Monte Carlo Rolex Masters

[Kieran]

Congratulations to Rafa and his fans. Shame on ESPN not carrying the final.

I just hope Nole and Rafa in different half of RG and meet in the final. It would be amazing either for Rafa 10th trophies or Nole Slam. If that's the case, I'm curious to know whom Fed fans will root for and why.

It's possible Rafa might be top four by Paris, so at least he wouldn't face Novak in the quarters again...

 

[mrzz]

At least we should not hear the confidence excuse anymore.

Nah, I am too optimistic...

 

[Kieran]

At least we should not hear the confidence excuse anymore.

Nah, I am too optimistic...

Obviously his confidence was low, so equally obviously it wasn't an excuse.

Hopefully that's behind him, but we'll see. Say nothing just yet...

 

[DarthFed]

If he had aged well he'd still be winning the occasional slam and given the current state of things he'd be #2 by a wide margin. I'd say he aged average, maybe worse than expected. He just isn't the average great player to begin with. I for one would expect 34 year old Roger to be ranked ahead of a Murray who hasn't impressed in a few years.

Actually, compared to every other high achiever in the sport, Roger is the exception in how they've aged. A remarkable exception.

Murray is six years younger. He should be ranked higher than Federer, and he should be beating him every match, but instead he's getting hammered. Even when Federer was at his best, he wasn't posting scores like he is now, against Murray...

Murray used to give him trouble in some best of 3 matches. Roger never had problems with him in the big ones until 2012 Olympics. In Murray we are talking a much inferior talent to Roger, so no he shouldn't be ranked ahead of him. Roger is not the only exception. Connors and Agassi aged better relatively speaking.

 

[Kieran]

Connors and Agassi aren't high achievers in the sport like Borg, Sampras, Rafa, Roger. This game is brutal, but Roger has been exceptional in not skipping slams, not dropping to 141 in the world to chill out, like Agassi, etc. His results against Murray have actually improved in the past few years, which bucks a trend, but I put that as much down to Andy's silly persistence with Amelie in his corner...

 

[herios]

Connors and Agassi aren't high achievers in the sport like Borg, Sampras, Rafa, Roger. This game is brutal, but Roger has been exceptional in not skipping slams, not dropping to 141 in the world to chill out, like Agassi, etc. His results against Murray have actually improved in the past few years, which bucks a trend, but I put that as much down to Andy's silly persistence with Amelie in his corner...

Amelie is not playing. Andy is.

 

[Kieran]

Good to see the Fedfans still anxious. Tells me Rafa did great.

Now, anybody else here wish he'd skip Madrid?

If Rafa does well this week at Barcelona he most certainly would consider skipping Madrid. There's nothing to be gained of significant for him but the points he has to defend.i

The big issue for him there is, it's his home country MS tourney, so he'll be under pressure to show up. I hope he doesn't, though. Especially if he has a good week in Barcelona...

 

[DarthFed]

Connors and Agassi aren't high achievers in the sport like Borg, Sampras, Rafa, Roger. This game is brutal, but Roger has been exceptional in not skipping slams, not dropping to 141 in the world to chill out, like Agassi, etc. His results against Murray have actually improved in the past few years, which bucks a trend, but I put that as much down to Andy's silly persistence with Amelie in his corner...

I'd say Agassi and Connors qualify as high achievers. Agassi is a bit of a special case though given that he basically putzed around for 2 years in his prime. Roger should have a much better H2H vs. Murray than he does but for whatever reason he did poorly vs. Andy in the smaller matches at first. That H2H always needed a bit of context as Roger waxed Murray in the biggest matches back when he was great and even now he still can beat Andy but there is no reason he shouldn't be ranked above him. Roger at 36 should be better than Murray. If he was playing as well as everyone seems to think he'd be #2 by a wide margin in this current field.

 

[isabelle]

Congratulations to Rafa and his fans. Shame on ESPN not carrying the final.

I just hope Nole and Rafa in different half of RG and meet in the final. It would be amazing either for Rafa 10th trophies or Nole Slam. If that's the case, I'm curious to know whom Fed fans will root for and why.

It's possible Rafa might be top four by Paris, so at least he wouldn't face Novak in the quarters again...

