2023 ATP General News

[Kieran]

Wimbledon is reducing men's doubles to best of 3 sets and will allow coaching as the other majors are doing.

Coaching only for doubles?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Coaching only for doubles?

No lol! maybe I should have posted it in its correct form....coaching allowed in singles, doubles and mixed doubles, Wimbledon is following the other Grand Slams allowing coaching
Doubles are now the best of 3 sets, with the final set a super t/breaker

 

[Kieran]

No lol! maybe I should have posted it in its correct form....coaching allowed in singles, doubles and mixed doubles, Wimbledon is following the other Grand Slams allowing coaching
Doubles are now the best of 3 sets, with the final set a super t/breaker

I think this is gonna be the watering down of tennis. Big mistake to allow coaching. They should be cutting back toilet breaks instead…

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I think this is gonna be the watering down of tennis. Big mistake to allow coaching. They should be cutting back toilet breaks instead…

I have always been against it when it was first brought in by the WTA, I never thought the ATP would follow suit, tactics is an important part of our game and at this level it is up to a player to work things out for themselves on court.

 

[Kieran]

I have always been against it when it was first brought in by the WTA, I never thought the ATP would follow suit, tactics is an important part of our game and at this level it is up to a player to work things out for themselves on court.

Exactly, and they have the whole of the rest of the season to coach the player. Leave him alone to figure it out on court. See, this is an example of where I could see a mental midget win a slam because they have the coach there to mop their brow, massage their feet, move around their baggage a bit. Tennis is a game of momentum, whoever grabs that wins. Now it’s no longer men’s singles but doubles because they have a coach to help with mental and strategic stuff during the match?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Most Grand Slam Finals Without a Title:

• 3 Tony Roche (though he won one before the Open Era)
• 2 Steve Denton, Kevin Curren, Miloslav Mecir, Cedric Pioline, Todd Martin, Alex Corretja, Mark Philippoussis, Robin Soderling, Kevin Anderson, Casper Ruud, Stefanos Tsitsipas

Most Grand Slam Semi-finals Without a Title:

• 8 Tony Roche (see above)
• 7 Tomas Berdych
• 6 Todd Martin, Tim Henman, David Ferrer, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Stefanos Tsitsipas
• 5 Tom Okker, David Nalbandian, Alexander Zverev

I think we can ignore Roche, for reasons stated. Interesting to note that other than Roche, no one has reached 3 Slam finals without winning one. Could Sissypuss be the first? Ruud?

Martin and and Tsitsipas are the only two on both lists, though I suppose that's because I made the cut-off for SF somewhat arbitrary. Berdych only converted one of those 7 SF to a final (and Tsonga and Ferrer 1 of 6 each); Henman never reached a final.

Thanks El Dude . Question will JowillieTs Ferrer and Berdych get elected to the HOF?

 

[tented]

Thanks El Dude . Question will JowillieTs Ferrer and Berdych get elected to the HOF?

Are there examples of players who have only lost major finals in the HOF? (Asking for a friend!)

 

[El Dude]

Thanks El Dude . Question will JowillieTs Ferrer and Berdych get elected to the HOF?

No idea, but I doubt it. I know some about the baseball HOF, but haven't really researched the tennis version, perhaps because it seems way less prominent in the sport, and more of an afterthought. Plus, the baseball HOF is rather wonky - you've got lots of players not in who were better than players who are in, because it is so dependent on the voters at the time, the changing nature of stat analysis, and frankly which players shook the right hands during their career.

Ferrer might get elected, but I'd be surprised if Tsonga or Berdych made. All very good players, but unfortunately not good enough to get that one Slam that seems a baseline requirement for the HOF.

 

[El Dude]

Are there examples of players who have only lost major finals in the HOF? (Asking for a friend!)

Tom Okker didn't make it, and he's probably the best Slamless player before the recent era.

That said, I found one: Dennis Ralston. He was a very good player whose career straddled the Pro/Amateur and Open Eras, but he didn't win any singles Slams. He did win five doubles Slams and was one of the Handsome Eight, so maybe there's historic reasons he made it.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Some updated news from Kei Nishikori which he posted today via twitter.
Kei is looking to come back at the following 3 challengers,
May 29 Little Rock, Arkanas
June 12 Tyler, Texas
June 12 Palmas del Mar, Puerto Rico

 

[Jelenafan]

Tom Okker didn't make it, and he's probably the best Slamless player before the recent era.

That said, I found one: Dennis Ralston. He was a very good player whose career straddled the Pro/Amateur and Open Eras, but he didn't win any singles Slams. He did win five doubles Slams and was one of the Handsome Eight, so maybe there's historic reasons he made it.

So Doubles and DC could factor. Pam Shriver made it on the womens side, like Ralston she had a slam singles final, but have any male doubles specialists made it in the Open era , im not sure. Peter Flemming with Mac won 7 slam titles hasn’t made it.

 

[the AntiPusher]

So Doubles and DC could factor. Pam Shriver made it on the womens side, like Ralston she had a slam singles final, but have any male doubles specialists made it in the Open era , im not sure. Peter Flemming with Mac won 7 slam titles hasn’t made it.

