2018 Australian Open, Melbourne - ATP GRAND SLAM

[mrzz]

I'm looking forward to the Dimitrov-Rublev match. I would think Grigor would win, but this has some upset potential - especially seeing Grigor's last result.

Actually I hate when I don't know exactly who to root for so I am looking backward to this match (what is the opposite of looking forward for something, by the way?).

 

[Horsa]

That's funny. I always thought looking backwards was remembering but obviously I must be wrong. Lol.

Actually I hate when I don't know exactly who to root for so I am looking backward to this match (what is the opposite of looking forward for something, by the way?).

 

[El Dude]

Actually I hate when I don't know exactly who to root for so I am looking backward to this match (what is the opposite of looking forward for something, by the way?).

Haha. I'm mixed because while I like Grigor, I like Rublev better...but Rafa will destroy Rublev, while I think Grigor has a chance.

 

[Moxie]

Actually I hate when I don't know exactly who to root for so I am looking backward to this match (what is the opposite of looking forward for something, by the way?).

#mindblown A new coinage from our Brazilian friend! Congrats, mate...that one sent me down a wormhole.

Haha. I'm mixed because while I like Grigor, I like Rublev better...but Rafa will destroy Rublev, while I think Grigor has a chance.

Honest admission. Rublev has a real future, and Dimitrov is playing, at this point - let's be honest - to not become one of the bigger underachievers. I can see why you'd say he'd have a better chance v. Rafa, but, on the other hand, Dimitrov's sole win in 11 tries, and that the penultimate match before Nadal shut down his year in 2016 with injury. At least Rublev has only lost once. Go with your heart! Anyway, it won't make a difference to the outcome who you root for, right?

 

[El Dude]

@Moxie, haha, of course.

Just to be fair to Grigor, while he may still be an underachiever, winning two big titles last year somewhat changed that. He now has more big titles than Tomas Berdych (1), David Ferrer (1), Milos Raonic (0), and Kei Nishikori (0), and as many as Tsonga (2), Zverev (2) and Cilic (2).

To put it another way, he has equal or more big titles than all but five players on tour (Big Four + Stan).

OK, no Slams. But he's not done and still could slip one in before he's done, or at least a couple more Masters titles.

For me the biggest underachievers are probably Tsonga--who really should have won at least one Slam by now, but he's French--and Nishikori, who while not having the big-time firepower of most Slam winners, has just been so rock solid to not at least have won some Masters. I think you can make an argument than Kei is the best player in the Open Era not to have won a big title.

In fact--I had to double-check this--according to Ultimate Tennis Statistics' GOAT formula, he is:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=BestPlayerThatNeverWonBigTitle

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, haha, of course.

Just to be fair to Grigor, while he may still be an underachiever, winning two big titles last year somewhat changed that. He now has more big titles than Tomas Berdych (1), David Ferrer (1), Milos Raonic (0), and Kei Nishikori (0), and as many as Tsonga (2), Zverev (2) and Cilic (2).

To put it another way, he has equal or more big titles than all but five players on tour (Big Four + Stan).

OK, no Slams. But he's not done and still could slip one in before he's done, or at least a couple more Masters titles.

For me the biggest underachievers are probably Tsonga--who really should have won at least one Slam by now, but he's French--and Nishikori, who while not having the big-time firepower of most Slam winners, has just been so rock solid to not at least have won some Masters. I think you can make an argument than Kei is the best player in the Open Era not to have won a big title.

In fact--I had to double-check this--according to Ultimate Tennis Statistics' GOAT formula, he is:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/record?recordId=BestPlayerThatNeverWonBigTitle

Nice synthesis of Grigor's standing amongst the also-rans. I didn't realize. Interesting to know. However, I don't agree it changes his standing as an "underachiever." Stats aside, and reminding ourselves of recent tennis history in prose, Dimitrov had been cited as the next Gen before there was one, and basically since he was about 17-18. OK, not everyone fulfills early promise (see: Gasquet,) but I think you'd agree that Dimitrov was pretty high on the talent scale. More than Nishikori or Tsonga, I'd say, though Tsonga is the best pure athlete of the 3. Do you really think that, even if he manages a Major at some point, that he won't be considered an "under-achiever," like Nalbandian? Beyond his talent, he's had loads of squandered opportunity.

I'll be honest that I didn't look at the website you linked, as to what their parameters were, but Tsonga isn't even on the top list. We all have cited Tsonga as one who could win a Major, for sure. (And not sure what you mean by "but he's French.") And Nishikori. Both have had injury issues, Kei especially. Dimitrov, not really. Best player, over, say, 22, not to have won a Slam: you'd put Tsonga and Nishikori over Dimitrov? I'll give you that the first 2 have made a final.

 

[herios]

Oh, give me a break please. This rhetoric, that Tsonga "should have won a slam" is really getting tiresome.
He is not an underachiever, he did all he could do. Despite being powerful with 2 big weapons, serve and FH, his backhand is not that good, defensive is quite poor, and the most important is the weakness between the ears. That is a given and cannot be improved unless he was born again.
So, in other words, I think he did pretty good. Both him and Tomas had mental blocks when they got to a SF of a slam. There instead of having the killer instinct, they played like chickens. So he got what he deserved.

 

[El Dude]

Nice synthesis of Grigor's standing amongst the also-rans. I didn't realize. Interesting to know. However, I don't agree it changes his standing as an "underachiever." Stats aside, and reminding ourselves of recent tennis history in prose, Dimitrov had been cited as the next Gen before there was one, and basically since he was about 17-18. OK, not everyone fulfills early promise (see: Gasquet,) but I think you'd agree that Dimitrov was pretty high on the talent scale. More than Nishikori or Tsonga, I'd say, though Tsonga is the best pure athlete of the 3. Do you really think that, even if he manages a Major at some point, that he won't be considered an "under-achiever," like Nalbandian? Beyond his talent, he's had loads of squandered opportunity.

