Early Wimbledon Talk

[Carol]

And Novak confirms to work with Agassi in Wimbledon

 

[the AntiPusher]

Rafa is doing a good preparation for Wimbledon

Fronty, DarthFed , El dude..any thoughts about Rafa's form

 

[Moxie]

Fronty, DarthFed , El dude..any thoughts about Rafa's form

Now you're just asking for it. Can't you just sit back and wait for Wimbledon?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Now you're just asking for it. Can't you just sit back and wait for Wimbledon?

"wished you'd stop bein so good to me, Capt'n"

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

by your definition Novak is incomplete as hell. In this era, a player is considered complete if his offence/defence combo at the baseline is good. Gone are the days when players had to have good net game to be 'complete'.....therefore Nadal, Novak, and Murray are all complete, though they rarely win points at the net.

Sasha's defensive skill is very good. He can never move like Nadal, given his height, but for someone 6"6', show me another guy who can defend better than him.

We don't play Wimbledon by categories like 6''6' and 6''2..... We don't divide players by classes. You have to play against the entire competition. So the utility of any player's skills cannot be assessed relative to their body type, it has to actually be competent in general terms.

And, the players you mention don't win points at the net because they don't go up there very often. But, Nadal has very reliable net skills. Murray too. I disagree with you on how you define completeness. Even in today's tennis, decent net skills are needed IMHO.

 

[El Dude]

Fronty, DarthFed , El dude..any thoughts about Rafa's form

He grunts like a girl.

 

[Carol]

For one reason or another....

 

[Ricardo]

We don't play Wimbledon by categories like 6''6' and 6''2..... We don't divide players by classes. You have to play against the entire competition. So the utility of any player's skills cannot be assessed relative to their body type, it has to actually be competent in general terms.

And, the players you mention don't win points at the net because they don't go up there very often. But, Nadal has very reliable net skills. Murray too. I disagree with you on how you define completeness. Even in today's tennis, decent net skills are needed IMHO.

it wasn't meant to say that i make judgement by classes, rather to stress that Zverev has good defense regardless. i question your take also on his volleys, it is not great but is enough given his game, no different to several other top players.

What i really can confidently say, is you are wrong about completeness........Novak is seen widely as a complete player (one of the most complete), but there is no question his net game & overhead are nowhere nearing matching, in fact no more decent than Zverev's. Point is, he is proven to be 'complete' (other players mentioned this too), as there isn't a simple straightforward that you can consistently exploit to break him down.

 

[Ricardo]

btw i see you deliberately left out Novak from the list, so you think he is incomplete......you'd be the only one there.

 

[the AntiPusher]

For one reason or another....

Maybe Andy should seek out treatment from the person who massage Roger's groin at AO, it had great results to help Roger against Stan and Rafa

 

[isabelle]

poor Andy, his season is a steeple chase....from one problem to another....not a good sign juts before defending his title in Wimbly

 

[the AntiPusher]

He grunts like a girl.

Hopefully he will stop serving like one, well if he can serve like Serena, he will be ok for SW19

 

[Carol]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/25/goran...favourite-with-andy-murray-in-fourth-6733333/

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Hopefully he will stop serving like one, well if he can serve like Serena, he will be ok for SW19

JMac just said that if Serena plays ATP, she would be ranked around 700. So, if Rafa serves like Serena, he can beat up players ranked below 700 I suppose.

 

[Busted]

I would disagree with your order, slotting Nadal ahead of Novak and maybe Andy. If they all make the QFs, then Rafa is definitely ahead of those two, assuming similar form to what we've been seeing.

But as for the pretenders, I think it is "real" to consider someone other than the Big Four winning, for several reasons:

1) Roger is 35, and the other three all have questions - Rafa's struggles on grass, Andy and Novak's current form
2) The "pack" is a bit closer than it was a year or two ago
3) Zverev's win at Rome opened the door from a hair to a crack
4) A fast court like Wimby = more potential for upsets, especially by hard-hitters/big servers

The bottom line: the chances of upset to any and all of the Big Four are the greatest they've ever been at a Slam, in my opinion. That said, one of them is still likely to win - but as a group it isn't like 95-99%, its like 90%.

As far as putting Nadal ahead of Andy and Novak? That's a coin flip, isn't it? I don't care what his clay court results were. The reality is - he hasn't been past the 4th round at Wimbeldon since 2011. Another reality check - check out the average rank of the guys he beat on clay this year - 34.12.

Monte Carlo - 45, 20, 41, 13, 24
Barcelona - 69, 66, 94, 84, 9
Madrid - 29, 20, 10, 2, 9
Rome - 73, 14, 7
Roland Garros - 45, 46, 64, 18, 21, 7, 3

I may be alone in this but I am not impressed. If he's playing even half-way decent he should be able to beat these guys on clay in his sleep. On grass though? That's whole other ball game - and he knows it, too, or else he wouldn't have said his grass game isn't up to par and signed up for a grass court exhibition with Andy Murray this week.

