Early Grass Talk - 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
This is true. Brown plays an offensive style, most often serve and volleying.
Monfils is mainly a defender. Two very different styles.
Understood, but they both play some tricky, entertaining tennis, too. But the point is why is Monfils often called a "clown" around here, as is Kyrgios (another trick-shot maker...& tbh I had to go to the link to figure out who GSM was calling a clown,) and Dustin so admired? Because I don't think people call Monfils or Kyrgios "clowns" for playing trick shots. IMO, that mainly refers to them not appearing to care as much about their careers, about not always taking a match seriously enough to win it. However, Monfils has been ranked as high as 6, Nick as high as 13. D.Brown: 64. If Dreddy is as talented as people like to think...and I do like him, and enjoy watching him play...then why is he relegated to a side-show that turns up a couple of weeks during grass season, with the occasional cameo late in the year? Maybe he doesn't take his career seriously enough, which would make him much more of a "clown."
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
A lot of palaver on the Halle thread about Roger getting the #2 seed in W, Rafa relegated to #3. Rather than put it on that thread, I'll just say here: I do get why Fed fans think getting the #2 was important for him. He does need the leg-up. Probably really couldn't do a Nadal/Djoker double. As a Nadal fan I don't feel terribly bothered. First, Rafa has to get out of the first week and not suffer upset, or the seeding is moot. If he gets to SF/F, which is the only place that the seedings will matter, then he's playing well. Sure, it would be a hard ask to beat Roger then Novak, or vice-versa, to win the title, but that's what's basically on offer, anyway. I honestly don't think both of them will make it all the way, so I expect the difference between #2 and #3 to be negated.
 

atttomole

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
3,369
Reactions
1,151
Points
113
A lot of palaver on the Halle thread about Roger getting the #2 seed in W, Rafa relegated to #3. Rather than put it on that thread, I'll just say here: I do get why Fed fans think getting the #2 was important for him. He does need the leg-up. Probably really couldn't do a Nadal/Djoker double. As a Nadal fan I don't feel terribly bothered. First, Rafa has to get out of the first week and not suffer upset, or the seeding is moot. If he gets to SF/F, which is the only place that the seedings will matter, then he's playing well. Sure, it would be a hard ask to beat Roger then Novak, or vice-versa, to win the title, but that's what's basically on offer, anyway. I honestly don't think both of them will make it all the way, so I expect the difference between #2 and #3 to be negated.
You seem to be painting all Fed fans with the same brush here. I am not even sure if Roger has the #2 seeding now, but there has been speculation about it on this thread. If he gets it according to the rules, then there is no reason for it to be an issue. Anything can happen with the draws. However, I have no problem with Roger having to meet one of Nadal/Djokovic, because they are obviously tough opponents. The fact that Nadal's chances of winning the Championships increase immensely when he gets into the second week says something about the state of the grass. I think a surface has to play the same throughout a tournament.
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
A lot of palaver on the Halle thread about Roger getting the #2 seed in W, Rafa relegated to #3. Rather than put it on that thread, I'll just say here: I do get why Fed fans think getting the #2 was important for him. He does need the leg-up. Probably really couldn't do a Nadal/Djoker double. As a Nadal fan I don't feel terribly bothered. First, Rafa has to get out of the first week and not suffer upset, or the seeding is moot. If he gets to SF/F, which is the only place that the seedings will matter, then he's playing well. Sure, it would be a hard ask to beat Roger then Novak, or vice-versa, to win the title, but that's what's basically on offer, anyway. I honestly don't think both of them will make it all the way, so I expect the difference between #2 and #3 to be negated.

3 is a way worse spot for Rafa. He now could face Nole in semis and barring upset he'd have to go through both. Not sure it matters much for Roger. I kind of think his chances would be better vs Djokovic in a semifinal but having him on the opposite side means more chance to avoid him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GameSetAndMath

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,821
Reactions
14,981
Points
113
3 is a way worse spot for Rafa. He now could face Nole in semis and barring upset he'd have to go through both. Not sure it matters much for Roger. I kind of think his chances would be better vs Djokovic in a semifinal but having him on the opposite side means more chance to avoid him.
They all have to get there, so let's see how that works out, first.
 

herios

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
8,984
Reactions
1,659
Points
113
You seem to be painting all Fed fans with the same brush here. I am not even sure if Roger has the #2 seeding now, but there has been speculation about it on this thread. If he gets it according to the rules, then there is no reason for it to be an issue.

Not a speculation, it is official. Roger is the second seed, in fact it was posted on this thread a few messages earlier, last night.