You're right it's quite possible and if not before Paris, big opportunity after 'cause I'ld be surprised if Stan defended successfully his title in RG

 

[Kieran]

Connors and Agassi aren't high achievers in the sport like Borg, Sampras, Rafa, Roger. This game is brutal, but Roger has been exceptional in not skipping slams, not dropping to 141 in the world to chill out, like Agassi, etc. His results against Murray have actually improved in the past few years, which bucks a trend, but I put that as much down to Andy's silly persistence with Amelie in his corner...

I'd say Agassi and Connors qualify as high achievers. Agassi is a bit of a special case though given that he basically putzed around for 2 years in his prime. Roger should have a much better H2H vs. Murray than he does but for whatever reason he did poorly vs. Andy in the smaller matches at first. That H2H always needed a bit of context as Roger waxed Murray in the biggest matches back when he was great and even now he still can beat Andy but there is no reason he shouldn't be ranked above him. Roger at 36 should be better than Murray. If he was playing as well as everyone seems to think he'd be #2 by a wide margin in this current field.

In fairness, that's looking at things through Swiss-coloured glasses. There was a high-achiever played around the same time as Agassi - feller by the name of Sampras, you might have heard of him, kept the wolf from the door for six years straight - and he was so knackered at the age of 27 that he skipped the first slam of the next season, the Australian Open of 1999. This is what I mean by high achievers. And the extraordinary wear and tear they face. Much more than players further down the pecking order.

Federer should be better than Murray when Federer is 36? Really? :laydownlaughing

 

[DarthFed]

I think you are looking at things through anti-Swiss colored glasses my friend. Roger simply had a lot more overall game than Sampras, more golf clubs in the bag. And with Sampras he lost motivation a little too early as he has stated before. I think that was the main issue otherwise he probably would've been a lot more consistent his last few years and maybe played longer.

There was no reason to think Roger would be your typical 30+ year old player. You have to adjust expectations a bit but you've wanted to see him fall hard for over a decade and allowed yourself to believe he'd suddenly become a nobody after age 30.

 

[Kieran]

Brother, regardless, he's a physical phenom, it's obvious. I bring it up because it gets dreary and predictable watching fretful Fedfans when Nadal wins something, how they wheel out the incoherent slurs, the illogical darts, and they don't see how easy it is for all of us to do that against a player we dislike. It's all to easy, in an era when players have smashed more records than Lance Armstrong and endured better than Justin Gatlin.

Sometimes it's refreshing to see Fedfans like the Dude come in and try analyse things from a tennis perspective, and not allow prejudice get in the way. GSM doesn't like Rafa, but he greeted his return to winning big with humour, not jealousy or snide putdowns. I'm not getting at you here, because although your hatred of Rafa has its own Twitter account, I'm sure, you're often fairly grimly humorous about it too...

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think you are looking at things through anti-Swiss colored glasses my friend. Roger simply had a lot more overall game than Sampras, more golf clubs in the bag. And with Sampras he lost motivation a little too early as he has stated before. I think that was the main issue otherwise he probably would've been a lot more consistent his last few years and maybe played longer.

There was no reason to think Roger would be your typical 30+ year old player. You have to adjust expectations a bit but you've wanted to see him fall hard for over a decade and allowed yourself to believe he'd suddenly become a nobody after age 30.

darth my good friend I am with Kieran on this one. To say that Federer should still be better than Murray at age 36 is a stretch somewhat. As for Sampras, I dont think Pete lost his motivation but he didnt pace his schedule or change his serve and volley game to adapt to the change in racket/string technoloy of the late 90's and 2000.

 

[Kieran]

Here's Tignor's take on it, more or less saying what most fans are saying, that's it's a great week for him, it's welcome, but to be cautious too:

Now may be the time to mention that Nadal wasn’t perfect in Monte Carlo. As he said, sometimes it “was tough to find that feeling.” Rafa double faulted service games away, over-rotated his forehand and left it in the net, failed to consolidate breaks and convert break points, and had trouble putting opponents away when he had the lead: The struggles of the last two years didn’t simply vanish in a week. The difference is, now, for the first time in a long time, he knows he can go through those struggles and still come through and beat top-level competition. He knows that when he has to have his forehand in a deciding set, it can still be there for him.

