The Tennis Thread

[Anpanman]

No denying Nadal would have won more at RG than anyone else but the point about him being less effective when it is cloudy is still a valid one.

As a pure tennis player Roger was the most naturally gifted of this era even perhaps all-time, you may prefer Nadal which is fine but him, Djok and Murray would probably have no Grand Slams between them if they never went to a gym in their lives, they have required extreme fitness to help get them their victories rather than pure talent.

Nadal also had his share of toilet and injury breaks but no-one wastes time like him, I'm careful to watch the shot clock and in last years semi at RG in his first service game the first two points were around two seconds over with another two of the points at just about 00 on the clock. What makes it worse is when he makes a fault on first serve then there is no shot clock on second so he can piss about with his;
Adjust crotch
Adjust arse
Adjust left sleeve/shoulder
Adjust right "" ""
Put hair behind left ear (even though he doesn't have any)
Put hair behind right "" ""
Rub nose left
Rub nose right

...plus at RG he has to wipe the lines with his shoes even though there is no clay on them...

He does this on every bloody point!

Zverev was getting mightily pissed off as he wanted to get on with it, problem is that if he served the umpire would tell him Nadal wasn't ready but the receiver must play to the server's time. The pundits were discussing this about Nadal at Wimbledon before last years final.

[Anpanman]

Meanwhile Halep's been done again;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/65653871

[Nu-Eclipse]

No denying Nadal would have won more at RG than anyone else but the point about him being less effective when it is cloudy is still a valid one.

He has won clay court events all over the world, indoor and outdoor. I'm pretty sure he holds the record for doing so. Again, were all those wins on sunny days? I seriously doubt it. And he completed the Grand Slam winning every major at least twice and ended seasons as a World Number 1 so again he adapted his game to win consistently, making the cloudy day argument wholly irrelevant at best.

As a pure tennis player Roger was the most naturally gifted of this era even perhaps all-time, you may prefer Nadal which is fine but him, Djok and Murray would probably have no Grand Slams between them if they never went to a gym in their lives, they have required extreme fitness to help get them their victories rather than pure talent.

Roger literally had to retire because his talent wasn't enough anymore and because he wasn't fit to play anymore, and he did put serious work into his own fitness - to suggest he was only about technical ability is laughable. The two literally go hand in hand in elite tennis and have done for decades and decades now. The vast majority of players on the tour are physical specimens but don't have the skill to win majors. Downplaying the ability of the others simply doesn't stand up. It just doesn't. The others would have been serious multiple slams winners in any generation because they were/are all technically excellent.

Zverev was getting mightily pissed off as he wanted to get on with it, problem is that if he served the umpire would tell him Nadal wasn't ready but the receiver must play to the server's time. The pundits were discussing this about Nadal at Wimbledon before last years final.

The argument fails just by mentioning Zverev - the guy who got banned for attacking an umpire's chair!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/08/alexander-zverev-suspended-ban-smashing-umpire-chair-mexican-open-tennis

He's worse than most on the tour and that's not even mentioning his alleged off-court behaviour.

[Anpanman]

My point still stands about Roger's natural ability, he's the one the pundits and ex players warm to most because of his natural ability end of.

The argument fails just by mentioning Zverev - the guy who got banned for attacking an umpire's chair!

Nothing whatsoever to do with my point. Other players apart from Zverev get upset with Ralph and his shenanigans but no umpire takes him on because he is who he is. He get's away with his pissing around on first serve, even more on second and then he doesn't get himself ready for his opponent which is a lack of respect.

I fully accept Nadal is one of the greatest but I don't have to like the way he goes about his business with all his time wasting on every point which beggars belief, it's far more than any other player.

[Anpanman]

Aside from the ole chants the FO has some good matches this year.

Draw a bit lop sided though.

[Anpanman]

Novak makes it 23 in '23.

Pity about the semi Alcaraz may have caused an upset if he could stay fit.

Onto Wimbledon where he could make in no.24.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Could've, would've, should've....

I like Alcaraz (has that Nadal style of play about him) but he'll have to learn how to handle the pressure and stress of playing those types of top-class matches against the likes of Djokovic. Comes with the territory.

