Indian Wells, BNP Paribas Open, Masters 1000

[kskate2]

Results from the Indian Wells - BNP Paribas Open, Men's Singles Round 3 matches on Monday

(1) R Federer d. (25) F Krajinovic
6-2, 6-1

T Fritz d. F Verdasco
4-6, 6-2, 7-6(7-1)

(23) H Chung d. (12) T Berdych
6-4, 6-4

B Coric d. (13) R Bautista Agut
6-1, 6-3

(11) P Carreno Busta d. D Medvedev
6-1, 7-5

(7) K Anderson d. N Kicker
7-6(7-1), 7-6(7-3)

J Chardy d. (20) A Mannarino
7-5, 4-6, 6-1

(30) P Cuevas d. (5) D Thiem *
3-6, 6-4, 4-2 Retired

 

[isabelle]

will Thiem be able to play Miami ??

 

[britbox]

 

[britbox]

Interviews:

 

[britbox]

Hmmm, interesting opinion, BritBox. Do you simply think that Roger is a tennis superhuman and no one can achieve the same esp. in terms of longevity at the top, or that his plying style and strength are so different than those of Novak/Andy that they cannot take any inspiration, even emotional and not technical? Because emotional inspiration is all they really need, IMO. They have their own techniques obviously.

If former, then Jimmy Connors is the only other comparable open era player. But I don;t think the incidence of a player growing into "superhumanship" needs to be that rare nowadays, with advanced sport medicine, nutrition and recovery therapy, etc. At the top 100 and especially top 10, we have most players past a magic 30year age barrier. Why not another Connors (besides Roger who is there already) growing among them?

If latter, can you elaborate in more detail? Because as a tennis fan who plays only occasionally, I don't get it what would be the reason for Roger's success and longevity be so "individual" and not repeatable.

I think there is a combination of things Chris.

Firstly, yes I do think Federer is pretty exceptional in tennis terms. He's not superhuman, but extremely gifted, smart with scheduling and the way he looks after himself.

I didn't say Roger's success and longevity was so "individual" and not repeatable... somebody will break his records and others will play longer... Somebody might do both... it won't be Murray for sure... and I don't think Novak will either.

However, if we're talking about a return to the Top 10 in it's own right... I reckon both could do it comfortably. Would that in itself be deemed a success given the careers they have had? I think they need more than a Top 10 berth.

I guess we need to frame the discussion a little more specifically... are we expecting these guys to come back and win majors or just secure a Top 10 berth?

If we're talking the former, I don't think Murray wins another major. He's won 3 pre-30 years old and without a gammy hip. I don't expect him to win any with a gammy hip post-30.

Novak is the enigma here... if he's fit and rediscovers his fire, he could go on a tear... but the longer this stop/start thing goes on.... the less likely that seems to be, to me. We will see!

 

[DarthFed]

What's wrong with Thiem? Anything Kiki could heal with some TLC?

 

[britbox]

What's wrong with Thiem? Anything Kiki could heal with some TLC?

 

[Federberg]

I think there is a combination of things Chris.

Firstly, yes I do think Federer is pretty exceptional in tennis terms. He's not superhuman, but extremely gifted, smart with scheduling and the way he looks after himself.

I didn't say Roger's success and longevity was so "individual" and not repeatable... somebody will break his records and others will play longer... Somebody might do both... it won't be Murray for sure... and I don't think Novak will either.

However, if we're talking about a return to the Top 10 in it's own right... I reckon both could do it comfortably. Would that in itself be deemed a success given the careers they have had? I think they need more than a Top 10 berth.

I guess we need to frame the discussion a little more specifically... are we expecting these guys to come back and win majors or just secure a Top 10 berth?

If we're talking the former, I don't think Murray wins another major. He's won 3 pre-30 years old and without a gammy hip. I don't expect him to win any with a gammy hip post-30.

Novak is the enigma here... if he's fit and rediscovers his fire, he could go on a tear... but the longer this stop/start thing goes on.... the less likely that seems to be, to me. We will see!

I'm more willing to wait on Murray, purely because medical technology advances, so what was terminal for the careers of the likes of Hewitt in terms of top billing need not be so now. Until we see how his hip reacts I'm more willing to be open on his future chances. At the very least, there's no evidence so far that there will be any mental baggage for him as opposed to Novak. But I do agree, if there's any hip issues following his come back then he's done. If not, then he's in such a great position to push on and win multiple grand slams in this period of transition he might just surprise us

 

[DarthFed]

I'm more willing to wait on Murray, purely because medical technology advances, so what was terminal for the careers of the likes of Hewitt in terms of top billing need not be so now. Until we see how his hip reacts I'm more willing to be open on his future chances. At the very least, there's no evidence so far that there will be any mental baggage for him as opposed to Novak. But I do agree, if there's any hip issues following his come back then he's done. If not, then he's in such a great position to push on and win multiple grand slams in this period of transition he might just surprise us

Excellent point about his hip. The problem I see for Murray is Roger. Andy's best chance at another one is Wimbledon but I think he will have to dodge Roger if he wants to win another one there. Though there are medical advances it's tough to picture him moving quite as well as before and that will be tough for him.

