Monte Carlo Rolex Masters, Monaco, ATP Masters 1000

[DarthFed]

Wait, talking about "sometimes less-than-objective", are you going to tell me that these last months we have been able to watch the best tennis from the top players and also from the youngest ones? like who? the only one who has played better (but not like in 2015) has been Novak, period. Nadal still with his up and downs, Federer and his knee, Muzz....nothing better, Tsonga, Monfils, Raonic, Cilic....very inconsistent, the youngest ones still far to be able to win a MS. But it doesn't mean that they can't play some tournaments better or worse and Monfils has played this last tournament much better than the previous ones, match by match

I never said that the top guys have been playing great but it is just funny that after every tournament Nole wins you whine about lack of competition and then when someone lays down in a 15 minute 3rd set for your precious in the final it is nothing but praise for the "great play" of Monfils. If it had been Nole on the other side of the net you'd be talking about how awful Monfils was.

 

[shawnbm]

I thought the first set had some compelling tennis, but there were a lot of errors in the match, especially as it wore on. That being so, Monfils certainly acquited himself well; at least he stayed in points longer and showed a bit of patience--a positive step for him. I don't think the competition has laid down for Nole, just that he has been so much better than anyone else. He is clearly the top dog and has earned every bit of it. No one has dominated like him in the Open Era other than Federer in 2005-2006, McEnroe in 1984 and Connors in 1974.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I've got a really dumb question: Is @Twisted DarthFed? That's not a knock, or even a compliment, I'm just wondering. I've noticed they share similar thoughts (most of which valid) on different issues.

 

[DarthFed]

I can neither confirm nor deny

 

[Bert]

he won some tennis matches in 4 sets did he?..wow. amazing news for a sportsman in his 20s, anyway gael lost 6-1 or 6-0 to murray in the 5th because he was wasted, as he often is..

his poor fitness stops him from winning a lot. it tells alot in matches and later in tourneys when he loses instead of being fit enough to keep his level up.

there is a spill over effect. he is not fit enough to contend for the big tourneys playing everyday in masters or playing every other day in 5set/4set/3set majors..

he has won around 10 titles, no masters, no majors. he gives himself little chance with his poor core fitness.

Amazing analysis. Thanks for sharing

He won in 5 against Murray at French Open, winning 6-1 in the 5th set in 2006 being led 2 sets to 1, fitness ?
He won 68% of his Gran Slam matches (5 sets format), for info Ferrer who is better than him and everyone agrees he has an incredible fitness won 70% of his 5 sets matches... same %

But once again, you shoud be right.

 

[Moxie]

he won some tennis matches in 4 sets did he?..wow. amazing news for a sportsman in his 20s, anyway gael lost 6-1 or 6-0 to murray in the 5th because he was wasted, as he often is..

his poor fitness stops him from winning a lot. it tells alot in matches and later in tourneys when he loses instead of being fit enough to keep his level up.

there is a spill over effect. he is not fit enough to contend for the big tourneys playing everyday in masters or playing every other day in 5set/4set/3set majors..

he has won around 10 titles, no masters, no majors. he gives himself little chance with his poor core fitness.

Respectfully, I think it's hard to say that Monfils has "poor core fitness." He's considered by many to be one of the best pure athletes in the game. But I agree with those that say he's a poor tactician. It was the wrong strategy to go for long baseline rallies against Rafa on clay. And in the matches mentioned by Twisted above, RG 2014 v. Murray, USO 2014 v. Fed, as well as Sunday v. Rafa, these are losses to superior players. He'll throw everything he has at them, and fade in the stretch. That can also be mental exhaustion, and it happens to lower-ranked players all the time. Also, better players will change up tactics, when even a slightly lower-ranked player has run out of ideas.

Also, @Bert: I'm no statistician, but I'd guess there is actually a bigger difference than you think between 57.3% in deciders for Gael v. 64% for Roger, based on number of matches played. That's nearly 7 percentage points over a long career v. a very long career. That's actually a lot of matches difference, with a good sample for both.

 

[Bert]

Respectfully, I think it's hard to say that Monfils has "poor core fitness." He's considered by many to be one of the best pure athletes in the game. But I agree with those that say he's a poor tactician. It was the wrong strategy to go for long baseline rallies against Rafa on clay. And in the matches mentioned by Twisted above, RG 2014 v. Murray, USO 2014 v. Fed, as well as Sunday v. Rafa, these are losses to superior players. He'll throw everything he has at them, and fade in the stretch. That can also be mental exhaustion, and it happens to lower-ranked players all the time. Also, better players will change up tactics, when even a slightly lower-ranked player has run out of ideas.

Also, @Bert: I'm no statistician, but I'd guess there is actually a bigger difference than you think between 57.3% in deciders for Gael v. 64% for Roger, based on number of matches played. That's nearly 7 percentage points over a long career v. a very long career. That's actually a lot of matches difference, with a good sample for both.

