Gaming the rest of the clay season

[Moxie]

Let's face it: we're all curious how the rest of the clay season is going to shape up. Why not go out on a limb with some predictions? Rafa seems to be the man to beat, but will Novak find his form again? And #1 Murray? What about Roger, who says he may not play before RG? Will he take a WC before? Del Potro is back in action in Estoril. Who else do you think might come into form for RG? Thiem? He'll be on the short list. Will Madrid tell us anything about how things are shaking out, given that a lot of top players will be in?

 

[mrzz]

Ok, here we go... I am still doubtful about the whole big 5 lot in this clay season, so I say there will be at least a new winner in the two remaining masters and RG. Honestly, it is exactly at RG that I think the big guys will falter. Djokovic and Murray are still very far from solid, and Nadal, even if he is clearly the best clay court player right now (obviously he is also the historical best, but that´s not the point), he still seems beatable, and one big hitter on a good day can take him out. I hope not, but if Federer plays only the French I won´t be surprised by a R3 exit.

Actual (very bold) predictions:

One of the following five players gets a big title: Goffin, Pouille, Sock, Carreno-Busta, Cuevas.

Bellucci (yes!) goes deep in Madrid, maybe semis, and takes down a high seed in the process.

 

[Carol]

My thoughts are, Rafa leaving early in Madrid, not so early in Roma (if he would reach the final then to win) and then all his effort and best game in RG and his third 10. Also I'd like that Muzz, Novak, Federer and Stan play well, it would be a good competition. Of course I don't want to hear anything about injuries and withdraw, all of them healthy and showing how good they can play. Am I asking too much? B-)

 

[Moxie]

Ok, here we go... I am still doubtful about the whole big 5 lot in this clay season, so I say there will be at least a new winner in the two remaining masters and RG. Honestly, it is exactly at RG that I think the big guys will falter. Djokovic and Murray are still very far from solid, and Nadal, even if he is clearly the best clay court player right now (obviously he is also the historical best, but that´s not the point), he still seems beatable, and one big hitter on a good day can take him out. I hope not, but if Federer plays only the French I won´t be surprised by a R3 exit.

Actual (very bold) predictions:

One of the following five players gets a big title: Goffin, Pouille, Sock, Carreno-Busta, Cuevas.

Bellucci (yes!) goes deep in Madrid, maybe semis, and takes down a high seed in the process.

I think it's a lot to ask for a new winner in Madrid, Rome and RG, but I applaud your chutzpah, and I agree with those you consider alternate options. I would include Thiem.

As for Roger, one thing that will be working in his favor: he's all but certain to be ranked 4 going into RG. Which means he could get a decent draw, and have a few people knocked out before they get to him. This would be his path to the 2nd week, and his calculation for skipping a tune-up event.

I think Rafa is still potentially beatable on the day in Madrid (and maybe Rome,) but if he goes into still RG on-form, there is the best of 5 to consider. This is why I'm curious to see how Novak, in particular, but Andy and Stan play next week in Madrid. I think Del Potro will remain a Dark Horse. And I do think that Kyrgios is dangerous on any surface, though likely spoiling on clay, not winning.

 

[Moxie]

My thoughts are, Rafa leaving early in Madrid, not so early in Roma (if he would reach the final then to win) and then all his effort and best game in RG and his third 10. Also I'd like that Muzz, Novak, Federer and Stan play well, it would be a good competition. Of course I don't want to hear anything about injuries and withdraw, all of them healthy and showing how good they can play. Am I asking too much? B-)

Well, that's the big question, I think. We've yet to see the best of Andy, Nole or Stan this year.

 

[mrzz]

I think it's a lot to ask for a new winner in Madrid, Rome and RG, but I applaud your chutzpah, and I agree with those you consider alternate options. I would include Thiem.

As for Roger, one thing that will be working in his favor: he's all but certain to be ranked 4 going into RG. Which means he could get a decent draw, and have a few people knocked out before they get to him. This would be his path to the 2nd week, and his calculation for skipping a tune-up event.

I think Rafa is still potentially beatable on the day in Madrid (and maybe Rome,) but if he goes into still RG on-form, there is the best of 5 to consider. This is why I'm curious to see how Novak, in particular, but Andy and Stan play next week in Madrid. I think Del Potro will remain a Dark Horse. And I do think that Kyrgios is dangerous on any surface, though likely spoiling on clay, not winning.

Ops... what I meant is that there will be a new winner in at least one of those. In fact I included Thiem and then took his name out -- considering that he is already old news -- but yes, he never won a big tournament so he really should be there. List amended.