Regarding Novak you can't compare his issues to Roger. Fed's knee injury came at a time when his movement had already declined and Roger had already adapted to a more aggressive style. Having an injury on the playing wrist/elbow/shoulder is a bigger problem than a decrease in movement. We've seen Roger and Rafa and many others adapt to a decline in movement and I think Djoker could do the same, but all bets are off if he has a nagging issue on his playing hand that won't fully go away.

 

[DarthFed]

Sounds like an upper leg "massage" from Kiki could do the trick.

 

[Federberg]

Excellent point about his hip. The problem I see for Murray is Roger. Andy's best chance at another one is Wimbledon but I think he will have to dodge Roger if he wants to win another one there. Though there are medical advances it's tough to picture him moving quite as well as before and that will be tough for him.

Regarding Novak you can't compare his issues to Roger. Fed's knee injury came at a time when his movement had already declined and Roger had already adapted to a more aggressive style. Having an injury on the playing wrist/elbow/shoulder is a bigger problem than a decrease in movement. We've seen Roger and Rafa and many others adapt to a decline in movement and I think Djoker could do the same, but all bets are off if he has a nagging issue on his playing hand that won't fully go away.

Re: Murray. Yes I agree he has to avoid Roger. But that's not really an issue right? You only have to look at last years USO where Rafa didn't have to play Roger (not saying he stood no chance, the point is that Federer doesn't necessarily have to stand in Murray's way)

 

[Federberg]

I, for one, would love to know what came first, Novak's mental slump or the injury. I hope for his sake the injury came first. The mental slump might be more reversible

 

[mrzz]

Murray would have to avoid Federer and Nadal. HIs H2H with Nadal is 7x17 and it counts a retirement, a WO and one 2015 match where Nadal was quite below his usual self. Not saying he can not beat him but there is no doubt who the favorite is when both are in form.

 

[Federberg]

^Even then. If we're saying that Murray returns with no hip issues and he can win slams if he doesn't have to face Fedal, then he can win many more. There are always opportunities and the draw can always work in your favour. The last Wimbledon title he won, he was scheduled to face Federer in the final, but he fell to Raonic. These things happen. To say that he stands no chance makes no sense to me (if he has no continuing hip issue)

 

[DarthFed]

Re: Murray. Yes I agree he has to avoid Roger. But that's not really an issue right? You only have to look at last years USO where Rafa didn't have to play Roger (not saying he stood no chance, the point is that Federer doesn't necessarily have to stand in Murray's way)

True but chances of Roger getting upset at Wimbledon are lower and realistically I don't see him having any chance if they meet up. Roger was owning him badly in 2014 and 2015 and generally doesn't have problems with him at majors.

Last year's USO is a different story, even though Roger wasted Nadal 4 times last year a match at the USO with a healthy Roger still wouldn't have been a slam dunk by any means.

 

[Moxie]

I, for one, would love to know what came first, Novak's mental slump or the injury. I hope for his sake the injury came first. The mental slump might be more reversible

I'm voting "mental." He won RG just weeks before the Querrey match at SW19, and he'd looked perfectly crisp his 1st 2 rounds there. And a few weeks later, he won in Canada. Then the big disappointment not winning in Rio, (which I think is a contributing factor to his mental woes.) He didn't start complaining about injury until he lost in in AO, which was elbow. I know he said he'd been carrying injury for some time, like a year and a half (which is pretty insulting to the field, since he won at least some of the Nole Slam during that period), but I don't really believe it.

 

[Moxie]

True but chances of Roger getting upset at Wimbledon are lower and realistically I don't see him having any chance if they meet up. Roger was owning him badly in 2014 and 2015 and generally doesn't have problems with him at majors.

Last year's USO is a different story, even though Roger wasted Nadal 4 times last year a match at the USO with a healthy Roger still wouldn't have been a slam dunk by any means.

Clearly, we're not talking about this Wimbledon, though, right? Murray will barely be back. But next year, Roger will be almost 39, so the dynamic could be completely different.

 

[herios]

It is quite evident by now, how weak the field is, except Roger. There is a lot of inconsistency, and almost anything could happen . Very hard to predict the SF of a big event for example anymore.

 

[herios]

Clearly, we're not talking about this Wimbledon, though, right? Murray will barely be back. But next year, Roger will be almost 39, so the dynamic could be completely different.

Also Murray will be 32 next year . I doubt he will be as good as he was.

 

[atttomole]

When does ESPN start covering Indian Wells in the US? Unfortunately, I do not have Tennis Channel.