 

[shawnbm]

I don't have the time to read what everybody has posted, but congrats to Rafa and his fans. He was vintage at many points in his victories, and I was especially impressed he survived the onslaught of Dominic--that young man was Federesque in winning and going up to get break points, but over half of them were taken away by stellar play by the Spanish Bull. The Nadal that wins gets more aggressive and dictates when he is down break point--it is one of the things that made him who he is. It was good to see that fight--tennis needs it. He got a bit of the aura back after beating Stanislas and Murray to boot--most would have expected him to defeat Gael, but I, for one, was mighty impressed (again) with the Frenchman. He appears to be willing to keep the showboating in check to win more matches and Lord knows he has a lot of game. Great final.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Here is a decent read for Front, Fiero and the rest of the Rafa pundits.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/brain-game-monte-carlo-final-2016

 

[mrzz]

Obviously his confidence was low, so equally obviously it wasn't an excuse.

I shouldn't have used the word "excuse", but now it is too late...

But I can't follow your logic... the fact that something is real means that it is also not an excuse?

Anyway, let's focus on the part we agree. From now on, this "storyline" (better, isn't it?) shall fade away a bit, we hope.

 

[Carol]

I don't have the time to read what everybody has posted, but congrats to Rafa and his fans. He was vintage at many points in his victories, and I was especially impressed he survived the onslaught of Dominic--that young man was Federesque in winning and going up to get break points, but over half of them were taken away by stellar play by the Spanish Bull. The Nadal that wins gets more aggressive and dictates when he is down break point--it is one of the things that made him who he is. It was good to see that fight--tennis needs it. He got a bit of the aura back after beating Stanislas and Murray to boot--most would have expected him to defeat Gael, but I, for one, was mighty impressed (again) with the Frenchman. He appears to be willing to keep the showboating in check to win more matches and Lord knows he has a lot of game. Great final.

Thanks, it's a pleasure to read an opinion with some common sense and fair from someone it doesn't matter who is his fav :clap

 

[Kieran]

Obviously his confidence was low, so equally obviously it wasn't an excuse.

I shouldn't have used the word "excuse", but now it is too late...

But I can't follow your logic... the fact that something is real means that it is also not an excuse?

Anyway, let's focus on the part we agree. From now on, this "storyline" (better, isn't it?) shall fade away a bit, we hope.

I think the word "excuse" has dodgy connotations. It suggests that it isn't the real reason something happened, but instead a player/fans is making up an excuse to cover a fair defeat. Fact is, all of Rafa's defeats have been bad ones over the last 2 years or so, but he's been fit and fighting hard and has no excuses.

But a loss of confidence - which is obviously real - could be a contributing "reason" why he lost close matches that he usually won. In the commentary yesterday, one of the commentators said that Rafa used to love to fight and get stuck in during tight matches, but recently in the clutch he's been timid and afraid. That's definitely a reason why he wasn't playing his best.

Anyway, let's focus on the part we agree. From now on, this "storyline" (better, isn't it?) shall fade away a bit, we hope.

Who knows? We'll see how he goes...

 

[El Dude]

I just hope Nole and Rafa in different half of RG and meet in the final. It would be amazing either for Rafa 10th trophies or Nole Slam. If that's the case, I'm curious to know whom Fed fans will root for and why.

I'll root for a good match. We haven't had a close Novak-Rafa slugfest in awhile, so I'm just hoping it remains competitive. I could think of an argument for wanting either one to win, but they knid of even out. For instance, I'd like to see Novak get that "Nole Slam." On the other hand, I'd like to see Rafa reclaim his crown.

Good to see the Fedfans still anxious. Tells me Rafa did great.

Now why would we be anxious? :huh:

If he had aged well he'd still be winning the occasional slam and given the current state of things he'd be #2 by a wide margin. I'd say he aged average, maybe worse than expected. He just isn't the average great player to begin with. I for one would expect 34 year old Roger to be ranked ahead of a Murray who hasn't impressed in a few years.

Darth, Roger has definitely aged well. When was the last time a great player remained in the elite (top 5) into his mid-30s? In the Open Era only Agassi and Connors, and even then just barely. Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg and Newcombe were all done by the time they were Roger's age and many of them a few years before. Roger's longevity is similar to that of Laver. He's the same age Laver was in 1973 when he was a few years from a Slam but still a top 10 player and winning other tournaments. Laver was barely playing Slams, concentrating on the WCT tour.

But the reason Roger isn't winning Slams is simple: there's another great player in his prime who is dominating the tour and simply better than Roger is now. Roger was the better player until 2011, when Novak surpassed him. In other words, Novak age 23-28 is better than Roger age 29-34. No shame in that. Since 2011 Roger's 9-18 against him, compared to Rafa's 7-18 record against Novak during that same span. So it is impressive enough that Roger has done better against prime Novak than Rafa has, if only by a small margin.