Tennis 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raoul said:
You don't think Novak has been playing well of late ? He seems to be back on track to challenge for the top 5 again from what I've seen.
Click to expand...
Thought he played fairly well in Rome, not been overly convinced by what I've seen of him in the first week here but to be fair he's not really needed to do a whole lot. The semi against (presumably) Thiem should be a good barometer, think Thiem will go in as a fairly strong favourite myself.
 
Raoul said:
Rafa has the tougher half of the draw imo. He has the kid that beat Shapovalov next, then potentially Kevin Anderson, followed by the likes of Del Potro, Fognini (who is playing very well at the moment) or Cilic.
Click to expand...

They're all going to be tough tests but none of them are clay court specialists so you would expect Nadal to see them off. Fognini is someone who often troubles Rafa but again 5 sets at RG is a different ball game altogether. I'd rather face them though than clay court specialists like Djoko or Thiem.

Raoul said:
You don't think Novak has been playing well of late ? He seems to be back on track to challenge for the top 5 again from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

I think he's very inconsistent within matches and it's been a feature through his clay season. It's like he can't maintain a level for the entirety of a match yet.
 
Wozniacki out. Thank God for that after she desperately wanted to stop playing yesterday
 
Sharapova has been no great shake since coming back, but she can potentially score a rare win here against Serena who is on her way back as well.

Another stroll in the park for Rafa it seems, a break up already.
 
What's this Marterer like as a player? Never seen any of his matches before.
 
Could Del Potro have been in the the mix with Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray etc. without the injuries? Career-wise.
 
altodevil86 said:
Could Del Potro have been in the the mix with Djokovic, Nadal, Fed, Murray etc. without the injuries? Career-wise.
Click to expand...
Delpo lacked consistency even when was injury free. He was always a threat to the top 3-4 players, and on a given day he could beat one of them. However, with the exception of the SF and F of the 2009 USO, it was always hard for him to beat two of these guys back to back to win a grand slam (or even WTF). He just didn't have that extra gear to move to when needed.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Delpo lacked consistency even when was injury free. He was always a threat to the top 3-4 players, and on a given day who could beat one of them. However, with the exception of the SF and F of the 2009 USO, it was always hard for him to beat two of these guys back to back to win a grand slam (or even WTF). He just didn't have that extra gear.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.

He was 20 when he won the US open. He was the first guy to beat Nadal and Fed back to back way before Djokovic or Murray.

He was on his way to the top then he got wrist injuries in 2010 which have plagued him since then.

We don’t know what kind of career he would have had. Calling him inconsistent is silly due to that. He won a grand slam before Murray and had the same amount of grand slams as Djokovic in 2009. If you asked Fed or Nadal who they rather face out the three in 2009 they would go for Djokovic and Murray. Del Potro at the time had more dangerous weapons.

He had his best grand slam year in 2009. So for a 20 year old to win a slam was impressive. If he had not got injured, I’m sure he would have won another slam.
 
wtf happened to Anderson there? last I checked he was 2-1 and a break up in the 4th. Now 2-2 and Schwartzman serving for match.
 
Bojan11 said:
That makes no sense.

He was 20 when he won the US open. He was the first guy to beat Nadal and Fed back to back way before Djokovic or Murray.

He was on his way to the top then he got wrist injuries in 2010 which have plagued him since then.

We don’t know what kind of career he would have had. Calling him inconsistent is silly due to that. He won a grand slam before Murray and had the same amount of grand slams as Djokovic in 2009. If you asked Fed or Nadal who they rather face out the three in 2009 they would go for Djokovic and Murray. Del Potro at the time had more dangerous weapons.

He had his best grand slam year in 2009. So for a 20 year old to win a slam was impressive. If he had not got injured, I’m sure he would have won another slam.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not saying that injuries didn't matter. They did, and he was very unfortunate to go through these injuries.

What I'm saying is that even when he wasn't injured, he still lacked the consistency to beat Fed, Nadal, Djoker and Murray on a constant basis. What he did in 2009 was very impressive... no question about that. However, you just always felt that he can lose to these guys even when he is playing great (RG 2012, Olympics 2012, Olympics 2016, Wimbledon 2013, etc. come to my mind).
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Look, I'm not saying that injuries didn't matter. They did, and he was very unfortunate to go through these injuries.

What I'm saying is that even when he wasn't injured, he still lacked the consistency to beat Fed, Nadal, Djoker and Murray on a constant basis. What he did in 2009 was very impressive... no question about that. However, you just always felt that he can lose to these guys even when he is playing great (RG 2012, Olympics 2012, Olympics 2016, Wimbledon 2013, etc. come to my mind).
Click to expand...