Agree with you !

Regarding the stats, Monfils played approx.160 decider sets while Federer played approx. 250 so yes he played more and won more.
My point was to say that this difference is not significant compared to how different their career are. If someone says, Monfils always fails in decider sets, his fitness is shocking, I would expect him to have won 20% of the deciders Here they both won approx. 6 out of 10 decider sets.
So yes Federer won more, but no significantly more when you see that Djokovic won 75% of the decider sets he played. That is a significant difference.

So my point was to compare Federer and Monfils as my my opinion they have similar % but no one would question Federer's fitness or mental strength when coming to decider sets.

However, I am not denying that in some matches he may have failed because he was out of energy. As I said I am not a big Monfils fan so I didn't watch all his matches but I am not convinced that this is something that happens ALL the time as some posts here may state.

 

[Moxie]

Agree with you !

Regarding the stats, Monfils played approx.160 decider sets while Federer played approx. 250 so yes he played more and won more.
My point was to say that this difference is not significant compared to how different their career are. If someone says, Monfils always fails in decider sets, his fitness is shocking, I would expect him to have won 20% of the deciders Here they both won approx. 6 out of 10 decider sets.
So yes Federer won more, but no significantly more when you see that Djokovic won 75% of the decider sets he played. That is a significant difference.

So my point was to compare Federer and Monfils as my my opinion they have similar % but no one would question Federer's fitness or mental strength when coming to decider sets.

Actually, see Twisted's above. There are even Fed fans who will tell you that Roger has a less-than-stellar 5th set record. Roger has always been a front-runner, partly because he was allowed to be, so much of his early career. Maybe not the best example, because so many of his dominating years he rarely went to deciders. Djokovic and Nadal have much more had to muck around in the deciding sets in their earlier careers, and Rafa has always been in it for the long haul. Not sure what his % is...do you know?

 

[shawnbm]

Rafa is top six or seven in five sets career wise. I disagree that Roger "was allowed to be" a front runner. He simply beat the hell out of everyone across all surfaces with one notable exception. He just out rallied and winnered most everyone week in and week out (in his prime).

 

[Bert]

Actually, see Twisted's above. There are even Fed fans who will tell you that Roger has a less-than-stellar 5th set record. Roger has always been a front-runner, partly because he was allowed to be, so much of his early career. Maybe not the best example, because so many of his dominating years he rarely went to deciders. Djokovic and Nadal have much more had to muck around in the deciding sets in their earlier careers, and Rafa has always been in it for the long haul. Not sure what his % is...do you know?

I get your point.

For your info :
Nadal stats : 69 % wins in a decider set (approx. 200 played) / 70 % in a 5th set (24 played)
Djoko stats : 74 % wins in a decider set (approx. 200 played) / 77 % in a 5th set (35 played)

All the stats come from atpworldtour website

 

[shawnbm]

Nole is near the top with Borg if memory serves.

 

[Billie]

Well they play so many matches during their careers that sometimes even the best will be left breathless and tired and unable to perform their best. It is what it is.

 

[Moxie]

Rafa is top six or seven in five sets career wise. I disagree that Roger "was allowed to be" a front runner. He simply beat the hell out of everyone across all surfaces with one notable exception. He just out rallied and winnered most everyone week in and week out (in his prime).

I take note of your exception to my phrase. I was thinking primarily before he had even Rafa in front of him, but, in fairness, he's been a great front-runner into his 30s, so that's his tennis, even out of his prime. My point being, though, that he didn't so much ever learn to grind it out, because he so rarely had to early, or really even middle or late. He has absolutely gutted out some great wins, but of his weaknesses, of which there are few, grinding out an ugly win is not top of the pile.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

From memory this is the first time Monfils took a set off Rafa on clay.

 

[Bert]

From memory this is the first time Monfils took a set off Rafa on clay.

This was also the first time he took him more than 5 games on clay 4 previous losses were quick and neat.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I do not understand why Federer was brought into this equation seeing he lost to Joe? It was not Rafa's best clay court victory,there are still area's in his game he needs to improve eg his serve,still the area I like was his 'fight' his mentality.

 

[britbox]

 

[britbox]

 

[britbox]

Really good tournament at Monte Carlo, one of the best.

 

[britbox]

I take note of your exception to my phrase. I was thinking primarily before he had even Rafa in front of him, but, in fairness, he's been a great front-runner into his 30s, so that's his tennis, even out of his prime. My point being, though, that he didn't so much ever learn to grind it out, because he so rarely had to early, or really even middle or late. He has absolutely gutted out some great wins, but of his weaknesses, of which there are few, grinding out an ugly win is not top of the pile.

I subscribe to that in the main, although I think he grinded out RG 2009 - he won some ugly ones there for sure.

I've always thought Roger was never a long distance runner - sure he's fit, but everyone has a different engine and Roger is a middle distance runner when the grind sets in.