Indian Wells Masters 1000 (2016)

[Front242]

There's a rumour that Andy Roddick is gonna come back just to 140mph+ ace him off the court in the first round

Rumor has it that Andy Still wakes up in the middle of the night in hot cold sweats still bothered by loosing that final in 5 sets to Roger. Well.. aleast he has B Decker to calm him down and back to sleep.

If ever there was a match where they should have chopped the trophy in two and given half to each guy it was there. Felt sorry for Andy as he played a great match.

 

[Fiero425]

There's a rumour that Andy Roddick is gonna come back just to 140mph+ ace him off the court in the first round

Rumor has it that Andy Still wakes up in the middle of the night in hot cold sweats still bothered by loosing that final in 5 sets to Roger. Well.. aleast he has B Decker to calm him down and back to sleep.

If ever there was a match where they should have chopped the trophy in two and given half to each guy it was there. Felt sorry for Andy as he played a great match.

Never cared for Roddick; his game or his attitude! Trying to mirror Agassi with that MOJO advert sent him spiraling down IMO! Winning that lone US Open was a gift and IMO just not worthy of something more as prestigious as a Wimbledon title! BTW, I'm no fan of Agassi's, but he did win his Masters' titles in an era where it was Bo5 with a lot of HOF competition! Also, Borg had no one who beat him like a drum as Roger has had to contend with; Rafa in the past and Nole now! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Front242]

Yeah, it was way harder to win masters back then than now. Kinda miss the best of 5 masters but I guess they just decided they played enough best of 5 at the slams. Puts things in more perspective though when counting the total number of masters won when guys on tour have won them as best of 5 instead of best of 3. Nadal v Federer at Rome 2006 was a classic as good as any slam final, for example.

 

[Front242]

^ It would make for an interesting thread actually if El Dude ever got the chance to put a weighting on the masters won by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic given that Federer and Nadal won more back when they were harder to win during the times of best of 5 but Djokovic's were all won as best of 3 except for Miami 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics

 

[herios]

In a very crowded field, the men doubles has been won by the USO champion duo from France, Nicolas Mahut and Pierre Hugues Herbert, who defeated Jack Sock and Vasek Pospisil in the final.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In a very crowded field, the men doubles has been won by the USO champion duo from France, Nicolas Mahut and Pierre Hugues Herbert, who defeated Jack Sock and Vasek Pospisil in the final.

Generally speaking, IW and Canada masters tend to attract lot of tough doubles teams and many singles players also play doubles in these tourneys (as an insurance just in case they fail in singles to get more practice so that they will not be rusty for the other masters that immediately follows). As a result, the winner in doubles of these two tourneys deserve extra Kudos.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not sure I agree with this assumption, Front. While you could say that a best of 5 is harder to win, you could also argue that a best of 3 is easier to lose. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that players seemed to skip Masters more often, perhaps because they were more grueling. Roger missed 12 Masters between 2001-06; compare that to Novak's last ten years, when he's missed only 5.

^ It would make for an interesting thread actually if El Dude ever got the chance to put a weighting on the masters won by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic given that Federer and Nadal won more back when they were harder to win during the times of best of 5 but Djokovic's were all won as best of 3 except for Miami 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics

 

[Fiero425]

If dealing with Masters records, these are more representative and compares them:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men%27s_Grand_Slam,_Olympic_and_ATP_Tour_Finals_and_Masters_Series_singles_champions -

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics -

 

[the AntiPusher]

I'm not sure I agree with this assumption, Front. While you could say that a best of 5 is harder to win, you could also argue that a best of 3 is easier to lose. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that players seemed to skip Masters more often, perhaps because they were more grueling. Roger missed 12 Masters between 2001-06; compare that to Novak's last ten years, when he's missed only 5.