If Djokovic wins Wimbledon, calendar slam looks likely - don't see him crumbling under the pressure like he did the last time he got close at the US Open. He might even get near 30 major wins before hanging his racquet up.

[Anpanman]

Personally I don't think Djokovic will get to thirty, Wimbledon is his best but the US Open has seen him being beaten by Medvedev and Alcaraz won last year.

Alcaraz is fantastic, he has all the shots to a very high standard, Tsitsipas looked beaten before the quarter final even started. Djokovic during his on court interview said he was shattered with the effort he was having to put in.
Murray had stamina issues which he overcame, Alcaraz is still young once he gets his stamina sorted I can see him winning more Grand Slam's than anyone.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Personally I don't think Djokovic will get to thirty, Wimbledon is his best but the US Open has seen him being beaten by Medvedev and Alcaraz won last year./

I didn't say he'd definitely get to thirty. I said he'd get near it and that certainly isn't unrealistic. Medvedev obviously had quality to beat Novak at the US Open but Novak clearly struggled with the very real pressure of being on the verge of completing the Calendar Slam in that final. If he wins Wimbledon, he has another chance to do it and I don't think the pressure would get to him like that again but then I didn't think it would last time so who knows?

Medvedev hasn't pulled up trees since his major win and neither has Tsitsipas though I do think they'll win multiple majors long-term.

Alcaraz is fantastic, he has all the shots to a very high standard, Tsitsipas looked beaten before the quarter final even started. Djokovic during his on court interview said he was shattered with the effort he was having to put in.
Murray had stamina issues which he overcame, Alcaraz is still young once he gets his stamina sorted I can see him winning more Grand Slam's than anyone.

I don't think anybody will dominate majors in the men's game the way Novak, Roger and Rafa did. I think Alcaraz will win many but the physical toll just to get to double figures in majors and maintain ranking points/Masters Event points in a high-calibre field of Alcaraz, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, Ruud, Zverev, etc. will just be too much. The majors will more likely be spread out evenly IMO.

[Anpanman]

I know you didn't it's just your opinion, be interesting to see how it goes though I'm happy to be proved wrong with Djokovic and Alcaraz.

The reason I think Alcaraz may possibly win more than anyone is that Nadal, Federer, Murray aren't around and Novak won't last forever, strictly speaking Novak would be physically regressing every year whilst Alcaraz will be getting stronger.

I just don't think the other players you list are strong enough, I pull for Tsitsipas, Zverev and Medvedev as well but I'm not sure they can take apart Alcaraz. Ruud is very good on clay and a decent game on hard but I'm just not sold on him.

Time will tell.

[Nu-Eclipse]

The reason I think Alcaraz may possibly win more than anyone is that Nadal, Federer, Murray aren't around and Novak won't last forever, strictly speaking Novak would be physically regressing every year whilst Alcaraz will be getting stronger.

I just don't think the other players you list are strong enough, I pull for Tsitsipas, Zverev and Medvedev as well but I'm not sure they can take apart Alcaraz. Ruud is very good on clay and a decent game on hard but I'm just not sold on him.

There is no guarantee that Alcaraz will maintain his level. There is also no reason that the others mentioned won't or can't improve to challenge him, and that's not even mentioning others who clearly have potential like Shapovalov and Auger-Aliassime.

I just think that the field is more stacked now than it was when Roger, Rafa and Novak were in their primes and only had to contend with a few like Murray, Del Potro and Wawrinka.

I don't think it'll be easy for anybody to dominate to the point of getting 20 major wins. It obviously can be done but I think the field will mean it will be difficult to do so.

[Anpanman]

Shapo and Auger-Aliassime looked very promising but haven't really pushed on since 2021 which is a shame.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Shapo and Auger-Aliassime looked very promising but haven't really pushed on since 2021 which is a shame.

They're 24 and 22 respectively.

They're still young enough that there is plenty of time for them to do so.

[charlesr]

Dropped my phone in my food before watching the games on centre court today. Do I win a prize?

[Nu-Eclipse]

Djokovic playing Medvedev in the US Open Men's Singles Final tonight the way he should've done in 2021, blocking out the history stuff and playing point-by-point.

Two sets and a break up. Long way back for the Russian...although he's just broken back in the third set so maybe I might yet be wrong again!