Early AO talk

[GameSetAndMath]

The tounreys of this week do not play a role in determining seeds. Hence, barring withdrawals, the following are the top 16 seeds.

1. Andy
2. Novak
3. Milos
4. Stan
5. Nishikori
6. Monfils
7. Cilic
8. Thiem
9. Rafa
10. Berdych
11. Goffin
12. Tsonga
13. RBA
14. Nick
15. Grigor
16. Lucas

The seeds are not yet officially announced. They will officially announce the seeds on Wednesday (or Thursday). The draw is scheduled for Friday.

 

[sid]

I hope Roger & Rafa draw each other @ AO might tell us how these guys are playing.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I hope Roger & Rafa draw each other @ AO might tell us how these guys are playing.

Maybe, we won't get the best match out of them just yet. I would think Wimbledon would be a great place for that. I know I am being a Fed fanboy but...., at least now we won't have a good match between them as per their rivalry's standard.

 

[Carol]

They had a rivalry? :snicker

It's been a "pretend" rivalry for years; even though they haven't met in ages! It also doesn't seem to matter how slanted the H2H match count has been all this time! It's a joke! uzzled :nono :angel: :cover

It might not be a rivalry at the moment but it once was. For a long time, Federer was great on the fast courts and was the reigning world no. 1 while his best competitor would challenge him on those surfaces at times as the lone challenger besides winning everything on clay. Two top players competed for the top ranking closely for almost 5 years or so. Each had their own path that they chose to get to the top of world ranking before Roger really lost his best game in mid-2010. Everytime when these two met, there was a lot of emotions and a lot of tactics at the same time. It was a great rivalry, mate. The H2H does no justice to their rivalry in reality. Rafa was clearly always better on clay. But, he was not good enough to make many finals on hard and grass courts when Roger was still pretty good. It's not your usual rivalry. It' unique.

It wasn't Roger in 2007, 2008 and 2009 pretty good? and I'm talking about HC, grass and Clay and at the GS.......

 

[lacatch]

When Roger was in his absolute prime, Rafa was not making it to the finals of many hardcourt tournaments such as the US OPEN. Their head-to-head might well have been less skewed if they HAD met in those finals, but one never knows. Clearly Rafa always presented a tuff match-up for Fed, as the former's game was tooled to do so.

 

[the AntiPusher]

When Roger was in his absolute prime, Rafa was not making it to the finals of many hardcourt tournaments such as the US OPEN. Their head-to-head might well have been less skewed if they HAD met in those finals, but one never knows. Clearly Rafa always presented a tuff match-up for Fed, as the former's game was tooled to do so.

Rafa has always been an incredible bad match up for Federer even when Roger was in his prime on hardcourt. if you recalled Rafa ambushed Roger their very first meeting in Miami and the next time they met in Miami Rafa blew a huge 2 sets and break lead in the finals which at that time was best of 5.

 

[El Dude]

A couple things.

One, it is important to remember that the matchup is 9-10 on hard and grass, 2-13 on clay.

Through 2009, the last year Roger was year-end #1, the matchup was 3-3 hard, 2-1 grass (5-4 non-clay), and 2-9 clay, so 7-13 overall...not nearly as bad as the 11-23 it is now, and massively skewed because of what lacatch pointed out, that they were playing most of their matches on clay because Rafa wasn't going as deep in hard and grass tournaments.

If we just look at Roger's absolute peak, through 2007, the matchup was 3-2 hard, 2-0 grass (5-2 non-clay), and 1-6 on clay, or 6-8 overall.

Further, if we take out Roger's bad 2013, the hard match-up is 7-6 to Roger, and 1-1 in their last two hard-court matches. This implies that they're a lot closer on hard than the overall h2h would indicate.

That said, the h2h is what it is and Rafa has owned Roger. But the point is, it isn't so clear-cut as "11-23" would indicate, especially considering the fact that 44% of those matches were on clay. Right now, of the "elite" 14 tournaments, one is grass (7%), nine are hard (64%) and four are clay (29%), meaning their high percentage of clay matches are disproportionate to the actual tournaments played.