^ It would make for an interesting thread actually if El Dude ever got the chance to put a weighting on the masters won by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic given that Federer and Nadal won more back when they were harder to win during the times of best of 5 but Djokovic's were all won as best of 3 except for Miami 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics

No EL Dude, Front is correct about this one.. Winning a best of 5 is a lot harder than loosing a best of 3 set... This is why is was very rare for a player to win the golden double (IW and Miami).

 

[mrzz]

^hmmm... surely, with best of five format is harder to win back to back tournaments, but, for an isolated tournament... the easier to lose argument is quite strong. I am pretty sure that, on average, high ranked players do better on slams than on any other tournament (yes, I know that there are more factors playing here).

But the best of five was just in the finals, right?

 

[Kieran]

Best of five was only the finals, that's right. I'm not sure how many actually went to Bo5, and bear in mind the MS series wasn't as formal or fabulous as it's become, so players would pick and choose, without penalty, whether or not they'd play. But I agree with anyone who suggests bringing Bo5 back. I don't know why they got rid in the first place...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Best of five was only the finals, that's right. I'm not sure how many actually went to Bo5, and bear in mind the MS series wasn't as formal or fabulous as it's become, so players would pick and choose, without penalty, whether or not they'd play. But I agree with anyone who suggests bringing Bo5 back. I don't know why they got rid in the first place...

Kieran , the reason they got rid of that format was a few of Rafa vs Fed (I think it may have been Rome )went over 4 plus hours and the players felt it was a bit taxing on their bodies or it left them a bit jaded.

 

[Kieran]

Best of five was only the finals, that's right. I'm not sure how many actually went to Bo5, and bear in mind the MS series wasn't as formal or fabulous as it's become, so players would pick and choose, without penalty, whether or not they'd play. But I agree with anyone who suggests bringing Bo5 back. I don't know why they got rid in the first place...

Kieran , the reason they got rid of that format was a few of Rafa vs Fed (I think it may have been Rome )went over 4 plus hours and the players felt it was a bit taxing on their bodies or it left them a bit jaded.

Lord have mercy on them, they were prolly paid about a million each and they took the next week off. This shouldn't have caused a rule change... :cover

 

[the AntiPusher]

Best of five was only the finals, that's right. I'm not sure how many actually went to Bo5, and bear in mind the MS series wasn't as formal or fabulous as it's become, so players would pick and choose, without penalty, whether or not they'd play. But I agree with anyone who suggests bringing Bo5 back. I don't know why they got rid in the first place...

Kieran , the reason they got rid of that format was a few of Rafa vs Fed (I think it may have been Rome )went over 4 plus hours and the players felt it was a bit taxing on their bodies or it left them a bit jaded.

Lord have mercy on them, they were prolly paid about a million each and they took the next week off. This shouldn't have caused a rule change... :cover

This is what I recall:

After the 5 hour, 5 set Rome final between Federer and Nadal, both withdrew from the Hamburg Masters due to exhaustion.

the problem lies simply in the scheduling. There should be at least a week in between Masters events.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Best of five was only the finals, that's right. I'm not sure how many actually went to Bo5, and bear in mind the MS series wasn't as formal or fabulous as it's become, so players would pick and choose, without penalty, whether or not they'd play. But I agree with anyone who suggests bringing Bo5 back. I don't know why they got rid in the first place...

Kieran , the reason they got rid of that format was a few of Rafa vs Fed (I think it may have been Rome )went over 4 plus hours and the players felt it was a bit taxing on their bodies or it left them a bit jaded.

Lord have mercy on them, they were prolly paid about a million each and they took the next week off. This shouldn't have caused a rule change... :cover

This is what I recall:

After the 5 hour, 5 set Rome final between Federer and Nadal, both withdrew from the Hamburg Masters due to exhaustion.

the problem lies simply in the scheduling. There should be at least a week in between Masters events.

 

[Fiero425]

Kieran , the reason they got rid of that format was a few of Rafa vs Fed (I think it may have been Rome )went over 4 plus hours and the players felt it was a bit taxing on their bodies or it left them a bit jaded.

