Indian Wells, BNP Paribas Open, CA, USA, ATP Masters 2017

[DarthFed]

yeah well Roger is not a top player anymore, not even ranked inside top 10.

Regardless of ranking I think it's pretty clear that Roger is still a top 3 player when healthy, probably top 2 and we will have to see if/when Nole recovers his form.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I read this post on a Facebook group for tennis fans:

"For future ref: IW is a slow court but the ball travels here v fast , its v dry may be driest tournament of the tour. No moisture.So base your expectations and judgements based on this. And when sun is out and warm the ball rockets through the air. At night it slows down overall. So its a mixed bag.
Came back from IW two days back and noticed this diff with cincy,USO (Tournaments i have attended) in matches and practice courts."

Your views guys?? Reflections?

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Did anyone find a highlights video for the Kyrgios-Zverev match on youtube? There seem to be none for this.

 

[isabelle]

happy that Nick and Dom reach quarters

 

[isabelle]

bad Nick rocks, I like his game, if he can stay quiet, he can have a good career

 

[Carol]

yeah well Roger is not a top player anymore, not even ranked inside top 10.

Ok, then I should better say that Kyrgios after to beat one of the top three he never has won the next match

 

[MartyB]

Regardless of ranking I think it's pretty clear that Roger is still a top 3 player when healthy, probably top 2 and we will have to see if/when Nole recovers his form.

Fed is the #1 player of the year so far for this year. After that performance yesterday against Nadal & the AO from every broadcaster and tennis journalist what is going on here with Fed is unprecedented. The last time I saw Nadal look this beaten in a match was Djokovic in his dominant stretch. The Fed backhand has altered all the dynamics in the men's elite field. Now I clearly expect Nadal to be a co-favorite or the favorite at the French if this trend with Djokovic continues. One of the things that was not stated about this performance and the AO by most commentators is that tennis at this level is as much mental as it is physical. Fed is looking across that net and he's playing freely and beautifully against his nemesis. Some years the draws have guys playing each other a lot not sure if that will continue but the rankings and seedings will have a lot to do with that.

 

[Mary]

Fed is the #1 player of the year so far for this year. After that performance yesterday against Nadal & the AO from every broadcaster and tennis journalist what is going on here with Fed is unprecedented. The last time I saw Nadal look this beaten in a match was Djokovic in his dominant stretch. The Fed backhand has altered all the dynamics in the men's elite field. Now I clearly expect Nadal to be a co-favorite or the favorite at the French if this trend with Djokovic continues. One of the things that was not stated about this performance and the AO by most commentators is that tennis at this level is as much mental as it is physical. Fed is looking across that net and he's playing freely and beautifully against his nemesis. Some years the draws have guys playing each other a lot not sure if that will continue but the rankings and seedings will have a lot to do with that.

Very true. I think this shows some basic flaws in the ranking system. Regardless of his absence he should never have been ranked so low.

 

[DarthFed]

Damn near flawless from Roger yesterday and I actually thought the high bounce helped him more than it did Rafa. He's taking the backhand on the rise so Nadal is having problems kicking it up high to Roger and meanwhile he couldn't handle Roger's kick serve at all. First time he's won 3 in a row vs. Ralph and this one was on a very good surface for Nadal.

 

[El Dude]

I never thought I'd say this, but Rafa seems to have a match-up problem vs. Federer. But the problem is that he can't adjust - he plays Roger like it's 2013 or before.

For Rafa's fans, I wouldn't worry too much. Nothing has changed. Maybe reality is setting in a bit: that Rafa is what he is - still a very good, even borderline great, player, but not the Rafa of 2013. But consider the fact that he's still been better than everyone else this year but Roger, in terms of ATP points. He's 14-4 this year, or 78%. He's lost to a hot Sam Querrey in an ATP 500 final, Milos Roanic, and Roger Federer twice. He's easily beaten a bunch of lesser players, but also Cilic, Dimitrov, Raonic, Monfils, and Zverev.

And remember: clay season is coming up. Rafa will be essentially "coming home." Now it is unlikely that he's going to party like it's 2013, but he should be able to improve his results. I still predict at least one Masters title, consider him a--if not the--favorite at Roland Garros, and likely to win 2-3 clay titles overall.

Short version: Don't give up hope, just stop expecting him to return to 2013 form. Rafa is still very good, one of the best players on tour.

 

[mrzz]

Very true. I think this shows some basic flaws in the ranking system. Regardless of his absence he should never have been ranked so low.

I beg to disagree. The ranking system is quite good, and in general all critics of of it that I read give me more reason to believe it is very good.