I agree with most of your post -- and surely the top guys, specially Nadal, are hard to beat in best of 5, but they are not looking like a dominant bunch right now.

I guess del Potro could be a real threat at the masters, but let's see how he deals with best of five. That was, after all, his official explanation for missing AO.

Kyrgios -- you know I disagree with basically everyone here. The only place I give him a chance is Madrid, where his serve can be a factor. His chances on a slam are always decent not only because of the serve, but (and I disagree with most even when praising him) because of his head: he plays tough on big points. But my point has always been that his ground strokes are poor, so I guess that he is out by R3 in RG (and prob Rome too).

 

[DarthFed]

I think it's a lot to ask for a new winner in Madrid, Rome and RG, but I applaud your chutzpah, and I agree with those you consider alternate options. I would include Thiem.

As for Roger, one thing that will be working in his favor: he's all but certain to be ranked 4 going into RG. Which means he could get a decent draw, and have a few people knocked out before they get to him. This would be his path to the 2nd week, and his calculation for skipping a tune-up event.

I think Rafa is still potentially beatable on the day in Madrid (and maybe Rome,) but if he goes into still RG on-form, there is the best of 5 to consider. This is why I'm curious to see how Novak, in particular, but Andy and Stan play next week in Madrid. I think Del Potro will remain a Dark Horse. And I do think that Kyrgios is dangerous on any surface, though likely spoiling on clay, not winning.

I actually think there's a good chance Rafa passes Roger before RG. Roger has 90 points coming off before then and Rafa is only defending 540. So if he wins either event he passes Fed and even something like a final and a semifinal and he passes him. Given Rafa's game right now and the state of the other top players I'd put a lot of money on him being #4. But that doesn't really matter too much to him or Fed right now.

This clay season is looking like a coronation for Nadal unless Fed manages to spoil the party for Rafa. You can forget about Nole doing anything, it isn't happening, Murray wouldn't be a threat to Rafa even if he was himself. Stan is definitely a threat on his day but who knows if he gets there and if he does would he play lights out? Kyrgios is another one who could cause Rafa a lot of trouble potentially but as it stands right now Rafa is the enormous favorite at RG. I thought it even before MC the way things were shaking out.

 

[Carol]

I don't understand why Wawrinka could be a threat for Rafa, I would better say he would be maybe more threat for Novak. And I say the same thing about Kyrgios, I think some people (like Hewitt ) are looking him more than he really is and also I don't remember to see him playing too good on clay, starting to his serve

 

[DarthFed]

^ Easy, to beat Rafa on clay you either have to be Novak or blast him off the court with a big serve and big hitting. Kyrgios if he has his head on is a pretty legit threat to anyone on any surface. Even looking ahead I rather see Roger face anyone on grass but him. I think Roger would beat him but he is more of a threat to Fed on grass than anyone I can think of presently. With that serve of his it can win a bunch of cheap points even on clay and you need that vs. Rafa. And we've seen Stan step up big in the late stages and just blow people off the court. I wouldn't expect it to happen vs. Rafa, but as for a list of people with any chance vs. Rafa, he's definitely on it.

 

[El Dude]

Right now it is hard to see anyone but Rafa winning a big title during clay season, but who knows. I suspect he wins one of Madrid/Rome and Roland Garros. I know, not that bold of a prediction.

But I also agree that we'll see one of the two Masters go to someone new, but that may just be wishful thinking. Probably someone upsets Rafa, and then either Andy, Novak or Stan takes advantage and wins it, but I'm hoping for a new winner.

 

[Moxie]

I actually think there's a good chance Rafa passes Roger before RG. Roger has 90 points coming off before then and Rafa is only defending 540. So if he wins either event he passes Fed and even something like a final and a semifinal and he passes him. Given Rafa's game right now and the state of the other top players I'd put a lot of money on him being #4. But that doesn't really matter too much to him or Fed right now.

This clay season is looking like a coronation for Nadal unless Fed manages to spoil the party for Rafa. You can forget about Nole doing anything, it isn't happening, Murray wouldn't be a threat to Rafa even if he was himself. Stan is definitely a threat on his day but who knows if he gets there and if he does would he play lights out? Kyrgios is another one who could cause Rafa a lot of trouble potentially but as it stands right now Rafa is the enormous favorite at RG. I thought it even before MC the way things were shaking out.

