Tennis 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not watching it at the moment, but Djokovic seems to have been pretty solid for most of the first set. As ridiculous as it sounds, given that we're talking about Novak Djokovic, I really think he could be a bolter for Wimbledon. If he can start playing the big points well, there are very few players in the draw that will be able to see him off.
 
Brophs said:
I'm not watching it at the moment, but Djokovic seems to have been pretty solid for most of the first set. As ridiculous as it sounds, given that we're talking about Novak Djokovic, I really think he could be a bolter for Wimbledon. If he can start playing the big points well, there are very few players in the draw that will be able to see him off.
Click to expand...

Depends on the draw though.

He’s not 25 year old where he could get through any draw given to him.

If he gets a few tough matches in the first week then it starts to take its toll come the second week in a grand slam. One of the reasons Zverev doesn’t do well because a lot of his first week matches end up being longer than 3 sets.
 
Very close final so far. Only difference being Cilic's 2nd serve points are not working out for him.
 
Just clicked off F1 to see this is still going. Thought Novak was in control.
 
Cillic wins in 3. Good performance.
 
Cilic wins a hard fought 3 setter against Novak.

Djokovic is definitely on his way back and I wouldn't be surprised if these two happen to meet again at the Wimbledon quarters or better.
 
Quite surprised at that, though perhaps I shouldn't be. Cilic has a good record at Queen's. From the bits I saw Djokovic looked in pretty good shape and seemed to be building up a bit of that aura again. But some of the tweets I've seen have suggested that Cilic served well, which can be a real equaliser on grass.

Being (wildly) optimistic, it might end up being the best result for a competitive Wimbledon. Cilic is puffed up after a great week and Djokovic still has that hunger to win again.
 
Djoko still just isn't quite there mentally. 4-1 up in the TB and he looked super nervy. He really needs one huge win or a tournament to bring that spark back but he's looking good. Mens tennis really needs Djoko back to this best, it's just way too poor right now.
 
wr8_utd said:
Djoko still just isn't quite there mentally. 4-1 up in the TB and he looked super nervy. He really needs one huge win or a tournament to bring that spark back but he's looking good. Mens tennis really needs Djoko back to this best, it's just way too poor right now.
Click to expand...

Losing tie breakers happens to everyone. Fed was up in the first set tiebreaker today and had a couple of set points and wound up losing it. Its the overall form over the past week that matters and both Federer and Djokovic have played well enough to where they will be in a small handful of legitimate contenders at Wimbledon (along with Cilic, Coric, Nadal, and maybe one more).
 
Raoul said:
Losing tie breakers happens to everyone. Fed was up in the first set tiebreaker today and had a couple of set points and wound up losing it. Its the overall form over the past week that matters and both Federer and Djokovic have played well enough to where they will be in a small handful of legitimate contenders at Wimbledon (along with Cilic, Coric, Nadal, and maybe one more).
Click to expand...
This is the first time Djoko has lost a match in which he's held MP since 09 I believe. He's definitely improved a lot but I still feel somewhere he's not the same guy he was mentally and that's understandable with the year he's had. I just think he needs that one title to bring him right back to his best both mentally and physically.
His form has been constantly improving but I think he needs one thing to go his way.
 
Raoul said:
Losing tie breakers happens to everyone. Fed was up in the first set tiebreaker today and had a couple of set points and wound up losing it. Its the overall form over the past week that matters and both Federer and Djokovic have played well enough to where they will be in a small handful of legitimate contenders at Wimbledon (along with Cilic, Coric, Nadal, and maybe one more).
Click to expand...
Despite beating Federer today, I can't see Coric getting anywhere close to competing for Wimbledon. He had a 2-9 record on grass before this week. I very much doubt Nadal will compete either.

Kyrgios has played well the past two weeks, so if he keeps his head together, I think he will be a threat, but the guy is so unpredictable.

All depends on how the draw goes, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go the same as last year with a selection of lower ranked big hitters like Querrey, Muller etc. going deep, but ultimately Federer still winning it.
 
saivet said:
Despite beating Federer today, I can't see Coric getting anywhere close to competing for Wimbledon. He had a 2-9 record on grass before this week. I very much doubt Nadal will compete either.

Kyrgios has played well the past two weeks, so if he keeps his head together, I think he will be a threat, but the guy is so unpredictable.

All depends on how the draw goes, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it go the same as last year with a selection of lower ranked big hitters like Querrey, Muller etc. going deep, but ultimately Federer still winning it.
Click to expand...

Coric is only 21 so we are probably in the midst of an improvement period. I wouldn't ever count out anyone who wins Halle or Queens from being a Wimbledon contender.
 
Didn't end up watching any of the matches but knew Coric was gonna win. Federer was in average form and looked unhappy the whole week. Not confident about his chances at Wimby at all.