I'll be honest that I didn't look at the website you linked, as to what their parameters were, but Tsonga isn't even on the top list. We all have cited Tsonga as one who could win a Major, for sure. (And not sure what you mean by "but he's French.") And Nishikori. Both have had injury issues, Kei especially. Dimitrov, not really. Best player, over, say, 22, not to have won a Slam: you'd put Tsonga and Nishikori over Dimitrov? I'll give you that the first 2 have made a final.

I do agree that Dimitrov underachieved, just saying that his two big titles last year softened that label. A bit. And yeah, he has the talent to be a multi-Slam winner, but I think also his talent has a ceiling; he is "baby Federer," but not only in terms of age, but in terms of ability.

All of these players are hard to judge because of the era they lived in: that of the Big Four. People bag on Andy, but he's done pretty well considering that he's a distant third in terms of talent. And of course there's the enigmatic Stan Wawrinka.

As for my French comment, French players historically under-achieve, and there really haven't been any great ones. Noah was the best and he won only one Slam. This in comparison to the great French players of the 20s and 30s (see Four Musketeers).

@herios, you make some good points. Tsonga is a limited player, but I think the problem is that he wasn't able to work on his weaknesses.

 

[Moxie]

I do agree that Dimitrov underachieved, just saying that his two big titles last year softened that label. A bit. And yeah, he has the talent to be a multi-Slam winner, but I think also his talent has a ceiling; he is "baby Federer," but not only in terms of age, but in terms of ability.

All of these players are hard to judge because of the era they lived in: that of the Big Four. People bag on Andy, but he's done pretty well considering that he's a distant third in terms of talent. And of course there's the enigmatic Stan Wawrinka.

As for my French comment, French players historically under-achieve, and there really haven't been any great ones. Noah was the best and he won only one Slam. This in comparison to the great French players of the 20s and 30s (see Four Musketeers).

@herios, you make some good points. Tsonga is a limited player, but I think the problem is that he wasn't able to work on his weaknesses.

I will agree that it's hard to judge some of these players because they are so far over-matched by the Big 4. And yes, I say the Big 4. As you mention, Murray is one that could have had a much better career, if he'd had a little bit more breathing room. And therefore, I say the Big 4. He really has held his own better against the Other 3, more so than anyone, by a long stretch.

As to the "enigmatic Wawrinka." Late-career surge. Roller-coaster ride. I mean nothing by this against Stan, but it does make me laugh that some posters keep implying doping against some players, and find nothing to see, regarding Wawrinka. And, seriously, I mean no more by that except a control against other people's prejudices. Some are such obvious transgressors, to some people, and others get a complete pass, even when they fit the bill.

As to your French comment, it is unfair. Tsonga isn't all of France. If Nishikori weren't the only Japanese player of note, we'd compare him against others. Spanish players get lumped together. Poor Murray had to compete against all of British tennis history. In the end, it's an individual sport, and applying national characteristics to them isn't completely fair.

 

[Moxie]

Well-played PCB to get the 3rd set. Crucial in this heat.

 

[Fiero425]

They're overdoing the PINK! WTF? Back in '75 I had one light pink shirt; now it's out of control from sleeveless to full on collared and hideous neon pink! :lulz2:

 

[Moxie]

They're overdoing the PINK! WTF? Back in '75 I had one light pink shirt; now it's out of control from sleeveless to full on collared and hideous neon pink! :lulz2:

And that was a LaCoste, for sure, right?

I've already fired everyone at Nike in my own mind.

 

[Moxie]

Great win for PCB and to get off the court in 4 v. valiant Muller.

 

[Moxie]

Dimitrov just gave back the break in the 2nd. He'd better be careful.

 

[I.Haychew]

Rublev looks evil....and tennis fashion sucks!

 

[El Dude]

Anyone notice that Rublev looks a bit like Ricardo Montalban's second in command in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

@Moxie, good points all around. I hear what you are saying about France, but they have a long history of 80+ years of relative mediocrity, with only Noah winning a Slam. For whatever reason, French players can't seem to break through to true elite level. And yes, I do think that cultures (and nations) have certain traits that citizens tend to embody to varying degrees.

 

[Fiero425]

Anyone notice that Rublev looks a bit like Ricardo Montalban's second in command in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

@Moxie, good points all around. I hear what you are saying about France, but they have a long history of 80+ years of relative mediocrity, with only Noah winning a Slam. For whatever reason, French players can't seem to break through to true elite level. And yes, I do think that cultures (and nations) have certain traits that citizens tend to embody to varying degrees.

Judson Scott was gorgeous back in the day! I can't say that about Rublev! I watched him for the 1st time back in '82 in a sci-fi TV show called "The Phoenix!" :heart:

 

[El Dude]

Nice comeback from Rublev. When he gets into a rhythm with that forehand, he's deadly.

 

[El Dude]

Oh my god, @Fiero425, I remember that show! I was 8-9 in 1982, but I remember loving it. Didn't it just go for one season?

 

[Moxie]

At certain angles, Rublev looks like Gollum, in LOTR. Dimitrov shouldn't have dropped that set, and he'll be regretting it in the end, win or lose.

I get what you're saying, Dude, about certain characteristics seeming to hold water across national lines. But it doesn't really mean everything in an individual sport. (Americans don't win on clay: Courier, Agassi; Spaniards don't win on grass: Nadal.) You get my point.