I think Roger could maintain his #4 ranking if he takes a WC to Rome and does reasonably well. I disagree that the #4 doesn't matter much to him or Rafa. Roger has said that he'll play RG if he feels he has a reasonable chance to win it, and the #4 keeps him as far away from Murray, Djokovic and Wawrinka as long as possible. I believe everyone agrees they're the top contenders, after Rafa. Nadal would like the #4 slot for the same reason. I think Rafa's "coronation" on clay is already complete, but I don't think he'll run the table, nor do I necessarily think he needs to, as long as he beats Novak somewhere along the way, and Roger, if they meet before RG. I'm glad to see you have renewed faith in Fed's chances to spoil Rafa's clay season, but I'm not buying that until I see it, no matter his more aggressive game and its effectiveness on HCs. I also think you're shaking off Novak prematurely, while still naming Stan a threat. Andy, Novak and Stan have been a bit MIA this season, and they have two tournaments to put their games/heads right before the Major. All 3 are big question marks, though I'll give you this: even if Stan does nothing before RG, you never know if he'll just make a stunning run at the French. He's having a career that defies prediction, for sure. I also agree with you about the threat that Kyrgios can be, even if no one is gaming him to win the French Open. No one wants to see him in their quarter, and I understand why you say you don't want to see him in Roger's way at Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

Right now it is hard to see anyone but Rafa winning a big title during clay season, but who knows. I suspect he wins one of Madrid/Rome and Roland Garros. I know, not that bold of a prediction.

But I also agree that we'll see one of the two Masters go to someone new, but that may just be wishful thinking. Probably someone upsets Rafa, and then either Andy, Novak or Stan takes advantage and wins it, but I'm hoping for a new winner.

LOL, Dude...yeah, not so bold. But I'm guessing that Rafa's focus will be on Roland Garros, which is the one I'm hoping for...also not a bold assumption, and no surprise from me.

Madrid is the outlier in the clay season, and the best opportunity for a non-Nadal winner, and even a new one, is my guess. Rafa is more vulnerable here, Novak and Andy might still be open to upset, and Stan, as well. I believe that the draw comes out on Friday, which should help more with predictions. Speaking (as Twisted, Carol and I were) of Kyrgios, if you told me he'd win one clay tournament in his career, I'd pick Madrid. Stan could also be a first-time winner here. He's been to a final, and he's due for a MS 1000 again. Otherwise, it feels like it would take a near-total collapse of the draw to see Goffin, Cuevas or Ramos-Viñolas, for example, heft the Golden Toiletbrush. As to Rome, even more so. But, hey, it's been a surprising year so far.

 

[El Dude]

I'm just hoping for some interesting tennis in Madrid and Rome - MC and Barcelona were kind of boring, mainly because Rafa didn't really get that challenge he needs. I want drama!

I also slightly disagree about Stan. His season so far has been rather typical of him: almost losing (or losing) to players like Nishioka and Dzumhur, but still going deep in big tournaments. He's 15-6 so far this year, with a Slam SF and Masters F but no titles; last year at this point he was 17-5, with an ATP 250 and 500, but only a Slam 4R and no deep runs at Masters. Overall pretty similar, typical Stan performances: mediocre one match, brilliant the next. And don't forget that two of his losses were against a red-hot Roger, one against a rising Zverev, one against Nishikori, and one against a strong clay courter in Cuevas. The only real WTF loss was Dzumhur.

 

[Moxie]

I'm just hoping for some interesting tennis in Madrid and Rome - MC and Barcelona were kind of boring, mainly because Rafa didn't really get that challenge he needs. I want drama!

I also slightly disagree about Stan. His season so far has been rather typical of him: almost losing (or losing) to players like Nishioka and Dzumhur, but still going deep in big tournaments. He's 15-6 so far this year, with a Slam SF and Masters F but no titles; last year at this point he was 17-5, with an ATP 250 and 500, but only a Slam 4R and no deep runs at Masters. Overall pretty similar, typical Stan performances: mediocre one match, brilliant the next. And don't forget that two of his losses were against a red-hot Roger, one against a rising Zverev, one against Nishikori, and one against a strong clay courter in Cuevas. The only real WTF loss was Dzumhur.

I would argue that there was drama in MC, but it just came earlier than scripted. Surely Djokovic v. Simon and v. Goffin were dramatic matches. Murray v. Ramos-Viñolas. And there were good ones in Barcelona as well. Murray was in. Just not the finals. And I mostly agree that Rafa didn't get the challenge he needs. Thiem was the best on offer, and he met that one.

I take your point about Stan: that he's on a typical trajectory, as opposed to Novak and Andy, who are well off where they should be. Still, as we all know, he's not at all predictable, so, yes, I think he's a threat to Rafa going forward, but....Who knows with him? And he's not getting any younger. (Is there a more cliched and obvious statement in sport? Sorry.) I believe I did say that he's my #1 pick for the new winner in Madrid. If I didn't, he's it, with Nick as the Dark Horse.

