2017 Wimbledon Championships - Men

[GameSetAndMath]

Hard not to see this as his last real chance at Wimbledon. I could see him opting out next year, like Roger did clay this year, to improve his chances at the US Open and second half hard courts.

Rafa probably will not win Wimbledon again. But, I neither see him nor would recommend him opting out, unless he has an injury (as he has always some chance of winning it). Further his
performance at Wimbledon has considerably improved compared to the last few years and so
there is no reason why he should not hold his hope.

Wimbledon comes after RG where Rafa has his main thrust. So, after RG is over Rafa only needs to save him for next RG and so he does not have to preemptively opt out of tournaments. If it was the other way around (i.e., RG after Wimbledon), there is some sense in Rafa opting out of Wimbledon.

Also, the main reason Roger skipped clay season not because he was afraid of fatigue accumulating, but because he did not want to
change the play style to grinding style from first strike tennis and then revert back to first strike tennis again, especially in an year where he seems to have found his mojo again.

 

[Busted]

Nadal won more points than Muller (198-191). He had an aweful bp conversion rate 2/16(!), really clutch stuff from GM.

Maybe Nadal was channeling Roger...cuz Roger's lost more than a few matches where he won more points than he lost and his BP conversion was crap...

 

[Moxie]

Rafa probably will not win Wimbledon again. But, I neither see him nor would recommend him opting, out unless he has an injury. The situation with Roger is not comparable here. Wimbledon comes after RG where Rafa has his main thrust. So, after RG is over Rafa only needs to save him for next RG and so he does not have to preemptively opt out of tournaments.

Also, the main reason Roger skipped clay season not because he was afraid of fatigue accumulating, but because he did not want to
change the play style to grinding style from first strike tennis and then revert back to first strike tennis again, especially in an year where he seems to have found his mojo again.

I think you're exactly right, GSM. Rafa will always play Wimbledon if healthy. There's a decent break after Wimby to prep for the USO swing. Roger skipping the clay season is different for the reasons you state. Also, he is 35, and has had knee surgery. The calculation for him was probably smart, and rather different.

 

[El Dude]

I didn't say it was a "groundbreaking prognostication" - but...a lot of so-called experts were already talking a Fedal final just because Nadal had won the FO on CLAY again. And I can't see Nadal skipping Wimbledon next year IF HE'S HEALTHY - especially if he wins another FO. Every Slam played is another chance to get closer to Roger's 18 Slams - and you know Nadal wants to catch Roger at 18 very badly. Problem is - they only play 1 Slam on clay.

OK, fair enough. I'm sure you'll agree that it is WAY too soon to talk about Wimbledon 2018, but I agree that Rafa would love to catch Roger. But a lot can happen between now and then and, of course, it depends upon his health. He's been pretty fortunate healthwise this year, and whether he can again line up his health and highest level next year remains to be seen.

Also, I never said the loss "tarnished his legacy" but it DOES prove the point, yet again, about Nadal's limitations off clay. Yes, he's got 5 Slams off the red dirt - but you can't tell me that he doesn't want more. There are always going to be people who say he's a clay courter who occasionally wins on other surfaces (raising my hand), so any Slams he wins off the dirt goes a long way toward burnishing his legacy and GOAT claims even though the losses don't tarnish them.

I know you didn't say that - I was speaking in general, not to you specifically with that paragraph. But to reply to what you wrote, I've said before that I see Rafa as a combination of two players:

*Off clay he's an all-time great, but a lesser one somewhere in the spectrum of Lendl, Agassi, to Edberg/Becker
*On clay he's the GOATOASS (haha): Greatest Of All Time On A Specific Surface

So you combine the two, and he's right there with Novak, Pete, and Roger as the best players of the Open Era.

But as Moxie said, he's far from being just OK off clay. He's still been a great one, just not overall incredible - except for a few years.

 

[El Dude]

As for Rafa skipping Wimbledon, well if you look at his recent history, he usually misses one Slam each year. From 2012 - 16, a span of five years, he only played all four Slams once (2015). Presumably he'll play all four this year, but next? Rafa will probably never--at least anytime soon--deliberately opt out, but chances are he'll miss one, so maybe my prediction is a moot point. I just wonder if he's looking at Roger and thinking about eventually taking a modified schedule. I know he does best the more he plays, but at the same time he's kind of had default rest periods with his injuries.

