocked if Nadal and Fed win another hard court slam, and we now know Novak can beat these two on their specialist surface. The only person to beat a fit Novak on a hard court slam in the last 3 years is, er, himself.
I see Nadal has pulled out of Wimbledon and the Olympics
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Dave Robjohns
Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:06 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Dave Robjohns »

Draper winning the first set on centre court for Wimby 2021 certainly not what I expected! Bahhh I've missed this beautiful grass
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Did Novak just let that English kid win a set to give the London crowd a thrill?
Back to business as usual now.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Well done Andy.
Thought it was a great win.
Who cares if he is rated 150
Lets hope you get to week 2.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Being a little preoccupied with the football i kinda forgot Novak more or less (come September) cementing his place as the GOAT.
He could emulate Steffi Graf with a golden slam if he goes to Tokyo and wins the US open.
If he stays healthy he could win 5 or 6 more majors.
I doubt if his rivals have many more majors in them
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: TENNIS

Post by Mark James »

If he can win the US open from Tokyo then he'll be like a wizard or something.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I've been meaning to post about this for the last few days. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all on 20 grand slam wins, and it looks odds on that when they all retire Djokovic will have the lead on this, possibly by a margin. Does that make him the GOAT though? Is number of grand slams everything?

The players have had their career peaks at slightly different times and with no new top-tier talent having come through for years, it gives Djokovic a distinct advantage given that he is basically at his peak right now. Nadal is a similar age, but a lot of his career success came earlier anyway. You could also argue that Federer had the advantage of having a few years before the other guys came along.

It's worth pointing out that Federer had an insane run of reaching every grand slam semi-final from Wimbleon 2004 until he got knocked out of the French QF in 2010. He'd won 16 of his 20 grand slams by then and had basically peaked. Djokovic was still on one, having won the 2008 Australian Open and not added to it since. (His second was the Australian Open in 2011.)

Nadal's a bit harder to call with regards to his peak. Most of his success (13 out of 20 slams) have been at the French and the other 7 have been dotted about a bit, but the highest concentration was still earlier on, with 4 of these 7 won by the end of 2010.

Anyway, in summary, Djokovic's winning run really started in 2011, definitely after Federer's peak, and probably after Nadal's too. And he's had 10 years at it since. Obviously let's not forget Murray too, who's been capable of nicking the odd grand slam and is more like Djokovic's age than the others, but he's only won three, so has hardly done major damage to Djokovic's numbers.
Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: TENNIS

Post by Conor »

I’d say Federer’s early career advantage probably evens out with Djokovic’s current advantage. But maybe you’ve got to give Federer extra credit for raising the bar in what was conceptually possible and winning more than 50% of slams and threatening on every surface over several years in a way that hadn’t been done in men’s tennis.

Nadal’s career timeline is sandwiched between them, though he is only a year older than Djokovic. He’s struggled a lot more with injury, but that’s also down to his playing style.

When Djokovic arrived in 2011 and defined himself as the most attritional baseliner, capable of playing back-to-back 5+ hour matches (Australian Open 2012), it didn’t feel like a style he could keep up well into his thirties. So that he’s managed to reinvent himself after his mid-career slump seems to be his best achievement of all.
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4544
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: TENNIS

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Much as I hate to admit it as he's my least favourite of the big 3, I think Djokovic probably now has the best claim to the title of GOAT, with his win over Nadal at the French this year.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:17 pm Much as I hate to admit it as he's my least favourite of the big 3, I think Djokovic probably now has the best claim to the title of GOAT, with his win over Nadal at the French this year.
I don't think that alone does very much really, since Nadal probably isn't the same player he once was, and it's just one tournament.

I think the big worry for people who don't like Djokovic isn't really anything that's happened yet, but that in a few years he might be well clear in the grand slam totals.

By the way, the thing I didn't mention against Federer is that I see him as a bit of a choker. In a 50/50 situation against Nadal or Djokovic, you expect him to lose. Edit - Had he won in Wimbledon in 2019, things would look a lot better for him (yeah, it's just one tournament but it would have been a good win against the younger, rampant Djokovic and a good way to get probably his last win).
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Returning to this:
Gavin Chipper wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:00 pm
Clive Brooker wrote:As a casual observer I don't see any obvious difference visually in the way the balls are behaving this year. I'm pretty sure there was a similar change in 1996 (when Sampras made the SF in Paris). That year Sampras beat two recent champions (Courier and Bruguera) and the final was contested by Kafelnikov and Stich - quite a contrast to the years either side. So it seems than the balls can change the way the game is played quite dramatically.

A few years back, the top guys at the French Open hardly bothered with the serve at all, just putting the ball in play and saving energy for the rallies. Apparently in one final Wilander missed just one first serve in the whole match. Wimbledon used to be dominated by a net-rushing style which sometimes made rallies non-existent. Compared with what we see nowadays I don't think either spectacle was particularly edifying.

