Early Roland Garros Chat

[the AntiPusher]

It looks like Rafa will be seeded 3rd or 4th at RG and Roger will be seeded 5th (or less, but definitely 8 or better). So, the earliest Fedal match at RG will be at QF. The loser will go home with just 360 points (and that is less than how much one gets by winning Barcelona).

It would be funny if Rafa wins both Madrid and Rome, only to finally lose to Fed at RG. :angel:

Barcelona is a 500 series.. 500 is not less than 360..but I am a product of the CPS..so what do I know :angel::devil

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It looks like Rafa will be seeded 3rd or 4th at RG and Roger will be seeded 5th (or less, but definitely 8 or better). So, the earliest Fedal match at RG will be at QF. The loser will go home with just 360 points (and that is less than how much one gets by winning Barcelona).

It would be funny if Rafa wins both Madrid and Rome, only to finally lose to Fed at RG. :angel:

Barcelona is a 500 series.. 500 is not less than 360..but I am a product of the CPS..so what do I know :angel::devil

If you are going to be snarky, at least be correct. I only said 360 less than 500 in my post and not the other way. :cover

 

[Carol]

It looks like Rafa will be seeded 3rd or 4th at RG and Roger will be seeded 5th (or less, but definitely 8 or better). So, the earliest Fedal match at RG will be at QF. The loser will go home with just 360 points (and that is less than how much one gets by winning Barcelona).

It would be funny if Rafa wins both Madrid and Rome, only to finally lose to Fed at RG. :angel:

Keep dreaming

 

[the AntiPusher]

It looks like Rafa will be seeded 3rd or 4th at RG and Roger will be seeded 5th (or less, but definitely 8 or better). So, the earliest Fedal match at RG will be at QF. The loser will go home with just 360 points (and that is less than how much one gets by winning Barcelona).

It would be funny if Rafa wins both Madrid and Rome, only to finally lose to Fed at RG. :angel:

Barcelona is a 500 series.. 500 is not less than 360..but I am a product of the CPS..so what do I know :angel::devil

If you are going to be snarky, at least be correct. I only said 360 less than 500 in my post and not the other way. :cover

:laydownlaughing

 

[GameSetAndMath]

When was the last time, if ever, a player won RG without playing in any of the warm-up tourneys on clay? My guess is never (thought did not fact check it). :nono

p.s. So, come on Roger, take a wild card into Rome at the last minute. :idea:

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Dominic has a problem.

"He was hitting to my backhand and I couldn't really come out of it. The next time I play him I have to change something."

Haha.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

When was the last time, if ever, a player won RG without playing in any of the warm-up tourneys on clay? My guess is never (thought did not fact check it). :nono

p.s. So, come on Roger, take a wild card into Rome at the last minute. :idea:

Roger surely would be in a position to play Rome in the sense that he would have had more than a month of rest by then. Rest in the sense, not playing any matches.

I am guessing he is trying to avoid playing tournaments in consecutive weeks. Even in that context, it would be reasonable to play because the first round of RG doesn't start before 27 or 28 and that would be about a week after Rome final.

 

[Front242]

Dominic has a problem.

"He was hitting to my backhand and I couldn't really come out of it. The next time I play him I have to change something."

Haha.

Hopefully he fixes it before he turns 35

 

[El Dude]

We need to accept Thiem for what he is and isn't: He is a very good player, but not a great one - and never will be, in my opinion. I think he's a second tier player on a similar level as players like Tsonga and Berdych, but will end up with stronger accomplishments - even a Slam or two - because he'll still be in prime years when the Big Five really start to decline. I also don't see any of the NextGen who look to be a really dominant clay courter. So maybe in 2-3 years as the Big Five are winding down (presumably), and guys like Kyrgios, Zverev, maybe Tiafoe and others start dominating hards and grass, Thiem will be one of the better players on clay and may slip in a French Open or two, probably several clay Masters.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

We need to accept Thiem for what he is and isn't: He is a very good player, but not a great one - and never will be, in my opinion. I think he's a second tier player on a similar level as players like Tsonga and Berdych, but will end up with stronger accomplishments - even a Slam or two - because he'll still be in prime years when the Big Five really start to decline. I also don't see any of the NextGen who look to be a really dominant clay courter. So maybe in 2-3 years as the Big Five are winding down (presumably), and guys like Kyrgios, Zverev, maybe Tiafoe and others start dominating hards and grass, Thiem will be one of the better players on clay and may slip in a French Open or two, probably several clay Masters.