Beneficiaries of the bonus points system:
Roger gets #2
Anderson gets #4
Cilic gets # 13
 
  • Like
Reactions: atttomole

herios

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
8,984
Reactions
1,659
Points
113
The draw is out and the quals begin tomorrow.

Here are some interesting players in quals;

Oldies:
1. D. Brown
2. Stakhovsky
3. Rosol
4. Nicolas Mahut

Youngsters:
5. Tommy Paul
6. Alex Popyrin
7. Moutet
8. E. Ymer
Qualies underway, the first winner in R1 is no other than Rosol.
 

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,299
Reactions
3,202
Points
113
Go ahead and try to find something that elegant in Swiss or Serbian literature. :drums::yoda: I'd suggest that makes Roger "Heidi."

Federer is Swiss-German so we could broaden the scope and make him "Werther". There is marvelous Serbian book called "The bridge over/on the Drina" (brought to my attention by @Billie ) with more than one good choice for Djokovic. The obvious one would be "Mehmed Pasha", a young boy who is kidnapped at a very young age later to become an extremely powerful military commander, conqueror of vast regions. Djokovic haters would love to call him "Abidaga", the first builder of the bridge on the Drina. He is known far and wide as very stern, even cruel, especially when his orders are not fully carried out. He orders a Serb laborer, Radisav, to be impaled at the bridge site because he sabotaged the building of the bridge. Abidaga is replaced when the news reaches Istanbul that he had embezzled the vezir’s money and forced laborers to work without pay. [italics quoted from enotes site].

I could bet my house people won't follow but we could call them Quijote, Werther and Mehmed in our little bublle...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

Horsa

Equine-loving rhyme-artist
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
4,867
Reactions
1,314
Points
113
Location
Britain
Federer is Swiss-German so we could broaden the scope and make him "Werther". There is marvelous Serbian book called "The bridge over/on the Drina" (brought to my attention by @Billie ) with more than one good choice for Djokovic. The obvious one would be "Mehmed Pasha", a young boy who is kidnapped at a very young age later to become an extremely powerful military commander, conqueror of vast regions. Djokovic haters would love to call him "Abidaga", the first builder of the bridge on the Drina. He is known far and wide as very stern, even cruel, especially when his orders are not fully carried out. He orders a Serb laborer, Radisav, to be impaled at the bridge site because he sabotaged the building of the bridge. Abidaga is replaced when the news reaches Istanbul that he had embezzled the vezir’s money and forced laborers to work without pay. [italics quoted from enotes site].

I could bet my house people won't follow but we could call them Quijote, Werther and Mehmed in our little bublle...
Hold on a minute! Didn't you both forget someone from Swiss literature (unless I'm very much mistaken)? I'll remind you with a nice piece of music which is my favourite piece of classical music. Enjoy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie and mrzz

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,299
Reactions
3,202
Points
113
Hold on a minute! Didn't you both forget someone from Swiss literature (unless I'm very much mistaken)? I'll remind you with a nice piece of music which is my favourite piece of classical music. Enjoy!


Yes, we did! And you hit two apples at once, my friend:



By the way, @Moxie, the "Heidi" mention was just (little painstaklingly) brilliant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Horsa and Moxie

Horsa

Equine-loving rhyme-artist
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
4,867
Reactions
1,314
Points
113
Location
Britain
Yes, we did! And you hit two apples at once, my friend:



By the way, @Moxie, the "Heidi" mention was just (little painstaklingly) brilliant.

Thank you very much, Pal. Fortunately I didn't shoot them off someone else's head with a bow & arrow. Lol.

I agree. (I loved Heidi as a girl.)
 

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,299
Reactions
3,202
Points
113
Understood, but they both play some tricky, entertaining tennis, too. But the point is why is Monfils often called a "clown" around here, as is Kyrgios (another trick-shot maker...& tbh I had to go to the link to figure out who GSM was calling a clown,) and Dustin so admired? Because I don't think people call Monfils or Kyrgios "clowns" for playing trick shots. IMO, that mainly refers to them not appearing to care as much about their careers, about not always taking a match seriously enough to win it. However, Monfils has been ranked as high as 6, Nick as high as 13. D.Brown: 64. If Dreddy is as talented as people like to think...and I do like him, and enjoy watching him play...then why is he relegated to a side-show that turns up a couple of weeks during grass season, with the occasional cameo late in the year? Maybe he doesn't take his career seriously enough, which would make him much more of a "clown."