On the other hand it's not as though the grass-court players couldn't succeed at the French Open in the past. Edberg almost won it one year and even Becker made at least one semi, when Wilander made him look like an idiot. It seems inconceivable nowadays that a player so dominant in one environment could appear so inept in another, so perhaps the homogenization of the game has gone quite far enough.
So with this homogenisation, it would be interesting to see how today's players would do in the past. Everyone seems to be an all-court specialist nowadays. Nadal was originally a clay court specialist until he became good everywhere. Would he have been able to beat Sampras in the serve and volley days? Also Sampras was very good at one end of the spectrum with his serve and volleying but fairly rubbish on clay, so in today's homogenised game, where would he stand? I need to know!
I'm not exactly a tennis expert so I'm not sure why being a specialist is less of a thing now, but I'm guessing it's to do with the balls or something.

But anyway, I'm going to say that whatever happened, it favoured Nadal and Djokovic more than Federer. Basically nowadays, tennis is just whacking the ball from the back of the court until you beat the other guy into submission, regardless of surface (which is why it surprises me actually that Nadal still seems to do relatively so much better on clay, when it's basically all clay these days).

Back in the 90s, in the Sampras days, a clay court specialist had basically no chance of winning Wimbledon. What did Gustavo Kuerten or Sergi Bruguera ever do at Wimbledon? Likewise Sampras was rubbish at the French Open. Andre Agassi was a rare player being able to win on any surface at a grand slam.

I think that Federer would have been at home on grass in the 90s and would have been as effective as Sampras. Whereas I don't think Nadal or Djokovic would have been. However, on clay, I think Federer would have been at least as good as he was anyway (since the game has gone away from grass court specialists).

So without this homogenisation, I think Federer would have won as much as before (maybe even more) and Nadal and Djokovic less so, so arguably Federer was just unlucky that this happened and the others lucky. Basically if courts had the differences they used to, we would have seen Federer as the best all-court player, but the difference is no longer that big so we don't.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I found a few articles talking about court specialisation being less of a thing now, but without bothering to ask why. This article, however, does discuss it. Different grass at Wimbledon now apparently from 2002 onwards. And they changed the surface of the Australian Open in 2008. Different balls as well. And player evolution. Although I think player evolution is only a small part of it myself. There's definitely been a general homogenisation of what is required on each of the playing surfaces.
User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: TENNIS

Post by Adam Gillard »

Emma Raducanu
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
Dave Robjohns
Rookie
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:06 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Dave Robjohns »

Mad to think the AELTC almost didn't give Emma a wildcard for Wimby. The LTA only persuaded them to give her one after she won a couple of games at Nottingham

If she didn't get that, she wouldn't have even been highly ranked enough to be in US Open qualifying, and none of this would have happened!
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

When everyone is so gushing and sycophantic in their praise of someone, across all media, Facebook etc., is it just me that thinks "Maybe it would be funny if they lose"?

Edit - I also find the national mania slightly disturbing.
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Phil H »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:26 am When everyone is so gushing and sycophantic in their praise of someone, across all media, Facebook etc., is it just me that thinks "Maybe it would be funny if they lose"?

Edit - I also find the national mania slightly disturbing.
There's always someone who's a bigger contrarian than me!
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:26 am When everyone is so gushing and sycophantic in their praise of someone, across all media, Facebook etc., is it just me that thinks "Maybe it would be funny if they lose"?

Edit - I also find the national mania slightly disturbing.
One of the greatest underdog stories in professional sport. Seems reasonable, for a change.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

44 years is a long wait.
Looking forward to "Raducanu ramp" (that's the best alliteration I could come with) at Wimbledon next year
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Marc Meakin wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 5:52 pm 44 years is a long wait.
Looking forward to "Raducanu ramp" (that's the best alliteration I could come with) at Wimbledon next year
Rise. (I did use a thesaurus for help though.)
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4544
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: TENNIS

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Yeah, it's easy to lose sight of how massive an achievement this is because the proportionality in media coverage of UK sport is very reliably completely wrong.

This is huge. First person to win a GS as a qualifier. To not lose a set on the way. To not even give up 5 games in any single set. All in her second ever GS event. Insane.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:29 pm Yeah, it's easy to lose sight of how massive an achievement this is because the proportionality in media coverage of UK sport is very reliably completely wrong.