I doubt. Someone like Kyrgios can just instead win the French Opens because they are simply better players. A surface possibly cannot make someone much better than they actually are.

 

[Front242]

Ever hear of a guy called Nadal?

 

[isabelle]

Ever hear of a guy called Nadal?

no, who's this guy ???

 

[mrzz]

I doubt. Someone like Kyrgios can just instead win the French Opens because they are simply better players. A surface possibly cannot make someone much better than they actually are.

I doubt Kyrgios ever wins the French, not without a serious revamp of his baseline game. This year I say he goes out before R3, both there and in Rome. In Madrid he can do better given the altitude helps the servers.

 

[El Dude]

We need to accept Thiem for what he is and isn't: He is a very good player, but not a great one - and never will be, in my opinion. I think he's a second tier player on a similar level as players like Tsonga and Berdych, but will end up with stronger accomplishments - even a Slam or two - because he'll still be in prime years when the Big Five really start to decline. I also don't see any of the NextGen who look to be a really dominant clay courter. So maybe in 2-3 years as the Big Five are winding down (presumably), and guys like Kyrgios, Zverev, maybe Tiafoe and others start dominating hards and grass, Thiem will be one of the better players on clay and may slip in a French Open or two, probably several clay Masters.

I doubt. Someone like Kyrgios can just instead win the French Opens because they are simply better players. A surface possibly cannot make someone much better than they actually are.

There is a long tradition of clay specialists of varying degrees. Look at someone like Sergi Bruguera: 14 titles, 13 of them on clay. Two French Open titles, a FO F and SF, and never made it past the fourth round at any other Slam. And of course as Front mentioned, there's Rafa: on clay he's probably the most fearsome opponent in tennis history, everywhere else and he's more like peak Wilander or Agassi.

Now I'm not saying that Thiem is a clay court specialist, but that his game plays particularly well on clay AND there are no obvious dominant clay players coming up. Once the Big Five wind down, unless a new clay god emerges, we might return to clay season being up for grabs among a handful of different players. Sure, Kyrgios is a better player than Thiem, at least in terms of peak level, but I think their skills are more than equalized on clay.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

We need to accept Thiem for what he is and isn't: He is a very good player, but not a great one - and never will be, in my opinion. I think he's a second tier player on a similar level as players like Tsonga and Berdych, but will end up with stronger accomplishments - even a Slam or two - because he'll still be in prime years when the Big Five really start to decline. I also don't see any of the NextGen who look to be a really dominant clay courter. So maybe in 2-3 years as the Big Five are winding down (presumably), and guys like Kyrgios, Zverev, maybe Tiafoe and others start dominating hards and grass, Thiem will be one of the better players on clay and may slip in a French Open or two, probably several clay Masters.

I doubt. Someone like Kyrgios can just instead win the French Opens because they are simply better players. A surface possibly cannot make someone much better than they actually are.

There is a long tradition of clay specialists of varying degrees. Look at someone like Sergi Bruguera: 14 titles, 13 of them on clay. Two French Open titles, a FO F and SF, and never made it past the fourth round at any other Slam. And of course as Front mentioned, there's Rafa: on clay he's probably the most fearsome opponent in tennis history, everywhere else and he's more like peak Wilander or Agassi.

Now I'm not saying that Thiem is a clay court specialist, but that his game plays particularly well on clay AND there are no obvious dominant clay players coming up. Once the Big Five wind down, unless a new clay god emerges, we might return to clay season being up for grabs among a handful of different players. Sure, Kyrgios is a better player than Thiem, at least in terms of peak level, but I think their skills are more than equalized on clay.