 

[Carol]

Well, sorry but I consider Stan an opportunist winner

 

[Moxie]

Well, sorry but I consider Stan an opportunist winner

I wouldn't say that being a opportunist in sports is a bad thing. Are you trying to say it is? You have to do a lot to put yourself in the opportunity to win, especially in the Majors. If you are there, and the window opens up, and you still have the courage to walk through it, good for you. I have nothing but admiration for an opportunist in sports.

 

[Carol]

I wouldn't say that being a opportunist in sports is a bad thing. Are you trying to say it is? You have to do a lot to put yourself in the opportunity to win, especially in the Majors. If you are there, and the window opens up, and you still have the courage to walk through it, good for you. I have nothing but admiration for an opportunist in sports.

Stan has a great backhand and he has showed that he is playing very well without any doubt on clay and HC , also I give him credit to have won his first GS one month before to be 29, then at 30 the second and at 31 the third but my question is those opportunities he had in the AO 14, RG 15 and USO 16 was more under certain circumstances due to the others players were going through injuries and also bad patches. Maybe the only win which has convinced me more was RG because he played great vs an opponent who was playing pretty well too while the favorite to win for several years was going through the worst time of his career. But yes, its great to be an opportunist in sport, a win is a win and nobody can take what he has already done

 

[Moxie]

Stan has a great backhand and he has showed that he is playing very well without any doubt on clay and HC , also I give him credit to have won his first GS one month before to be 29, then at 30 the second and at 31 the third but my question is those opportunities he had in the AO 14, RG 15 and USO 16 was more under certain circumstances due to the others players were going through injuries and also bad patches. Maybe the only win which has convinced me more was RG because he played great vs an opponent who was playing pretty well too while the favorite to win for several years was going through the worst time of his career. But yes, its great to be an opportunist in sport, a win is a win and nobody can take what he has already done

Stan is an odd champion, and I'll agree with you on that, given his lack of results in MS, etc. But he has a very big game, when he brings it. Not to start WWIII, but I think you and I both believe that he might have lucked his first one a bit, when Rafa's back went. But he beat Novak at the AO to get to that final, and being there means you have a chance to win, whatever the circumstances. He shocked Novak in the 2015 RG final, with some red-line of his game. The thing that was impressive about his win in USO 2016 was, without playing as well as in RG, he played smarter. If you don't think he could have won those 3 Majors without an asterisk, then we could argue no one could beat the Big 4 without one. Stan has found his way in 3 Majors. You might call 1 a fluke, but not 3.

 

[mrzz]

Only if you want to build a narrative you can put an asterisk to the Wawrinka major wins. In fact, they were almost the opposite of asterisk wins. First, he was playing big, big tennis. His peak performances are on par with the peak performances of the big three. In all his major wins he passed by at least one of the big three -- and in all had other tough matches against quality opponents. If you want to discredit his AO win, fine, but to say the least he dispatched the better AO player of all time a few rounds earlier, and was up a set and a break in the final -- and playing like he was the one to beat. That's already a lot (and, yes, I believe he would win anyway, but my point is that you don't even need to think about it to give him credit). At RG he was the last guy to deny Djokovic, who is a monster of a clay courter which started his four slam run in the very next major, and at USO, well, what else can you do? There is a reason players don't want to face him on a final, which is the very same reason his wins are more than opportunistic.

 

[Carol]

Only if you want to build a narrative you can put an asterisk to the Wawrinka major wins. In fact, they were almost the opposite of asterisk wins. First, he was playing big, big tennis. His peak performances are on par with the peak performances of the big three. In all his major wins he passed by at least one of the big three -- and in all had other tough matches against quality opponents. If you want to discredit his AO win, fine, but to say the least he dispatched the better AO player of all time a few rounds earlier, and was up a set and a break in the final -- and playing like he was the one to beat. That's already a lot (and, yes, I believe he would win anyway, but my point is that you don't even need to think about it to give him credit). At RG he was the last guy to deny Djokovic, who is a monster of a clay courter which started his four slam run in the very next major, and at USO, well, what else can you do? There is a reason players don't want to face him on a final, which is the very same reason his wins are more than opportunistic.

I don't want to build anything, I'm just giving my opinion about a player who never has convinced me too much, always been under the shadow of Federer but yes, trying to improve and to show that he can make it too and he did but in "the perfect time". I don't think the players don't want to face him on a final (maybe only Novak?) remember that they know each other much better than we know them, I would better say that unless the others players would pay bad, really bad I don't see him winning another GS