This is huge. First person to win a GS as a qualifier. To not lose a set on the way. To not even give up 5 games in any single set. All in her second ever GS event. Insane.
I see the BBC has dialed the hyperbole up to 11 by trying to unscientifically trying to rank her achievements in the pantheon of British sporting achievements

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/58534133

I think if you did the same poll in 5 years it would be different.
I personally was more impressed with Kelly Holmes double Gold medal in Athens
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Some of those in the poll have gained no traction with the public whatsoever. I'd suggest 4, 8 and 9, although I was quite aware of 9. But they needed to put in women's things "for balance". But they could have put in Kelly Holmes as Marc said, maybe Paula Radcliffe with her marathon world record (no longer held) and I think people even remember the time the British women won the curling in about 2002.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

In other news Medvedev beat Djokovic in the men's final so Djokovic is stuck on 20 with the others still. It would be amazing if it just stayed that way.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:36 am Some of those in the poll have gained no traction with the public whatsoever. I'd suggest 4, 8 and 9, although I was quite aware of 9. But they needed to put in women's things "for balance". But they could have put in Kelly Holmes as Marc said, maybe Paula Radcliffe with her marathon world record (no longer held) and I think people even remember the time the British women won the curling in about 2002.
I think that 66 and 03 won't get many votes outside England.
Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile should be up there.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: TENNIS

Post by Ian Volante »

That's a terrible list, likely more based on stuff the author remembers rather than any depth of sporting understanding.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Fred Mumford
Enthusiast
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Fred Mumford »

Marc Meakin wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:16 amRoger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile should be up there.
How quickly people forget - that performance wasn't even enough to win him Sports Personality of the Year. Once the barrier had been broken everyone started doing sub 4 minute miles, and a particularly dramatic televised mile race later in the year must have been more in voters' minds when it came to choosing SPOTY.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Marc Meakin »

Bump.
Nadal now 2 ahead.
GOAT??
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Marc Meakin wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 5:35 pm Bump.
Nadal now 2 ahead.
GOAT??
There's certainly an argument. Although with the scores at 22-20-20, it's still close, and I don't think simply total number of grand slams is necessarily the best metric. Having said that, it should certainly be taken into consideration as one of the things to be looked at.
User avatar
Bradley Horrocks
Acolyte
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:53 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Bradley Horrocks »

It's still too early to say. This time last year, it looked like it would be Djokovic who would end up with the most. Djokovic certainly has another AO and Wimby in him, not sure if Nadal can muster another RG. Time is running out though, feels as if Alcaraz/Medvedev/Zverev are now capable of beating anyone on their day and will only get stronger.
"And PANTIES, thank you for that, that cheers us up enormously" - NH
Phil H
Acolyte
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:52 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Phil H »

I don't think I follow tennis as closely as some of you but I'd still be inclined to lean towards Federer, because of the number he won when all of the big three were close to their top level.

I'd also argue that 22 with 14 on clay, while obviously making Nadal a greater specialist than the other two, isn't necessarily a greater achievement overall than 20 more evenly spread - in fact, I'd say it's slightly less great if push came to shove.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: TENNIS

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Phil H wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 11:22 am I don't think I follow tennis as closely as some of you but I'd still be inclined to lean towards Federer, because of the number he won when all of the big three were close to their top level.

I'd also argue that 22 with 14 on clay, while obviously making Nadal a greater specialist than the other two, isn't necessarily a greater achievement overall than 20 more evenly spread - in fact, I'd say it's slightly less great if push came to shove.
On your first point, Federer was very consistent when he was at his best. From Wimbledon 2004 to Australia 2010, he made the semi-finals in 23 consecutive grand slams. There was also a run of 19 slams where he made the final 18 times. If we look at that peak run of 19, he won 12 times, lost in the final 6 times and in the semis once. The semi loss was to Djokovic at the 2008 Australian Open, but 5 of the 6 final losses were to Nadal. I always thought that while Federer had a better chance of reaching the final of a given grand slam than Nadal, Nadal would start as favourite in a match. OK, so 3 out of the 5 final losses were at the French where Nadal dominated so that only leaves two others. However, while Federer beat Nadal in the Wimbledon finals of 2006 and 2007, Nadal was still improving at that point, and Nadal won both of the non-French Open finals when they were both at or around their peak (Wimbledon 2008 and Australian 2009). In 2008/9, Nadal won 3 out of a run of 4 slams. Federer won the other, but Nadal was knocked out by Andy Murray so he didn't have to beat Nadal. Plus I don't think you can just give Federer a free pass for losing a French Open final to Nadal - and he lost three in a row. I always thought Federer had a bit of a mental block against Nadal, and I think he was more of a "choker" than Nadal or Djokovic. Winning Wimbledon in 2019 would have been a great way to cap his career, but he lost from a winning position against Djokovic.

But Djokovic on the other hand had ony won a single grand slam by the time Federer had peaked, so his peak was not against a prime Federer. But that doesn't mean we can discount him. Federer still had flashes of his old form post 2010 and a late career renaissance, and there was the aforementioned 2019 epic Wimbledon final, which Djokovic won. And Nadal has been around all this period, though in and out with injuries.

I agree with you on your second point. Nadal has only won 8 non-French grand slams. And while Federer has only won one French, he has at least five everywhere else.

So I think the overall situation is complex.
Post Reply