Tipping Thiem as a potential RG champion is like tipping Ferrer to win a RG back in 2012.

Honestly.

p.s.: He needs to improve his mental strength leaps and bounds to make anything happen.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Thiem has a lot of time left. But he needs to make it happen by working much harder and building up his mind.

 

[herios]

We need to accept Thiem for what he is and isn't: He is a very good player, but not a great one - and never will be, in my opinion. I think he's a second tier player on a similar level as players like Tsonga and Berdych, but will end up with stronger accomplishments - even a Slam or two - because he'll still be in prime years when the Big Five really start to decline. I also don't see any of the NextGen who look to be a really dominant clay courter. So maybe in 2-3 years as the Big Five are winding down (presumably), and guys like Kyrgios, Zverev, maybe Tiafoe and others start dominating hards and grass, Thiem will be one of the better players on clay and may slip in a French Open or two, probably several clay Masters.

I doubt. Someone like Kyrgios can just instead win the French Opens because they are simply better players. A surface possibly cannot make someone much better than they actually are.

There is a long tradition of clay specialists of varying degrees. Look at someone like Sergi Bruguera: 14 titles, 13 of them on clay. Two French Open titles, a FO F and SF, and never made it past the fourth round at any other Slam. And of course as Front mentioned, there's Rafa: on clay he's probably the most fearsome opponent in tennis history, everywhere else and he's more like peak Wilander or Agassi.

Now I'm not saying that Thiem is a clay court specialist, but that his game plays particularly well on clay AND there are no obvious dominant clay players coming up. Once the Big Five wind down, unless a new clay god emerges, we might return to clay season being up for grabs among a handful of different players. Sure, Kyrgios is a better player than Thiem, at least in terms of peak level, but I think their skills are more than equalized on clay.

Kyrgios has a better serve than Dominic, but he is not a better player IMO

 

[Carol]

I doubt. Someone like Kyrgios can just instead win the French Opens because they are simply better players. A surface possibly cannot make someone much better than they actually are.

There is a long tradition of clay specialists of varying degrees. Look at someone like Sergi Bruguera: 14 titles, 13 of them on clay. Two French Open titles, a FO F and SF, and never made it past the fourth round at any other Slam. And of course as Front mentioned, there's Rafa: on clay he's probably the most fearsome opponent in tennis history, everywhere else and he's more like peak Wilander or Agassi.

Now I'm not saying that Thiem is a clay court specialist, but that his game plays particularly well on clay AND there are no obvious dominant clay players coming up. Once the Big Five wind down, unless a new clay god emerges, we might return to clay season being up for grabs among a handful of different players. Sure, Kyrgios is a better player than Thiem, at least in terms of peak level, but I think their skills are more than equalized on clay.

Kyrgios has a better serve than Dominic, but he is hot a better player IMO

If you meant "he is NOT a better player" I agree with you

 

[herios]

There is a long tradition of clay specialists of varying degrees. Look at someone like Sergi Bruguera: 14 titles, 13 of them on clay. Two French Open titles, a FO F and SF, and never made it past the fourth round at any other Slam. And of course as Front mentioned, there's Rafa: on clay he's probably the most fearsome opponent in tennis history, everywhere else and he's more like peak Wilander or Agassi.

Now I'm not saying that Thiem is a clay court specialist, but that his game plays particularly well on clay AND there are no obvious dominant clay players coming up. Once the Big Five wind down, unless a new clay god emerges, we might return to clay season being up for grabs among a handful of different players. Sure, Kyrgios is a better player than Thiem, at least in terms of peak level, but I think their skills are more than equalized on clay.

Kyrgios has a better serve than Dominic, but he is hot a better player IMO

If you meant "he is NOT a better player" I agree with you

You got me there

 

[the AntiPusher]

Kyrgios has a better serve than Dominic, but he is hot a better player IMO

If you meant "he is NOT a better player" I agree with you

You got me there

hardcourt or faster surface, I will favor Nick..on the clay the edge would go to Dominic