The case in question in fact is simple. Federer was not playing tournaments, so there was no way to know how well he could play. The ranking system is cold, but fair. Of course one would expect that a top player would return after injury playing better than his ranking indicates, but:

1) First, this is not a given. Other players returned playing bellow average. You can not use Federer as a standard. And even he could have returned playing worst. He earned his points the hard way, and that is exactly how it should be done. Every number we see after his name now is surely fair.

2) Anything other than a ranking system such as this introduces a completely unfair level of arbitrariness. For how much time a guy out for injury would keep his position/seeding/whatever? 3 months, 6, one year? In the mean time, what the whole rest of the field does? No matter what they do or how well they play, they cannot earn that spot.

In other words, if the guy is not playing, his level can not be assessed. So whatever ranking he gets is arbitrary and (here comes the bad part) subject to be viewed as an injustice. Thank heavens there was no such a thing prior to this AO. Had Federer received a #2 seed and won people would credit his title to this for ages to come.

I know it gets frustrating sometimes, but this comes from the nature of the game (player´s levels oscililate due to a lot of reasons), not from the ranking system. The ranking is not there to predict how good people will be playing, it merely assumes that, on average, the players who amassed more rankings points on the current "running" year are playing better than the ones who amassed less. Day in, day out, most of the times the higher ranked player in fact wins, so we have dozens of daily indications that the ranking system is actually good -- even if we generally forget or ignore that.

 

[DarthFed]

I think it's still too early to say Roger has completely turned the corner vs. Rafa and now the shoe is on the other foot. I actually am hoping Roger avoids him on clay because you'd figure if they meet on grass or fast hards at this point it'd definitely be an edge to Roger and he can keep this streak going. But a couple losses to Ralph on clay and it can have a carryover effect like it did many years ago.

 

[MartyB]

I beg to disagree. The ranking system is quite good, and in general all critics of of it that I read give me more reason to believe it is very good.

The case in question in fact is simple. Federer was not playing tournaments, so there was no way to know how well he could play. The ranking system is cold, but fair. Of course one would expect that a top player would return after injury playing better than his ranking indicates, but:

1) First, this is not a given. Other players returned playing bellow average. You can not use Federer as a standard. And even he could have returned playing worst. He earned his points the hard way, and that is exactly how it should be done. Every number we see after his name now is surely fair.

2) Anything other than a ranking system such as this introduces a completely unfair level of arbitrariness. For how much time a guy out for injury would keep his position/seeding/whatever? 3 months, 6, one year? In the mean time, what the whole rest of the field does? No matter what they do or how well they play, they cannot earn that spot.

In other words, if the guy is not playing, his level can not be assessed. So whatever ranking he gets is arbitrary and (here comes the bad part) subject to be viewed as an injustice. Thank heavens there was no such a thing prior to this AO. Had Federer received a #2 seed and won people would credit his title to this for ages to come.

I know it gets frustrating sometimes, but this comes from the nature of the game (player´s levels oscililate due to a lot of reasons), not from the ranking system. The ranking is not there to predict how good people will be playing, it merely assumes that, on average, the players who amassed more rankings points on the current "running" year are playing better than the ones who amassed less. Day in, day out, most of the times the higher ranked player in fact wins, so we have dozens of daily indications that the ranking system is actually good -- even if we generally forget or ignore that.

for the most part I agree with your assessment. However, at Wimbledon (where they do change seedings for the grass) and the French (which should take into account clay court prowess) the seedings are very much open to debate. With players like Fed, Nadal and Delpo who have been out for several months it sure is hard to predict what they are capable when they return but we do know they are elite players but I do agree with you that they must earn back their rankings..

 

[Mary]

I beg to disagree. The ranking system is quite good, and in general all critics of of it that I read give me more reason to believe it is very good.

The case in question in fact is simple. Federer was not playing tournaments, so there was no way to know how well he could play. The ranking system is cold, but fair. Of course one would expect that a top player would return after injury playing better than his ranking indicates, but:

1) First, this is not a given. Other players returned playing bellow average. You can not use Federer as a standard. And even he could have returned playing worst. He earned his points the hard way, and that is exactly how it should be done. Every number we see after his name now is surely fair.

2) Anything other than a ranking system such as this introduces a completely unfair level of arbitrariness. For how much time a guy out for injury would keep his position/seeding/whatever? 3 months, 6, one year? In the mean time, what the whole rest of the field does? No matter what they do or how well they play, they cannot earn that spot.

In other words, if the guy is not playing, his level can not be assessed. So whatever ranking he gets is arbitrary and (here comes the bad part) subject to be viewed as an injustice. Thank heavens there was no such a thing prior to this AO. Had Federer received a #2 seed and won people would credit his title to this for ages to come.