There is a reason why D Brown is not called a "clown", and it is a good one. All three players you (aptly) cite, D Brown, Monfils and Kyrgios, are indeed the ones who most play "trick shots", but they do it all their own way. I agree with you that to call a player a "clown" is something which is debatable, but one way or another D Brown is, by far, the last from those three which should be called that. Here is why:

As a preamble (this is not the actual argument), D. Brown is actually much better (at trick shots exclusively) than the other two. Considering that he is a lower ranked player -- so he gets much less coverage -- he still has produced way more "trick shot highlights" than the other two. He has a plethora of different accomplishments on youtube, diving volleys, all kinds of tweeners, delicate pick ups, absurd lobs, no look shots, spinning shots, balls the bounce back to his side of the net, behind the back shots shots with racquet facing the "wrong side", slam dunk smashes, tweener jumping volleys while charging the net(!), hell, he has even a jumping-volley-after-a-shot-sitting-on-the-ground (he slept and fell). There is simply no comparison (strictly regarding these kind of shots).

But the main thing is that all those shots are actually part of his game plan. He tries them continuously during a match, because his game plan (which is basically charge to net/go for a winner as soon as you can) forces him to do it. In other words, most of the times that he fires a trick shot, is that because he needs to. Generally, there are no other "normal" options available. He has to jump for the diving volley, he got wrong footed and cannot turn the whole body in time, etc. In this sense, they are actually not trick shots. They are last resort shots, the only (or the better) option given the context.

Monfils is completely different. As @atttomole put, he is basically a defensive player, but with huge, insane athleticism. So, when the situation allows, he can use this athleticism and produce "pure" trick shots -- in the sense that he surely had other safer, more orthodox shots available (that is why he is called, not by me, a "clown").

Kyrgios is again completely different. Trick shots are part of his game plan as well, but with a different purpose: to destabilize the opponent. As Monfils, he usually has other safer and better options available (even if he has extremely quick reflexes, that also help). Just watch any of his matches, specially the ones he wins, and see how effective this approach can be. The guy is really, really smart.
 

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
Thanks mrzz. It looks like your lengthy lecture finally convinced Moxie although most tennis watchers naturally understand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftan

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
OK. Now that the market had time to digest the results of Halle and Queens, let us take another look at odds.

Contenders: (At least 10% chance)

1. Novak 13/8 (38.10%)
2. Roger 7/2 (22.22%)
3. Ralph 6 (14.28%)


Novak's and Ralph's odds remain exactly the same. Fed's odds marginally improved (by less than 2%)

Pretenders: (At least 2% chance)

4. Perseus 20 (4.76%)
5. Sasha 28 (3.45%)
6. FAA 33 (2.94%)
7. Bad boy / Cough Drop / Milos / Thiem 40 (2.44%)

Finally, Perseus overtook Sasha. FAA enters pretenders list from out of the blue and more over leap frogs four other pretenders. JMDP and Kandy exited from the pretender's list.

Honorable Mentions: (at least 1% chance)

11. Coin Thrower 60 (1.64%)
12. Kandy 66 (1.49%)
13. Matteo 70 (1.43%)
14. Stan 80 (1.23%)
15. Grigor / Khachanov 100 (1%)

Murray and Opelka exited. But, Matteo enters.

I personally would not include Thiem and Stan. Also, I would move back Kandy to pretender list. Also, I would interchange Sasha and Cilic.

Next update shall be after Ralph is given cupcake draw.
 
Last edited:

GameSetAndMath

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
21,141
Reactions
3,398
Points
113
Stakhovsky, Rosol and Brown all won their Quals 1R.

NIcolas Mahut failed in 1R.

Tommy Paul, Alex Popyrin. Moutet and M. Ymer won in 1R

E. Ymer l(the higher seeded one) lost in !R.

More 1R winners: Donald Young, Ramanthan, Daniel Brands, Quenton Halys, N. Rubin, GGL, Vesely, Duckworth and Bjorn.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,629
Reactions
5,711
Points
113
OK. Now that the market had time to digest the results of Halle and Queens, let us take another look at odds.

Contenders: (At least 10% chance)

1. Novak 13/8 (38.10%)
2. Roger 7/2 (22.22%)
3. Ralph 6 (14.28%)


Novak's and Ralph's odds remain exactly the same. Fed's odds marginally improved (by less than 2%)

Pretenders: (At least 2% chance)

4. Perseus 20 (4.76%)
5. Sasha 28 (3.45%)
6. FAA 33 (2.94%)
7. Bad boy / Cough Drop / Milos / Thiem 40 (2.44%)

Finally, Perseus overtook Sasha. FAA enters pretenders list from out of the blue and more over leap frogs four other pretenders. JMDP and Kandy exited from the pretender's list.