Just like the NfL, NBA and MLB, former players turned media personalities are in the respective HOF for their sports Pam made it because she is part of the media

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Rome Update:
Withdrawals, Cilic ( knee) Kyrgios (knee) Brooksby (wrist), Bonzi

 

[Jelenafan]

Just like the NfL, NBA and MLB, former players turned media personalities are in the respective HOF for their sports Pam made it because she is part of the media

IOW, she still didn't qualify..... : )_

 

[tented]

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

No idea, but I doubt it. I know some about the baseball HOF, but haven't really researched the tennis version, perhaps because it seems way less prominent in the sport, and more of an afterthought. Plus, the baseball HOF is rather wonky - you've got lots of players not in who were better than players who are in, because it is so dependent on the voters at the time, the changing nature of stat analysis, and frankly which players shook the right hands during their career.

Ferrer might get elected, but I'd be surprised if Tsonga or Berdych made. All very good players, but unfortunately not good enough to get that one Slam that seems a baseline requirement for the HOF.

Until Marcelo Rios gets into the HoF, all of them are going to wait. Rios is the best player ever to not win a slam. There was a time, albeit brief, that Rios was the best player in the world. (If only he had beat Petr Korda in the 1998 AO Final, Rios would already be in the HoF.) None of Ferrer, Tsonga, or Berdych were ever close to being the best player in the world at any point in their career. Rios gets in first before those three.

 

[Fiero425]

Until Marcelo Rios gets into the HoF, all of them are going to wait. Rios is the best player ever to not win a slam. There was a time, albeit brief, that Rios was the best player in the world. (If only he had beat Petr Korda in the 1998 AO Final, Rios would already be in the HoF.) None of Ferrer, Tsonga, or Berdych were ever close to being the best player in the world at any point in their career. Rios gets in first before those three.

Well Rios did achieve #1 in the rankings! It'll be late, but eventually it'll have to happen! His problem is like most prima donnas; was a real jerk!

 

[Kieran]

Well Rios did achieve #1 in the rankings! It'll be late, but eventually it'll have to happen! His problem is like most prima donnas; was a real jerk!

Rios was a small fry who was good up to a point - the point usually being when he had to be really good and he vanished in the opposite direction…

 

[El Dude]

Until Marcelo Rios gets into the HoF, all of them are going to wait. Rios is the best player ever to not win a slam. There was a time, albeit brief, that Rios was the best player in the world. (If only he had beat Petr Korda in the 1998 AO Final, Rios would already be in the HoF.) None of Ferrer, Tsonga, or Berdych were ever close to being the best player in the world at any point in their career. Rios gets in first before those three.

We really should consider context. Ferrer's entire prime was during the overlapping primes of the Big Four (Andy gets a nod here). Rios, on the other hand, peaked (1998) when Sampras slipped a half step and Agassi hadn't re-established himself back at the top.

Rios had a really strong year in 1998 and was a top 10 guy from 1996-99. He did reach #1 for 6 weeks, which is a noteworthy accomplishment, but it is also worth noting that he spent less than a year (48 weeks) in the top 5, and just about three years (171 weeks) in the top 10. His peak Elo of 2241 is very good, but 61st all-time - and behind the guys you mentioned (he's tied with Adriano Panatta), mostly because he played against inferior competition.

Compare that to David Ferrer, who never reached #1 but he spent almost four years in the top 5 (190 weeks) and almost 7 years in the top 10 (358 weeks). His peak Elo of 2348 is 21st in the Open Era, between Arthur Ashe and Vitas Gerulaitis.

Now as has been discussed here, Elo is less about absolute peak ability in a given tournament and more about consistency (or really, a combination of the two), so guys like Rios (or Safin, Nalbandian, Wawrinka, etc) tend to have lower Elos than what we might imagine their best play was, because they weren't consistent tournament after tournament. But consistency has to matter. Players like Rios and Nalbandian and Safin have all shown very high levels of play, and have looked more brilliant on the court than the more consistent guys like Ferrer (or, say, Nishikori). But I think memory leads us to under-appreciate the Ferrers and Nishikoris of the world: players who are around for a long time, always going deep in tournaments.

I imagine that if Ferrer peaked in the late 90s or earl 00s, he'd have a lot more big titles and even a Slam or two. On the other hand, I can't imagine Rios winning four big titles in 2012 or '13, Ferrer's prime. 2012 was what I like to call "The Year of the Big Four" - they each won a Slam and, I think, were closest--as a group--to their peak ability. 2013 was Rafa's highest level and Novak only half a step behind in his prime. Ferrer managed only one Masters and didn't have to face any of the Big Four, so it was an opportunity he capitalized on. But consider this: would Rios have gotten past the gauntlet of the Big Four that year in any big title? Or in 2013? Maybe, but I'm not sure he would have fared much better than Ferrer.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I did watch Rios and Ferrer play, and the eye test tells me to take peak Rios (1997-1998) over peak Ferrer (2012-2013). The problem is the peak of Rios was very short, but then again, players didn't have the nutrition/full time cardio/conditioning/fitness teams in the late 90s (when Rios peaked) than in the early 2010s (when Ferrer peaked). That's why careers were shorter in the late 90s than in the early 2010s. Ferrer was 30/31 years old when he peaked, whereas Rios was already retired at that age. All in all, I still put Rios ahead of Ferrer.