2019 Men's Wimbledon Championships

[Moxie]

I'm not sure I'd call Kyrgios a signature win. Nick was all serve this past match. Of course you will call it bitterness but Kyrgios could barely move he's in such poor shape now so he was not any kind of a problem from the baseline.

Rafa's form in AO looked more deadly and he especially destroyed Tsitsipas in the semis. I think by the time the finals rolled around you kind of knew Novak would tune him just because he was as deadly in the semis vs. Pouille and generally if he's playing well he destroys Nadal off clay. It is the nature of their matchup. Shawn said Novak would have to bring the A game to have a chance to beat Nadal. If that's the final I think it's the other way around, except A++ game for Rafa, serve insanely big with a high % and play first strike tennis and hope for more misses than normal. On anything slow that isn't high...it is basically Novak's house. I don't think Roger would have much of a chance in the final against him either.

Sure, you do underplay Rafa's win over Nick, and if it's bitterness, well, you said it. But you can't say that it wasn't a tense match, and a test. (Well, hell, you'll say anything.) I also agree that Nadal will have to bring A++ to beat Novak, if that's the final, or if it's Roger, the same, v. Novak. My point is, if they come through trial by fire, whichever one, they may also catch Novak on the back foot, having not found his A game. He's surely not close to it, atm. And we haven't really seen it since the AO final.

 

[Moxie]

Its not like Nadal beat an on-fire Kyrgios. And he faced Tsonga, who could not buy a first serve. Tsonga was so languid that I won't be surprised if he retires next week. However, I agree that the win against Kyrgios might propel Nadal to the final. The surface is playing to his liking.

The rewriting of the Kyrgios match by you and Darth does make me laugh. Your assumption is that if Kyrgios had been "on-fire", he'd have won. He brought a lot of fire. He's inferior, as a player. But he brought a lot to that match. To think otherwise proves that either you didn't watch it, or that you have your Rafa-hate goggles so firmly in place you can't even watch a tennis match dispassionately.

 

[rafanoy1992]

I will say this: Federer needs to improve his level of play. In an ironic way, I thought his level of play at Roland Garros was better than in Wimbledon as of right now. I watched some of his match against Lucas Pouille, his backhand and return of serve were bad. The good thing is his forehand is great, his slice backhand is effective, and he is still serving well under pressure moments.

But he needs to improve his level of play if he wants to win the tournament.

 

[DarthFed]

The rewriting of the Kyrgios match by you and Darth does make me laugh. Your assumption is that if Kyrgios had been "on-fire", he'd have won. He brought a lot of fire. He's inferior, as a player. But he brought a lot to that match. To think otherwise proves that either you didn't watch it, or that you have your Rafa-hate goggles so firmly in place you can't even watch a tennis match dispassionately.

Sorry, but tell me one thing about Nick that was remotely good that match aside from his serve. In many ways it was the worst I've seen him look in a match that he's trying in.

 

[Moxie]

Sorry, but tell me one thing about Nick that was remotely good that match aside from his serve. In many ways it was the worst I've seen him look in a match that he's trying in.

We're not going to rewrite the 8 pages that we already did on Nick v. Rafa and talent and effort, etc. You just think Nick had more to give. It was a pretty exciting match. If Nick couldn't offer more, he couldn't. Point being, though, it was a much-anticipated match, there was tension and drama, and Rafa came out on top. That gives him a boost. Like it or not.

 

[Carol]

Starting with Kyrgios and Tomic the Next Gen are going to lose all their money with the fines :cuckoo:

 

[Moxie]

I was asking earlier if we thought Medvedev as an a$$hole. I think he's edging closer towards decision. https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/06/dani...mbledon-grass-courts-angry-outburst-10124642/

 

[DarthFed]

I was asking earlier if we thought Medvedev as an a$$hole. I think he's edging closer towards decision. https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/06/dani...mbledon-grass-courts-angry-outburst-10124642/

He's a character that Master of Coin. But it did say the ump made a poor overrule in the 6th game of the 5th. Nothing wrong with not shaking the chair ump's hand after a match if the guy felt wronged.

 

[tented]

This may have already been mentioned, but in case it hasn’t ...

During loss, Fabio Fognini says Wimbledon should be bombed

 

[tented]

He's a character that Master of Coin. But it did say the ump made a poor overrule in the 6th game of the 5th. Nothing wrong with not shaking the chair ump's hand after a match if the guy felt wronged.

He was also defaulted once for making racist remarks to the umpire.

 

[El Dude]

@DarthFed , you're obsessed with being "King of the Hill." To be honest, at most Roger is first among equals with Novak and Rafa...they all have enough to be in the same general category of greatness. One or two more Slams than the others doesn't make any one of them greater, just gives them bragging rights. For one to differentiate himself as clearly greater than the other two he'll need to either be significantly ahead in Slam count (say, three or more) and/or have the lead in most significant categories (total titles, weeks at #1, etc).