I know it gets frustrating sometimes, but this comes from the nature of the game (player´s levels oscililate due to a lot of reasons), not from the ranking system. The ranking is not there to predict how good people will be playing, it merely assumes that, on average, the players who amassed more rankings points on the current "running" year are playing better than the ones who amassed less. Day in, day out, most of the times the higher ranked player in fact wins, so we have dozens of daily indications that the ranking system is actually good -- even if we generally forget or ignore that.

I did not suggest that ranking should predict.

My other favourite sport is snooker, very popular here in the UK. Rankings cover 2 years rather than 1. This prevents such massive lowering of a players position unless they are out for an exceptionally long period. It also means they are under less pressure to compete when under strain or with a chronic injury. Also there is provision to protect a player with the agreement of the World Snooker Assoc. This was recently done for Carter who had cancer treatment and it worked well for him and was supported by other players. Wimbledon uses its own ranking system too - I am sure this ridiculous draw would not have happened there. For me the issue is not just about Federer. We are seeing far too many players injured. One of the reasons for this is they are playing so many tournaments to protect their points, often playing when unwell or injured. Current examples are Raonic, Edmund, Thiem, even Murray who had shingles. The ATP has the resources to review this and in the interests of the players well being, the tennis audience and the overall game I think they should do so.

 

[Fiero425]

I think it's still too early to say Roger has completely turned the corner vs. Rafa and now the shoe is on the other foot. I actually am hoping Roger avoids him on clay because you'd figure if they meet on grass or fast hards at this point it'd definitely be an edge to Roger and he can keep this streak going. But a couple losses to Ralph on clay and it can have a carryover effect like it did many years ago.

Better hope Roger doesn't read that; his ego couldn't handle it! He'll go the full clay season just to prove you wrong! Age should tell him a lot of things, but so far he's shown "can't" isn't in his vocab! I think he should skip the FO altogether, but it won't happen! He probably thinks, "I have got a chance at a GRAND SLAM!" :nono :angel: :cover

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[Front242]

No way should he skip RG. Who says Novak, Rafa or Andy will do well? Anything can happen and the way he's playing now he can beat any of them.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, he should play the French. He can beat Andy on any surface, especially in this form, and who knows where Novak will be at in a couple months. And what if Rafa is upset by a Thiem or Dimitrov? It could happen.

 

[El Dude]

I fully believe that a player--no matter what his name is, or how great--should have to earn his way back up through the ranks and seeding. In fact, I don't see an argument otherwise, unless one believes that the rankings should represent how good a player is rather than how well they've played over the last 52 weeks. If it is the former, there is just no way to properly assess that.

 

[El Dude]

My prediction going forward: The winner of Kyrgios-Federer will win the tournament.

Carreno Busta defeats Cuevas
Thiem defeats Wawrinka
Nishikori defeats Sock
Federer/Kyrgios

Thiem defeats Carreno Busta
Federer/Kyrgios defeats Nishikori

Federer/Kyrgios defeats Thiem

I'll give Roger the slight edge due to his form and experience, and that I think he'll find a way to get Kyrgios frustrated and possibly implode. But it will be tough.

 

[DarthFed]

I think it's still too early to say Roger has completely turned the corner vs. Rafa and now the shoe is on the other foot. I actually am hoping Roger avoids him on clay because you'd figure if they meet on grass or fast hards at this point it'd definitely be an edge to Roger and he can keep this streak going. But a couple losses to Ralph on clay and it can have a carryover effect like it did many years ago.

Better hope Roger doesn't read that; his ego couldn't handle it! He'll go the full clay season just to prove you wrong! Age should tell him a lot of things, but so far he's shown "can't" isn't in his vocab! I think he should skip the FO altogether, but it won't happen! He probably thinks, "I have got a chance at a GRAND SLAM!" :nono :angel: :cover

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

No way should he skip the French or any major. He's shown yet again at AO that you can't count him out of any tournament. I, like I assume most Fed fans, never thought he'd win another AO or RG. He always has a decent shot at Wimbledon and is a contender at USO but no one figured he'd snatch another AO let alone by going through 4 top 10 players in his first tournament after 6 months.

And I'm not saying Roger should skip tourneys or lose on purpose before facing Rafa, I'm just saying that it might be a good thing if he simply does not meet up with Rafa during the clay court swing. If he wins IW I'd like to see him skip Miami and then just play Rome and RG because he does have 2 grass tournaments before Wimbledon and if he plays 2 of those clay MS events as well as RG that'd be a lot of tennis heading into Wimbledon.