Anyhow, Rafa can take a well earned rest after playing 53 matches so far this year.

 

[Moxie]

OK, fair enough. I'm sure you'll agree that it is WAY too soon to talk about Wimbledon 2018, but I agree that Rafa would love to catch Roger. But a lot can happen between now and then and, of course, it depends upon his health. He's been pretty fortunate healthwise this year, and whether he can again line up his health and highest level next year remains to be seen.



I know you didn't say that - I was speaking in general, not to you specifically with that paragraph. But to reply to what you wrote, I've said before that I see Rafa as a combination of two players:

*Off clay he's an all-time great, but a lesser one somewhere in the spectrum of Lendl, Agassi, to Edberg/Becker
*On clay he's the GOATOASS (haha): Greatest Of All Time On A Specific Surface

So you combine the two, and he's right there with Novak, Pete, and Roger as the best players of the Open Era.

But as Moxie said, he's far from being just OK off clay. He's still been a great one, just not overall incredible - except for a few years.

I'm going to quibble with the phrase "just not overall incredible," because it's a subjective and meaningless statement, given his career. But at least you marry his clay wins with the rest of them. I will never understand this inclination to extract clay results and trying to make that prove something. It's a surface that tennis is played on for a full third of the calendar. It's equally possible to knock Roger and Novak (not to mention Pete) for "only" having won RG once, or, in the case of Sampras, never. Sampras gets a relative pass on that one. I have to suspect if he'd won 7 at the French and never won Wimbledon, the discussion about him wouldn't be quite the same. There is a surface prejudice, and it's arguably ridiculous to weigh grass so heavily relative to clay, since only 10% of the calendar is played on the lawns.

 

[bajana]

Who really cares about what the fans can see when it comes down to altering the schedule of play? I'm sure Novak would have rather played on Court 2 if it meant he could get his match in today.

You mean those people who shell out their hard-earned money, in some cases quite significant amounts, in order to see and support tennis? What would you have them do? Say goodbye to their money, go home and make their choice of tv or streams like we freeloaders do?

 

[kskate2]

You mean those people who shell out their hard-earned money, in some cases quite significant amounts, in order to see and support tennis? What would you have them do? Say goodbye to their money, go home and make their choice of tv or streams like we freeloaders do?

Keep reading down the thread. This has been addressed. I asked the question why can't they move the match and the fans to another court and the tournament would not do it today.

 

[kskate2]

Actually, Wimbledon does hold matches to be moved as a general practice, though Djokovic/Mannarino wasn't one of them. In 2013, at the USO, with a storm coming, they didn't move Djokovic-Ferrer SF to squeeze it in before the storm, and it had to push into Sunday, moving the final to Monday. Everyone thought that was pretty dumb. At least Wimbledon was waiting to see if the Nadal match would finish.

They may have thought the storm would come and go and they could still get the match in. Unlike SW19, Flushing Meadows is setup for night matches.

 

[Moxie]

You mean those people who shell out their hard-earned money, in some cases quite significant amounts, in order to see and support tennis? What would you have them do? Say goodbye to their money, go home and make their choice of tv or streams like we freeloaders do?

In fairness, they got a classic match. If they had moved Djokovic, spectators would have had to choose to stay with Nadal/Muller or go over to watch Djokovic. They were never going to get to watch both matches. As Kskate says, you can read back over all the reasons, which include the Wimbledon curfew. If they'd made the choice early, spectators would have had to choose. If they'd made it when it became apparent that Nadal/Muller was into a 5th, there was so little time left, it likely wouldn't have finished, anyway, and the time to let the crowd into the stands would have likely eaten up most of the time remaining, anyway. There was a lot of no-win for the tournament organizers.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In the 4th set, after getting a break, Rafa was content to just keeping hold and winning the set. In particular in one service game of Joe, Rafa let him have the game at love without even putting some effort. Most probably Rafa would not been able to break him even if he put some effort. But, the point is Rafa did not put effort (this is very rare for Rafa, as he almost always plays like everypoint is a match point).

You win a set, independent of whether it is one break or two breaks. Normally, it does not matter. But, here it matters crucially. The reason being that would have let Rafa to serve first. If Joe had to serve second again and again, he would have been more nervous and might have coughed up a break somewhere along the way.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

They may have thought the storm would come and go and they could still get the match in. Unlike SW19, Flushing Meadows is setup for night matches.