If we add in the 13 ATP 500 tournaments, the clay percentage goes down even further:
hard: 17 (63%)
grass: 3 (11%)
clay: 7 (26%)

Might as well add in the 40 ATP 250s:
hard: 37 (55%)
grass: 8 (14%)
clay: 22 (31%)

That brings the clay up a bit more, but it is still disproportionate to the number of matches Rafa and Roger played on clay (44%). It is also worth pointing out that they've never played in an ATP 250 event, and I think only a couple times ATP 500.

 

[Carol]

Nadal made finals in Wimbledon 2007, he won Wimbledon 2008 and the Olympic Gold singles on HC (where was Roger?) He made semis in the USO, he won the AO 2009 but didn't play Wimbledon 2009 because his knee injury, he won Wimbledon 2010 (where was Roger?) and USO 2010 (where was Roger?) to achieve the Career Grand Slam at age 24. He won the USO 2013 (where was Roger?) of course besides all the RG which have as more value or more than the others surfaces. All those wins (and I'm talking just about GS) Roger was on his prime

 

[lacatch]

No Carol--as El Dude correctly pointed out--2009 was the last year Roger was #1 at year end. And as he and I both pointed out, Rafa failed to go deep in hard court slams when Roger was in his prime. Facts are stubborn little things.

 

[the AntiPusher]

A couple things.

One, it is important to remember that the matchup is 9-10 on hard and grass, 2-13 on clay.

Through 2009, the last year Roger was year-end #1, the matchup was 3-3 hard, 2-1 grass (5-4 non-clay), and 2-9 clay, so 7-13 overall...not nearly as bad as the 11-23 it is now, and massively skewed because of what lacatch pointed out, that they were playing most of their matches on clay because Rafa wasn't going as deep in hard and grass tournaments.

If we just look at Roger's absolute peak, through 2007, the matchup was 3-2 hard, 2-0 grass (5-2 non-clay), and 1-6 on clay, or 6-8 overall.

Further, if we take out Roger's bad 2013, the hard match-up is 7-6 to Roger, and 1-1 in their last two hard-court matches. This implies that they're a lot closer on hard than the overall h2h would indicate.

That said, the h2h is what it is and Rafa has owned Roger. But the point is, it isn't so clear-cut as "11-23" would indicate, especially considering the fact that 44% of those matches were on clay. Right now, of the "elite" 14 tournaments, one is grass (7%), nine are hard (64%) and four are clay (29%), meaning their high percentage of clay matches are disproportionate to the actual tournaments played.

If we add in the 13 ATP 500 tournaments, the clay percentage goes down even further:
hard: 17 (63%)
grass: 3 (11%)
clay: 7 (26%)

Might as well add in the 40 ATP 250s:
hard: 37 (55%)
grass: 8 (14%)
clay: 22 (31%)

That brings the clay up a bit more, but it is still disproportionate to the number of matches Rafa and Roger played on clay (44%). It is also worth pointing out that they've never played in an ATP 250 event, and I think only a couple times ATP 500.

Question, why are you are not considering 2004 that Roger wasn't in his prime, he had 28 match winning streak over the previous 9months..that is about as "prime " as a player can be. Imo

However, a 17 year Nadal took Roger apart in their very first encounter on the hard courts of Miami which at that time was considered to be the number 1 non slam hard court tournament. It had been referred to as the 5th grand slam or major.

 

[Carol]

No Carol--as El Dude correctly pointed out--2009 was the last year Roger was #1 at year end. And as he and I both pointed out, Rafa failed to go deep in hard court slams when Roger was in his prime. Facts are stubborn little things.