Honorable Mentions: (at least 1% chance)

11. Coin Thrower 60 (1.64%)
12. Kandy 66 (1.49%)
13. Matteo 70 (1.43%)
14. Stan 80 (1.23%)
15. Grigor / Khachanov 100 (1%)

Murray and Opelka exited. But, Matteo enters.

I personally would not include Thiem and Stan. Also, I would move back Kandy to pretender list. Also, I would interchange Sasha and Cilic.

Next update shall be after Ralph is given cupcake draw.
wow! I think Thiem and Stan seriously under priced!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrzz

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
There is a reason why D Brown is not called a "clown", and it is a good one. All three players you (aptly) cite, D Brown, Monfils and Kyrgios, are indeed the ones who most play "trick shots", but they do it all their own way. I agree with you that to call a player a "clown" is something which is debatable, but one way or another D Brown is, by far, the last from those three which should be called that. Here is why:

As a preamble (this is not the actual argument), D. Brown is actually much better (at trick shots exclusively) than the other two. Considering that he is a lower ranked player -- so he gets much less coverage -- he still has produced way more "trick shot highlights" than the other two. He has a plethora of different accomplishments on youtube, diving volleys, all kinds of tweeners, delicate pick ups, absurd lobs, no look shots, spinning shots, balls the bounce back to his side of the net, behind the back shots shots with racquet facing the "wrong side", slam dunk smashes, tweener jumping volleys while charging the net(!), hell, he has even a jumping-volley-after-a-shot-sitting-on-the-ground (he slept and fell). There is simply no comparison (strictly regarding these kind of shots).

But the main thing is that all those shots are actually part of his game plan. He tries them continuously during a match, because his game plan (which is basically charge to net/go for a winner as soon as you can) forces him to do it. In other words, most of the times that he fires a trick shot, is that because he needs to. Generally, there are no other "normal" options available. He has to jump for the diving volley, he got wrong footed and cannot turn the whole body in time, etc. In this sense, they are actually not trick shots. They are last resort shots, the only (or the better) option given the context.

Monfils is completely different. As @atttomole put, he is basically a defensive player, but with huge, insane athleticism. So, when the situation allows, he can use this athleticism and produce "pure" trick shots -- in the sense that he surely had other safer, more orthodox shots available (that is why he is called, not by me, a "clown").

Kyrgios is again completely different. Trick shots are part of his game plan as well, but with a different purpose: to destabilize the opponent. As Monfils, he usually has other safer and better options available (even if he has extremely quick reflexes, that also help). Just watch any of his matches, specially the ones he wins, and see how effective this approach can be. The guy is really, really smart.

I'd say in addition to all of that, Kyrgios and Monfils are better tennis players than Brown (though I don't think much of either, especially Monfils), so their "style over substance" approach and overall attitude earns them even more criticism. Brown is just a journeyman. He's not a very good tennis player in general (relatively speaking). So if this is the way he wants to enjoy tennis and make a name for himself, by all means. He's fun to watch and is actually very good at that particular style, as you said. The other two are frustrating and wasted talents to varying extents (though again I think Monfils' "talent" is the most overrated thing in tennis).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftan and mrzz

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,299
Reactions
3,202
Points
113
I'd say in addition to all of that, Kyrgios and Monfils are better tennis players than Brown (though I don't think much of either, especially Monfils), so their "style over substance" approach and overall attitude earns them even more criticism. Brown is just a journeyman. He's not a very good tennis player in general (relatively speaking). So if this is the way he wants to enjoy tennis and make a name for himself, by all means. He's fun to watch and is actually very good at that particular style, as you said. The other two are frustrating and wasted talents to varying extents (though again I think Monfils' "talent" is the most overrated thing in tennis).

I agree. The only caveat is that, given that at pro level the margins are small, if for some reason grass was the dominant surface, I would not be that shocked to see D. Brown develop to a player "better" than the other two. But there is no way to argue between a guy who peaked around #60 and one who got to the top 10 (Monfils) and the other to top 20.

One thing in common for all three is that their baseline shots are terrible. And by terrible I mean that maybe I would not trade my own forehand for theirs. Maybe the difference between them is that Brown is more ashamed of that atrocious baseline game of theirs and pulls the trigger way sooner (which, tactically speaking, is a very bad idea).

...and we surely agree about Monfil's overrated talent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.