USO SF's are more complicated to reschedule due to their TV contracts. Usually one match is taken up by NBC and the other by TTC. I think they cannot play them simultaneously on different courts as it will cut into the same audience (the ad revenue depends on audience assured).

 

[kskate2]

NBC doesn't cover the USO. In the past it was CBS, but now ESPN owns the rights and leases some of it's time to TTC.

 

[Moxie]

They may have thought the storm would come and go and they could still get the match in. Unlike SW19, Flushing Meadows is setup for night matches.

That would have been optimistic in the extreme. I live in NY, so I remember. The day was windy and crazy, and the storm was coming. It was essentially the edge of a hurricane, not just a rainstorm. You might remember the chairs blowing onto the court during Murray/Berdych. Turned out they had to clear the stadium due to a lightning hazard to general safety. Absolutely everyone knew that was coming, but, rather than play Djokovic/Ferrer on Armstrong simultaneously to the Murray/Berdy SF, they rolled the dice and lost. Look, I don't envy tournament organizers their jobs in these situations.

 

[kskate2]

@Moxie I vaguely remember that. So they had a chance to open up Armstrong and they didn't? Like GSM said, must be about the TV rights then.

 

[Moxie]

OK, maybe it's the Nadal upset, but Wimbledon's website seems to be a bit broken. No elegant post for the Order of Play for tomorrow. But here it is, in case you didn't already know:

Centre Court - 12 noon - Djokovic v. Mannarino

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie I vaguely remember that. So they had a chance to open up Armstrong and they didn't? Like GSM said, must be about the TV rights then.

They could have, and I'm sure it had a lot to do with TV rights. I won't pretend that it's not a huge consideration. Maybe I'm just saying that we can all sit around and think of the obvious, sensible adjustment, but it's really not that easy or straight-forward.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

OK. I found out the real reason. They could have moved the match (that would involve paying some cash back to the ticket holders of court no 1 due to they being short changed, but that was not the issue) to center court.

If they moved the match to center court, they just have to simply open up the center court to whomever wants to come and see (of course, that would be restricted to people who had ground passes). They estimated that at that time, there were still 30,000 people wandering around the grounds with ground passes. The center court has a capacity of about 15000. So, if they had announced that anyone can come and see Novak play at CC, there would have been a stampede and pandemonium. That is why they did not do so. Obviously, you don't want to play a match with empty stadium either.

Here is there official announcement (verbatim):


"The safety and security of all visitors to The Championships is of paramount importance. The preference was to play the Djokovic v Mannarino match as scheduled on No.1 Court.

When that was no longer an option, it was determined the match could not be moved to Centre Court due to the number of spectators remaining in the Grounds.

As late as 8.30pm, 30,000 people still remained in the Grounds, and therefore moving the match would have created a significant safety issue.

Both players were explained the rationale of postponing the match until tomorrow, which is now scheduled for a 12noon start on Centre Court."

 

[kskate2]

@GameSetAndMath thanks for getting the explanation

 

[kskate2]

OK. I found out the real reason. They could have moved the match (that would paying some cash back to the ticket holders of court no 1 due to they being short changed, but that was not the issue) to center court.

If they moved the match to center court, they just have to simply open up the center court to whomever wants to come and see (of course, that would be restricted to people who had ground passes). They estimated that at that time, there were still 30,000 people wandering around the grounds with ground passes. The center court has a capacity of about 15000. So, if they had announced that anyone can come and see Novak play at CC, there would have been a stampede and pandemonium. That is why they did not do so. Obviously, you don't want to play a match with empty stadium either.

Here is there official announcement (verbatim):


"The safety and security of all visitors to The Championships is of paramount importance. The preference was to play the Djokovic v Mannarino match as scheduled on No.1 Court.

When that was no longer an option, it was determined the match could not be moved to Centre Court due to the number of spectators remaining in the Grounds.

As late as 8.30pm, 30,000 people still remained in the Grounds, and therefore moving the match would have created a significant safety issue.

Both players were explained the rationale of postponing the match until tomorrow, which is now scheduled for a 12noon start on Centre Court."

So with that being said, who gets to watch Novak on CC tomorrow?