I think what you are mourning is the fact that Roger's primacy is being eroded. This has been inevitable for half a decade or more. I think after 2013, many thought Rafa would eventually surpass Roger's Slam count. After 2016, Novak as well.

But no matter what happens from here on out, all three are going to end their careers as being one of the three greatest players of the Open Era, not just "guys who won some Slams and were #1 for awhile," or however you put it. They've all surpassed Sampras, who was considered to be the best of the Open Era before Roger came along. For one to be the clear GOAT he's going to have to earn it over the next two or three years by moving significantly ahead of the other two. I think it is more likely that that they all end within "debate's range."

 

[DarthFed]

He was also defaulted once for making racist remarks to the umpire.

I didn't know that. Source? That's obviously a far different situation.

Never mind I see you linked it. It's late

 

[Bonaca]

Oh God, peasant moves on to second week.

Keep cool and hope he will meet Novak in the final. Your only realistic chance to see him lose, as usual.

 

[Bonaca]

Nadal now won 15 matches in a row not bad for the king of clay, definitely way better chance of winning than Federer.

Again, let’s hope for an Novak- Nadal final. I would be very fine with that . These are currently the best two out there.

 

[Bonaca]

Nadal looks formidable at the moment. He’s my pick to win the championship based on tennis level and attitude.

Like in Melbourne?

 

[don_fabio]

I saw both Nadal and Fed yesterday. Looks to be like Nadal is better at the moment, more confident and sort of looking fresher.

 

[monfed]

Fed should copy dull's diet and he'll look fresh too

 

[Federberg]

all this talk about how Fedal looks right now. One thing that's been clear about these guys is that it doesn't really matter if they meet. What I can say is that Rafa looks more certain to make his appointment in the semifinal. But if Roger manages to get there I actually don't see Rafa's prior form as relevant. Roger's prior form maybe, but the guy's form is so changeable I'm actually glad he hasn't really done anything special yet. It makes me feel he hasn't shot his load yet. I wager the new paradigm still exists, and he'll be gagging for a shot at Rafa on his court. I'll take Federer in 4 if they meet. More concerned about Novak. I don't feel Federer's serve and more importantly his return of serve is of the standard to surmount that obstacle..

 

[Front242]

Based on his level the last two matched, yes I do, tented. His service is crackling good, his forehand is doing its usual winning duty and he is back to thumping the backhand with gusto. His confidence is sky high and he is aggressive—not passive aggressive as he has been too many years in London. He really looks impressive to me.

He barely beat a subpar Kyrgios who played 2 really poor tiebreaks and who barely trains at all and was out drinking the night before their match, and didn't/couldn't even run down many balls and Tsonga who is as slow as a snail since his latest surgery. 2 points reversed in the 3rd set TB and Kyrgios had won that set so then the guy who was playing rubbish by his standards was up 2 sets to 1 having crap fitness and out drinking the night before.. The 4th set TB was absolutely horrific by Kyrgios.

It's good to be positive but if he was playing so well he'd have put Kyrgios away much more easily than he did. Tsonga beat himself. Served 56% for the match which won't beat any top players, made a ton of errors and and couldn't run down any balls in the corners or hit with sharp angles as he's way too slow and unfit now. Djokovic is far and away the favourite here imo given the slow courts.

 

[Front242]

The rewriting of the Kyrgios match by you and Darth does make me laugh. Your assumption is that if Kyrgios had been "on-fire", he'd have won. He brought a lot of fire. He's inferior, as a player. But he brought a lot to that match. To think otherwise proves that either you didn't watch it, or that you have your Rafa-hate goggles so firmly in place you can't even watch a tennis match dispassionately.

He didn't have to be on fire by any means to win. Be real here, the 3rd set TB was 7-5 to Nadal. Reverse 2 measly points there and he won the TB and then he would've been up 2 sets to 1. Not exactly as if he needed to be on fire. The 4th set practically everyone here has agreed was absolutely horrendous by Kyrgios. The very first point he missed was laughably bad and set the tone for the whole TB. Prior to that match, Nadal had never won a TB against Kyrgios. Now tell me again why he'd have to be on fire to beat Nadal on grass? He didn't play anywhere near his best and still barely lost and once again we're talking about a guy who was out drinking the night before, couldn't even run down many balls due to terrible movement and made tons of backhand errors and yet he barely lost...

Don't forget also, the court conditions here are really slow this year and favour Nadal's game way more and were much faster when Nick won in 2014 but yet even with all of the above against him this year, he barely lost...

Sorry but Nadal's level is being far, far overstated in that match. Good on him for winning but it was always looking likely he'd win even before the first ball was hit due to speed of the courts alone. The rest just compounded that: ie, Nick's lack of fitness, out drinking the night before, inability to run to balls, crap backhand, rubbish performance in tiebreaks.