Lord have mercy on them, they were prolly paid about a million each and they took the next week off. This shouldn't have caused a rule change... :cover

This is what I recall:

After the 5 hour, 5 set Rome final between Federer and Nadal, both withdrew from the Hamburg Masters due to exhaustion.

the problem lies simply in the scheduling. There should be at least a week in between Masters events.

I put a lot of the reasoning in the homogenized courts and the stupid way people play tennis; hugging the baseline and rarely going to the net except for the obligatory handshake and picking up the winners' check! Back in the day, you rarely had 20-30 stroke rallies; common place now with games running 10 minutes or more! That's on the players IMO; esp. Roger who has the ability to charge the net more and cut off those "so called" fabulous "gets" which are just floating back asking to be pounded away! He's got it in his mind, "I can hang with these 20 somethings as long as I want!" That's delusion at its worst! :dodgy: :cover :nono

 

[lob]

I put a lot of the reasoning in the homogenized courts and the stupid way people play tennis; hugging the baseline and rarely going to the net except for the obligatory handshake and picking up the winners' check! Back in the day, you rarely had 20-30 stroke rallies; common place now with games running 10 minutes or more! That's on the players IMO; esp. Roger who has the ability to charge the net more and cut off those "so called" fabulous "gets" which are just floating back asking to be pounded away! He's got it in his mind, "I can hang with these 20 somethings as long as I want!" That's delusion at its worst! :dodgy: :cover :nono

Fiero that's true of course. But don't you think its about 4 to 5 years too late? Not that this wasn't true even before then. Still, there was some wisdom in not breaking a winning formula up until 2010. But after his 2010 and 2011? OK, may be 2012 W was a shot in the arm to not change things up but after the rest of 2012 and after 2013? It isn't all delusion. He simply couldn't get out of his comfort zone and risk going back to the old aggressive style he had dropped a decade earlier. He feels more comfortable consistently beating the rest of the tour as opposed to take risks for winning the big ones.

 

[lob]

It is easy for us to project a player's past abilities into the future. Even if it were possible, it requires that the player has the confidence to unlearn and relearn. Your instincts take over on the court and rewiring your instincts is hard and usually pointless post a players peak.

 

[Fiero425]

I put a lot of the reasoning in the homogenized courts and the stupid way people play tennis; hugging the baseline and rarely going to the net except for the obligatory handshake and picking up the winners' check! Back in the day, you rarely had 20-30 stroke rallies; common place now with games running 10 minutes or more! That's on the players IMO; esp. Roger who has the ability to charge the net more and cut off those "so called" fabulous "gets" which are just floating back asking to be pounded away! He's got it in his mind, "I can hang with these 20 somethings as long as I want!" That's delusion at its worst! :dodgy: :cover :nono

Fiero that's true of course. But don't you think its about 4 to 5 years too late? Not that this wasn't true even before then. Still, there was some wisdom in not breaking a winning formula up until 2010. But after his 2010 and 2011? OK, may be 2012 W was a shot in the arm to not change things up but after the rest of 2012 and after 2013? It isn't all delusion. He simply couldn't get out of his comfort zone and risk going back to the old aggressive style he had dropped a decade earlier. He feels more comfortable consistently beating the rest of the tour as opposed to take risks for winning the big ones.

Well I've been kvetchin' about this type of play for OVER 10 years and if Federer doesn't change his mental aspect of his game, he'll start losing more; sorta like his past "so-called" rival, Rafa! Losing in the 2nd or 3rd round will become the norm and it'll get uglier as time goes on! If he thinks he can be "Jimmy Connors" playing like that until he's 40, he's more delusional than I thought! :nono :cover

 

[Front242]

Last time I checked it was Nadal losing early and not Federer and I guarantee you Federer's game is way more likely to be greater than Connors' was at the end of his career.