So.... are you telling me that Roger at 28 years old (2009) without any injury and playing every single month (never out of the court for months) and playing according to some of you without any effort wasn't anymore in his prime? excuse moi?. The very young Nadal obviously was just a clay specialist even that he gave Roger some tough times (Miami 2004) but later he started to play better and better on grass and HC and Roger was still in his prime. But also I would say that besides Rafa there were others young players named Murray and Novak which started to give him a tough time too even that he still had a very good age but it was more and more complicate to win because a new strong Era has started with those three young players. Yep, you have said well, facts are stubborn little things...... there is none so blind as those that don't want to see

 

[Carol]

Anyway, at the end always the same fedal debate.....
This next AO seems to be very interesting, we'll see who will play better but I think we'll se more than one surprise. We know about the past but not the future

 

[lacatch]

Carol---El Dude said 2009 WAS his last year in his prime. And most of the wins you cited above were POST-2009. Perhaps it's time for another internet vacation, although the last one didn't seem to do you any good.

 

[Carol]

Carol---El Dude said 2009 WAS his last year in his prime. And most of the wins you cited above were POST-2009. Perhaps it's time for another internet vacation, although the last one didn't seem to do you any good.

You are funny, really funny. Nadal has beaten Roger several times in his prime, that's all. I hope that you will take "this blog vacation' soon, and you know what I mean...:lolz:

 

[El Dude]

Question, why are you are not considering 2004 that Roger wasn't in his prime, he had 28 match winning streak over the previous 9months..that is about as "prime " as a player can be. Imo

However, a 17 year Nadal took Roger apart in their very first encounter on the hard courts of Miami which at that time was considered to be the number 1 non slam hard court tournament. It had been referred to as the 5th grand slam or major.

I'm not sure why you think I said 2004 wasn't part of Roger's prime - it most certainly was. In fact, it was probably his second best overall year, after 2006.

But yeah, Roger struggled with Rafa from their very first meeting. Actually, that is even more proof that it was mainly a matchup problem rather than superior talent on Rafa's part. Roger was a significantly better player than Rafa through 2007, but still had trouble with him.

 

[masterclass]

Swiss Maestro's projected 2017 AO draw:

R128 - Aussie Qualifier [?]
R64 -- Spanish Tobasco [40]
R32 -- Spanish Bull [9]
R16 -- Serbian Djoker "NID" [2]
QF --- Aussie Bad Boy [14]
SF --- Canadian Missile [3]
F ---- Scottish Knight [1]



Presciently,
masterclass

 

[Mile]

So if i get correct, some people suggest Djoker wont reach final.

It might happen, but i just dont see any good opponent up to final, also, it might happen Muzz lose No.1 spot. All possible.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Question, why are you are not considering 2004 that Roger wasn't in his prime, he had 28 match winning streak over the previous 9months..that is about as "prime " as a player can be. Imo

However, a 17 year Nadal took Roger apart in their very first encounter on the hard courts of Miami which at that time was considered to be the number 1 non slam hard court tournament. It had been referred to as the 5th grand slam or major.

I'm not sure why you think I said 2004 wasn't part of Roger's prime - it most certainly was. In fact, it was probably his second best overall year, after 2006.

But yeah, Roger struggled with Rafa from their very first meeting. Actually, that is even more proof that it was mainly a matchup problem rather than superior talent on Rafa's part. Roger was a significantly better player than Rafa through 2007, but still had trouble with him.

I got ya, I was trying to post while I was watching Bama vs Clemson..i misread your post. Where you said thru 2007. Thanks El Dude

 

[isabelle]

So if i get correct, some people suggest Djoker wont reach final.

It might happen, but i just dont see any good opponent up to final, also, it might happen Muzz lose No.1 spot. All possible.

Nole's no more the huge fav like in the past, but he's a serious contender nevertheless, too soon to write him off, let's see if he can play like in Doha 2 weeks in a row in (possibly) 5 sets

 

[Mile]

So if i get correct, some people suggest Djoker wont reach final.

It might happen, but i just dont see any good opponent up to final, also, it might happen Muzz lose No.1 spot. All possible.

Nole's no more the huge fav like in the past, but he's a serious contender nevertheless, too soon to write him off, let's see if he can play like in Doha 2 weeks in a row in (possibly) 5 sets

I think they are 29 now, they have 2 more quality years. Still cant see who can stop him, Zverev, Tim ?! I think old squad will be still there.