Also, I must be missing something because I don't see how the "pack" is any closer now than it was 2 years ago. Dimitrov got hot at the start of the year - and has promptly fizzled. Stan can't get his crap together on a weekly basis and his French final was as much about Djokovic and Murray's decline and Federer's absence as it was anything he did on the court. Raonic was never very talented in the first place. Cilic is like a leaky roof that someone keeps plugging the hole but never reroofs. Nishikori just does not have the mental or physical gifts to stay with the top guys for 5 sets. Tsonga, Berdych, Monfils? The ship sailed for those guys 5 years ago. The young guns? Thiem overplays and has yet to learn how to peak for the big events or sting together back-to-back big wins. Kyrgios can't stay healthy - or interested. Zverev is still on an upwards learning curve in big matches, but obviously he and Kyrgios are the most promising of the lot.. And Pouille I'd like to throw a bone to, but just can't quite believe as a possible Slam winner. I like Khachanov's game, but man - he's a crap mover. I'd throw in DelPo, too, as part of the "pack" except he's never going to get back into the Top 10 unless he starts hitting over his backhand.

Bottom line - upsets will obviously happen, but in the end if one of the big 4 doesn't win Wimbledon - I'm gonna be downright flabbergasted. With Djokovic's decline everybody thought these other guys would see the opening and go for it. Instead - it's been a throwback to the days before Djokovic's hot streak - Federer and Nadal. If you're these other, younger, players on the tour at what point do you say, "Why the hell can't I beat a 35, nearly 36 year-old who doesn't even play every week anymore?" and NOT find the answer, "Oh yeah...because he's Roger Federer!" to be perfectly acceptable reason for your failure to beat him? John McEnroe got one thing right - why aren't these guys madder that they can't break through against the top 4 guys? Note I am NOT including Stan The Headcase in this discussion...

 

[El Dude]

Monte Carlo and Barcelona were "gimme" titles (and I didn't realize how easy Barcelona had been until I saw your rankings), but I think Rafa began to convince me once he won Madrid. Thiem was closing the gap, so Rome wasn't a surprise. And then we get to RG - where Rafa looked unstoppable. Now whether that level translates two grass is another matter. I think Rafa is less likely to make the 2nd week than Andy and Novak, but if he reaches the 2nd week I like his chances better of taking home the title.

As for the "pack," it probably evens out. Berdych, Ferrer and Gasquet have faded, maybe Tsonga and now Monfils a bit too, but younger players like Thiem, Kyrgios, and Zverev are now relevant.

But perhaps the most important point is that every single one of the Big Four has at least one substantial question mark, meaning all are beatable and prone to upset.

But again, I didn't say the Big Four wouldn't win, just that their chances are slightly less as a group. I still gave a 90% chance one of them would win.

 

[Carol]

I love how some posters are holding insistently and repeatly that Nadal can't do too much because his results of the past last years. Maybe he can't pass to the second week, maybe? but if he does he will have at least a 80% of probabilities to win, he made it twice, he could make it three times too it doesn't matter how much his antis insist about he can't. The wins are in players rackets so they have the last word and not what the people say in their favor or not

 

[Busted]

i recall that commentary by Agassi and its legitimacy is pure. Question for one set for your welfare, 22-25 Sampras or Federer at that same age

Federer or Samprs at 22-25? One set only? Federer. And I don't even have to think too hard about it.I did go back and look up the stats though to check out exactly what their numbers were just so I could think about how they were playing at that stage of their careers. That would have been 1994-1997 for Pete -

AO - W, F, 3R, W
French - QF, 1R, SF, 3R
Wimbledon - W, W, QF, W
USO - 4R, W, W, 4R
Tour Finals - W, n/a, W, W

1994 - 77-12, 10 titles
1995 - 72-16, 5 titles
1996 - 65-11, 8 titles
1997 - 55-12, 8 titles


Federer turned 22 in August 2003, so I would put his 22-25 as 2004-2007 - possibly the 4 greatest consecutive years in the Open era -

AO - W, SF, W, W
FO - 3R, SF, F, F
Wimbledon - W, W, W, W
USO - W, W, W, W
Tour Finals - W, RU, W, W

2004 - 74-6, 11 titles
2005 - 81-5 - 11 titles
2006 - 92-5 - 12 titles
2007 - 68-9 - 8 titles

Plus - let's be honest here...Roger was just a helluva lot more fun to watch than Pete was and he had way more game than Pete did. Pete was pretty one-dimensional when it comes right down to it. By 2005-2006 I'd say Roger just had too much game for Pete - especially over 1 set. .

 

[Busted]

With respect to @Busted, the notion that only the Big 4 have a realistic chance to win Wimbledon is a failure of imagination, and a bit ignoring the year in real-time. Except for Federer, there's a percentage chance for any of the other 3 to be upset in the first week. Chances go up exponentially if they don't, obviously. Here is where each must show how much they want it. Because: who else? Much talk of Kyrgios, and I like him for a Wimbledon one day, but his hip issue is likely no joke. Sasha Zverev has exposed that his grass game is still lacking a lot of fine points, specifically net chops, even as much as he doesn't lack for ambition and the ability to learn quickly. Everyone keeps shoe-horning Del Potro into the odds race, but...seriously? Maybe he'll be "back" by the USO, but he's not winning Wimbledon. I don't care for Cilic, but I think he should be considered a higher possibility than maybe anyone outside of the Big 4. Then, maybe Stan. As to your #4, I think we may see a lot of upsets and craziness in the first week.

A "failure of imagination? Maybe - but not a departure from reality.

 

[Moxie]

A "failure of imagination? Maybe - but not a departure from reality.

I'll give you that.