I wonder if theres something going on in his personal life that's been bothering him. Was the same in IW-Miami as well. 3 months off the court and instead of coming back refreshed and enjoying the game the problem persists, and he doesn't seem to be injured.
 
So Serena is rumoured to get a seeding at Wimbledon.

Which is ridiculous and just shows plain favouritism. Azarenka and Clijsters didn’t get one.

Why not just give it to injured players too? Not their fault they get injured.
 
The real question is whether they will allow her to wear that dreadful black scuba outfit at Wimbledon.
 
I liked the outfit. As long as it's all white, think they will be fine with it, though Wimbledon does stay strong on 'tradition'
 
Bojan11 said:
So Serena is rumoured to get a seeding at Wimbledon.

Which is ridiculous and just shows plain favouritism. Azarenka and Clijsters didn’t get one.

Why not just give it to injured players too? Not their fault they get injured.
Click to expand...
Wimbledon loves a bit of favoritism.
 
Serena gets seeded.

Pathetic really. May as well just give Murray a seed too. Not his fault he got injured.
 
I'm not bothered about her getting seeded as Serena is just behind Kvitova as a favorite to win the whole thing, so it would be a bit strange and disingenuous to have the person we expect to see in the final and/or winning the entire tournament, unseeded.

 
Raoul said:
I'm not bothered about her getting seeded as Serena is just behind Kvitova as a favorite to win the whole thing, so it would be a bit strange and disingenuous to have the person we expect to see in the final and/or winning the entire tournament, unseeded.

Click to expand...


Why does she need a seeding if she is favourite?

If she’s so good then do what Clijsters did.
 
Bojan11 said:
Why does she need a seeding if she is favourite?

If she’s so good then do what Clijsters did.
Click to expand...

She doesn't need it to be successful, but it would be very strange to have the best player ever and odds on 2nd favorite to win the tournament, unseeded. It would in effect delegitimize the concept of seeds.
 
Raoul said:
She doesn't need it to be successful, but it would be very strange to have the best player ever and odds on 2nd favorite to win the tournament, unseeded. It would in effect delegitimize the concept of seeds.
Click to expand...
Why that same concept of seeds didn't get delegitimized when Clijsters won the USO in 09? Or Federer get seeded at 17 in AO 2017 - which means there were 16 players more likely to win than him at the time?

Serena has been no great shakes either since coming back so 2nd favourite is just plain bollocks. This is a pathetic move by Wimbledon.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Why that same concept of seeds didn't get delegitimized when Clijsters won the USO in 09? Or Federer get seeded at 17 in AO 2017 - which means there were 16 players more likely to win than him at the time?

Serena has been no great shakes either since coming back so 2nd favourite is just plain bollocks. This is a pathetic move by Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with either of those either. Its silly to have significantly lesser players seeded when a tournament favorite is unseeded. Seeds should be applied based on how how likely a player is to win the tournament (I know they aren't applied as such, but that's just my opinion).
 
Raoul said:
I don't disagree with either of those either. Its silly to have significantly lesser players seeded when a tournament favorite is unseeded. Seeds should be applied based on how how likely a player is to win the tournament (I know they aren't applied as such, but that's just my opinion).
Click to expand...
So how would you qualify the 'favourite'? Nadal is going to be 2nd seed at SW19, same as last year, yet everyone and his dog knows he's hardly a factor on grass for years now. However, he deserves his seed nonetheless because of his performance this year and last .

Why even have points for ATP events? Just invite the big names and seed them every tournament. Your notion would destroy the integrity of competition. At which point a player's past reputation stops being a factor in considering how likely he/she is to compete?
 
Also lost in this discussion is the fact that Djokovic also get seeded higher than his ranking. A cynic can make the case that without one the other wouldnt have happened.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
So how would you qualify the 'favourite'? Nadal is going to be 2nd seed at SW19, same as last year, yet everyone and his dog knows he's hardly a factor on grass for years now. However, he deserves his seed nonetheless because of his performance this year and last .

Why even have points for ATP events? Just invite the big names and seed them every tournament. Your notion would destroy the integrity of competition. At which point a player's past reputation stops being a factor in considering how likely he/she is to compete?
Click to expand...

I think we can strike a balance by combining many different factors. ATP points should certainly be a big factor, but not the end all be all. Other factors like form in recent tournaments, odds/public expectations of how well a player is expected to fare, and other factors should also be relevant.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Also lost in this discussion is the fact that Djokovic also get seeded higher than his ranking. A cynic can make the case that without one the other wouldnt have happened.
Click to expand...

I suggested he could be ranked anywhere from 12 to as high as 7 two pages ago. They obviously considered his current form and historical stature when applying his seed.
 
