Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Sports' started by InstaFace, Jan 10, 2019.
Unforced errors is a pretty strange stat when one guy never misses.
Never close. Novak was perfect. My god
6-3, 6-2, 6-3.
Novak was 13-0 in service games, 5-8 on Nadal's serve.
Total time was just 2:04, total domination of an alltime great who had won all 18 sets coming in. It doesn't get more impressive than that.
9 errors the entire match for Novak.
The last 63 Grand Slams have broken down as follows:
Those three straight-up canceled a new generation of players
It’s getting to the point where they might cancel two generations of new hopefuls-
Guys like Dmitrov and Raonic have been replaced by the Zverevs and Thiems of the tour. Nothing any of the newest guys have shown me makes me think they can perform at the slams consistently enough to replace the big 3 anytime soon unless they slow down. And I haven’t seen anything from Nadal, Djokovic, or Fed that makes me think they won’t continue to dominate.
Glad you did! I slept through it, at least I can read about it :-/
What an ass kicking
Congrats to the GOAT, as Rogers finally is able to lock down his 100th career championship
Nadal withdraws from Indian Wells semi-final against Federer with a sore knee.
Fans in Indian Wells definitely got their money's worth yesterday. What a star-making performance by Bianca Andreescu, and Dominic Thiem just overpowered Federer at times. I believe all 19 ATP events this year (including the Australian Open) have been won by different players, which is pretty remarkable.
Hey CP, can you use your platform to advocate for playing best-of-5-set Finals at every tournament, both singles divisions? All the usual excuses - rest periods and TV scheduling - are made moot by the time you're in a Finals, and with only one match on the day (per division anyway), you want fans to get their money's worth even more than usual.
My platform is miniscule...but I'm not sure I'd use it for this. I remember the days when the Masters finals were best-of-5, and while I do love best-of-5 tennis, I also like the unpredictability of best-of-3 tennis outwith the Slams. The Masters events are basically now the pinnacle of best-of-3 tennis, and I like that Thiem had a bigger chance of winning yesterday than he would have against Federer in a best-of-5 match.
(I can, of course, bring up the topic next week during my Miami commentary without taking sides...)
You're basically saying that best-of-3 gives the better player a lower chance of securing the win, while giving the worse player a better chance (which it does, and I think we agree on that). I'm not sure why that's a good thing for viewers or even the competition in general. Don't we want the better players (on the day / in that moment) to win? To have less-heralded names prove their value and score an upset by outlasting and out-executing?
Taken to the logical conclusion, we should just have a single set. To 4 games. Or just play a set tiebreak and be done with it. Actually let's just have the two players come out and flip a coin, since that gives the worse player an even better chance! I really don't understand why less play would ever be a good thing, unless injury risk or schedule considerations (see: test cricket) place practical limits on it.
For one thing, that isn't the logical conclusion. Best-of-3-sets is generally thought to be the optimal length most tennis matches, whereas nobody wold say that about any of the other formats you've mentioned - unless you're a fan of the Tiebreak Tens format, which is not serious tennis. I do kinda like the Next Gen format of best-of-5 sets but first-to-4-games in each set, and I wonder if that might be a way forward in normal ATP Tour events at some point. (Although I'm not ready for no-ad scoring in singles, but that's neither here nor there.)
The other thing is that scheduling issues and injury risk would indeed play into the best-of-5 format issue over the course of a season. At the Slams, everyone normally gets a day of rest between matches - back-to-back matches are uncommon, and even when they happen, everyone has geared themselves up for one of the four biggest events of the season, and their bodies are as ready as possible to handle that sort of workload. On Sunday, Thiem had come off of a three-setter the day before (Federer having gotten a walkover...would it have been fair to subject Thiem to an extra set or two under those circumstances, and would the winner necessarily have been the better player on the day if Federer had rallied against an out-of-gas Thiem in 5?), and both men would be heading for another Masters 1000 event starting less than a week later on the other side of the country. There were rumors that Thiem might skip Miami, and I bet he would have skipped it if he'd had to play more tennis on Sunday, which wouldn't have benefited anyone.
Again, I love best-of-5 tennis, and I can see the arguments for it in Masters 1000-level finals. I can just see the arguments against it equally clearly.
Roger wins Miami, career #101. He becomes the first repeat winner either male or female in 2019. Next up for Roger is Madrid, so he will play some of the clay circuit
On a sour not, Isner broke down physically during the match. Got to give him tons of credit to compete to the end, but he could barely move by the end of the second set
By "repeat winner", you of course mean that Federer is the first person to win a second event this season on either tour, not that he's the first person to defend a title from last year. While Isner may have broken down in the second set, Federer made breaking Isner's serve look startlingly easy in the first set - I wonder how he's going to do on clay this year.
Yes he is the first person on either tour to win two events in 2019. Just astounding
The funny thing is Feds game seemed o decline along with Isner's game. Fed was just incredible in the first set while Isner seemed healthy. After Isner got hurt it seemed Fed just lost his edge