He beat Nadal and Djokovic in the olympics 2016. He lost to Murray in the final. But beat him in Glasgow the following month. Murray owes him for Wimbledon 2013 because Djokovic had nothing in the gas after his match against Del Potro.

Give any of those players the wrist injuries and they’d struggle for inconsistency. He’s not had one wrist injury. He’s had about 3.

Just look at Djokovic ffs. He’s had his first serious injury and wasn’t even out that long yet has struggled. Wawrinka has struggled. Murray will most likely struggle. You can’t just suddenly come back and start challenging especially if your ranking takes a nosedive. As you end up getting top players early on.

He was 20 and just had won a grand slam. Ended Federers run at the US open. There’s no doubt in my mind if he had stayed injury free he would have had a few more slams.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
wtf happened to Anderson there? last I checked he was 2-1 and a break up in the 4th. Now 2-2 and Schwartzman serving for match.
Click to expand...
Yeah I checked it ages ago and it looked like a routine win. Good win for him though, he's a good foot smaller than Anderson.

Think Schwartzman will give Nadal a good match. Maybe similar to Bolelli and still lose in straight sets as I don't think he has the tools to actually beat him.
 
Bojan11 said:
He beat Nadal and Djokovic in the olympics 2016. He lost to Murray in the final. But beat him in Glasgow the following month. Murray owes him for Wimbledon 2013 because Djokovic had nothing in the gas after his match against Del Potro.

Give any of those players the wrist injuries and they’d struggle for inconsistency. He’s not had one wrist injury. He’s had about 3.

Just look at Djokovic ffs. He’s had his first serious injury and wasn’t even out that long yet has struggled. Wawrinka has struggled. Murray will most likely struggle. You can’t just suddenly come back and start challenging especially if your ranking takes a nosedive. As you end up getting top players early on.

He was 20 and just had won a grand slam. Ended Federers run at the US open. There’s no doubt in my mind if he had stayed injury free he would have had a few more slams.
Click to expand...
A simple regression: y=alpha+beta*x1. Only one variable (x1) explains y.
A more realistic regression: y=alpha+beta1*x1+beta2*x2+beta3*x3+...+betan*xn . Multiple variables can explain y.

Now let:
x1= injuries.
x2...xn: other factors.

The fact that x1 is important (statistically significant) doesn't mean that other factors are not important. Put differently, as I have already said in this page, injuries were one reason for him not to accomplish what he could've accomplished, but there are other reasons.

You mention names: well, Nadal got injured numerous times, but he came back and won slams. Fed missed half a season, and then won the AO 2017 in his return to action. He then won two more slams and got to #1 at the age of 36-37.
 
Del Po would have definitely won more Slams if he'd stayed injury free. His movement was not the best but players like Soderling and Berdych have made multiple Slam finals and Del Po is a far superior player to both of them. He's also won a slam beating Nadal and Fed back to back. To injure your wrist and have to go through multiple wrist surgeries is the worst thing that can happen to a tennis player and he's still done incredibly well to get back from it. If he keeps his current level up, he can easily win a couple of Slams over the next few years.
 
Del Po beats Isner in straight sets and will play the winner of Cilic vs Fognin (Cilic leads 2 sets to 1 and 6-5 in the 4th).
 
ManUtd1999 said:
A simple regression: y=alpha+beta*x1. Only one variable (x1) explains y.
A more realistic regression: y=alpha+beta1*x1+beta2*x2+beta3*x3+...+betan*xn . Multiple variables can explain y.

Now let:
x1= injuries.
x2...xn: other factors.

The fact that x1 is important (statistically significant) doesn't mean that other factors are not important. Put differently, as I have already said in this page, injuries were one reason for him not to accomplish what he could've accomplished, but there are other reasons.

You mention names: well, Nadal got injured numerous times, but he came back and won slams. Fed missed half a season, and then won the AO 2017 in his return to action. He then won two more slams and got to #1 at the age of 36-37.
Click to expand...

Yes because everyone is like Federer and Nadal....

There’s a reason why they both the greatest of all time.

Also Nadal struggled when he had wrist injuries. Like WR8 said the wrist injuries are the worst that can happen to a tennis player. It destroyed Laura Robsons career.
 
Raoul said:
Based on Fognini's form in recent tournaments, the first two sets were a bit of an anomaly. The latter three were closer to how he has played of late.
Click to expand...
They were saying at the end that he might have had an ankle issue. Only saw the final set, so not sure how big a deal that was.
 
Zverev, unsurprisingly, getting absolutely destroyed. Shocker that he actually made it this far. Yet again a very mediocre Slam player. No way he plays this bad if its a Masters match vs Theim.
 
Maybe next Slam onwards, Zverev should focus on not being taken to 5 sets against every random player he faces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.