Raoul said:
I suggested he could be ranked anywhere from 12 to as high as 7 two pages ago. They obviously considered his current form and historical stature when applying his seed.
Click to expand...
The highest he could have achieved under their system is 12 had he won Queens, he didn't but they did it anyway.

I cannot agree about some arcane considerations masking favouritism. The current system is already weighted against the guys at the bottom as it is. We cannot shit on the quality of the current tour and on the same breath condoning the fact that players are given leeways above and beyond the rules just because of their past achievements while guys on the grind 40, 50 weeks a year are given short end of the stick.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The highest he could have achieved under their system is 12 had he won Queens, he didn't but they did it anyway.

I cannot agree about some arcane considerations masking favouritism. The current system is already weighted against the guys at the bottom as it is. We cannot shit on the quality of the current tour and on the same breath condoning the fact that players are given leeways above and beyond the rules just because of their past achievements while guys on the grind 40, 50 weeks a year are given short end of the stick.
Click to expand...

The people who decide the seeds have clearly been watching Tennis in recent weeks and know Djokovic could win the entire thing, and as such, are applying incoming form and historical stature as appropriate weights when deciding his final seed. That's not favoritism - its simply expanding the existing methodology by adding more variables beyond just ATP points that can by applied to assess how to seed a former champion who is current the odds on 2nd favorite to win the tournament.
 
Raoul said:
The people who decide the seeds have clearly been watching Tennis in recent weeks and know Djokovic could win the entire thing, and as such, are applying incoming form and historical stature as appropriate weights when deciding his final seed. That's not favoritism - its simply expanding the existing methodology by adding more variables beyond just ATP points that can by applied to assess how to seed a former champion who is current the odds on 2nd favorite to win the tournament.
Click to expand...
Or they used the 'discretion' at their disposal to manipulate the draw in order to garner more viewership. Having Serena and Djokovic bombing out in the first week will hardly be good for their bottom line.

This is what I hate about modern professional sports. The little guys get shafted, the big guys keep silent as long as they are treated well and organisers raking in the dough.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Or they used the 'discretion' at their disposal to manipulate the draw in order to garner more viewership. Having Serena and Djokovic bombing out in the first week will hardly be good for their bottom line.

This is what I hate about modern professional sports. The little guys get shafted, the big guys keep silent as long as they are treated well and organisers raking in the dough.
Click to expand...

Its also a bit of self interest. They likely don't want Serena swatting away top ten seeded players in the early rounds. Same with Djokovic.
 
Actually scratch that, Berdych was #13 anyway - Djokovic only needed to make the final at Queen's. Anyway they shouldn't have seeded Serena, disappointing to see them bow to the pressure from people with little understanding of the situation.
 
I think some people are confused about the seeding for Wimbledon.

I don't know the full details, but I'll attempt to explain. The formula for Wimbledon has been the same for some time and Federer being the first seed was always going to happen.

For the men's side they take into account the the past two years performances on grass and amplify them, hence why Federer leaps Nadal (the gap is small anyway). The reason why they do it is because the ATP rankings don't really take into account grasscourt events. The season is short, therefore the ATP rankings don't reflect performances on the surface accurately unlike clay where there are 3 masters 1000 titles before RG. Hard courts are played most of the year, so again no need for adjustment.

So the rankings are not based on player prestige at all.

On the Serena debate, I'm less knowledgable on it, but it does open the debate for protected rankings for those on maternity leave. Maybe it's not consistent with what's happened in the past, but if one can consider it progression, maybe it's not an issue.
 
saivet said:
I think some people are confused about the seeding for Wimbledon.

I don't know the full details, but I'll attempt to explain. The formula for Wimbledon has been the same for some time and Federer being the first seed was always going to happen.

For the men's side they take into account the the past two years performances on grass and amplify them, hence why Federer leaps Nadal (the gap is small anyway). The reason why they do it is because the ATP rankings don't really take into account grasscourt events. The season is short, therefore the ATP rankings don't reflect performances on the surface accurately unlike clay where there are 3 masters 1000 titles before RG. Hard courts are played most of the year, so again no need for adjustment.

So the rankings are not based on player prestige at all.

On the Serena debate, I'm less knowledgable on it, but it does open the debate for protected rankings for those on maternity leave. Maybe it's not consistent with what's happened in the past, but if one can consider it progression, maybe it's not an issue.
Click to expand...

Makes sense (for the men). Although Djokovic has been pretty poor over the past couple of years hasn't he ?
 
Raoul said:
Makes sense (for the men). Although Djokovic has been pretty poor over the past couple of years hasn't he ?
Click to expand...
Just had a look and he made the QF last year and R3 the year before. It's poor by his standards, but decent enough for that ranking. Won Eastbourne last year too (250 event?) and the made the finals of Queens this year (500 event).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.