NextGen Finals, Milan

[Moxie]

I watched about half of the final. My impressions of Rublev are unchanged: The kid has a ton of talent, but is very temperamental. He can hit the ball well, but struggles with his serve. When things aren't going smoothly, he loses his temper and suffers for it. If he can get a handle on his emotions, he's going to be a top 10 player. I see a Berdych-type.

As for Chung, he showed some incredible defense - Rublev was pounding him, and he kept returning. Very attritional, though, so his upside is limited. Definitely top 20, though. I suppose Ferrer is his absolute upside.

I saw a bit of Chung and Rublev at the USO a couple of years ago. I didn't find Chung an especially defensive player. Also, he's got a huge following amongst Korean/Asian fans, which I think helps his confidence. I wouldn't be judging either too quickly.

 

[Federberg]

Anyone have thoughts on the rules changes? Maybe I'm a reactionary but I loathe some of them. None more so than on court coaching. I was listening to a podcast recently where they said it had gone really well. I don't know what it is with people. Why change the one thing that makes tennis truly unique as a sport. You're supposed to solve the problems you face out there. This isn't football or boxing. A tennis player is supposed to find the solutions themselves. I hope to goodness they don't bring this in to the ATP. I already can't stand to watch the WTA apart from at slams and this is one of the main reasons.

 

[mrzz]

^Completely agree about on court coaching. The only logical explanation I can think of for someone who is actually from the world of tennis to even think about this heresy is the fact that this is a rule that is hard to enforce, and we have multiple cases of players being accused of cheating -- and some really do break the rules -- so that is something that should be fixed anyway. I would rather make a real effort to get rid of the illegal coaching...

 

[Federberg]

I'll never think of tennis in the same way if they bring in on court coaching. Especially at the slams. You can wipe out cross-era comparisons right there and then. It's over

 

[El Dude]

I really dislike the "deciding point." Nothing quite beats a good deuce-advantage back and forth. That's totally gone.

I'm mixed on going to 4. It does speed things up and makes each game seem more meaningful; you don't get the sense that the set doesn't really start until halfway through, which is often the case in the usual rules - especially in long slogs like Murray-Djokovic.

 

[Federberg]

^The way to stop the "long slogs" like Murray-Djokovic (and I agree with you) is to increase court speed. We have enough data now, nearly 20 years, that string technology has greatly helped service returns. There really is no reason to keep court speeds slower, particularly when it is clearly causing players more injuries. All these changes are just a terrible solution to a simple problem

 

[GameSetAndMath]

1. I am against on court coaching. No need to elaborate. Folks have already spoken about it.

2. I am totally against No-Ad scoring. I think Deuce-Ad sequence provides more drama.

3. I am also against the shorter format. In the shorter format, most often once you are
down a break, then the set is almost over as there is no time to come back. So,
there are not much chances for momentum swings within a set. Further the shorter
format will create more upsets and this would mean we will not have big names
who are needed to promote tennis and generate a following.

4. I am in favor of the shot clocks (tampered with some discrimination from chair umpire).

a. They think by using the shorter format, every point becomes important. On the
contrary, if every point is important, then no point is important.

b. This is all driven by the TV industry. They want to have better predictability of
how long a tennis match will last. They hate the fact that a match could last
anywhere between one and six hours. They want to limit the unpredictability
of match time to about 15 minutes or less (as it is easy to manage their
schedule, tv ads, rights etc). But, the unpredictability of match length
is a desirable feature and not a shortcoming of tennis and it makes tennis
unique and different.

c. With the proliferation of internet TV and digital streams, after 10 years or so,
the regular TV industry will bite the dust (hopefully). If that happens, then there
will be no need to artificially ensure that match ends in some fixed time.

 

[Fiero425]

^The way to make the "long slogs" like Murray-Djokovic (and I agree with you) is to increase court speed. We have enough data now, nearly 20 years, that string technology has greatly helped service returns. There really is no reason to keep court speeds slower, particularly when it is clearly causing players more injuries. All these changes are just a terrible solution to a simple problem

I wouldn't mind a variety of speeds like the old days which is why greatness was fleeting in the dawn of the Open Era! I still remember at the height of Borg's powers in '78; owned the tour winning FO, Wimbledon, and in the final of the USO, but the new Flushing Meadows court had the speed of "glass" described by Bud Collins and others! Vilas was upset early by a US player no one knows, Butch Walts! It was obscenely fast and on top of that Borg had a thumb injury causing him to lose his racket after his serve leaving him defenseless! That tourney was just not destined to be in his winning column; most greats have a deficit of a major like Sampras, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, & Edberg! Speed up the court, just don't go nuts like Cinci.!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Congrats to Chung for winning the Nextgen event! Honestly, he was not in my radar as a potential winner of this event at the beginning of this event. He not only lifted the trophy, but did so without losing a match!

For this effort, he gets $390,000 and an Italian Model. Not bad!

 

[Fiero425]

Congrats to Chung for winning the Nextgen event! Honestly, he was not in my radar as a potential winner of this event at the beginning of this event. He not only lifted the trophy, but did so without losing a match!

For this effort, he gets $390,000 and an Italian Model. Not bad!

I just hope this inspires rather than give him a sense of complacency! I don't know him, but can picture he could stand to get in a little better shape with his scrambling style! :whistle:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I did not watch much of the tourney. I heard that they played the whole event without linemen. Apparently, the entire line call was directly done electronically. How did it go? Did the players like it? This may be something that they could adapt in the men's tour assuming it did not take too long to get the verdict on each call.

 

[Moxie]

I really dislike the "deciding point." Nothing quite beats a good deuce-advantage back and forth. That's totally gone.

I'm mixed on going to 4. It does speed things up and makes each game seem more meaningful; you don't get the sense that the set doesn't really start until halfway through, which is often the case in the usual rules - especially in long slogs like Murray-Djokovic.

There is an old tennis saw about "the 7th game" of a set being crucial. Not always, but often. I concur with everything said above by @mrzz, @Federberg and laid out well by @GameSetAndMath. There really isn't a need to change the tennis format, especially if the consideration is TV...we have a Tennis Channel, and TV is on its way out, anyway. I feel they're trying to turn it into ping-pong.

Tennis has shortened the format by making all but men's majors and DC into best of 3 sets. TBs are in all sets except in 3rd/5th at 3 of the 4 Majors. I think we all agree that on-court coaching should not be a thing. (And most of us wish it would go away in women's tennis, too.) A lot of people seem to like the idea of a shot-clock, and that surfaces should be more diversified. We're a small sample here, but I think we're unified in what we'd change, and leave the same.

 

[Ricardo]

I watched about half of the final. My impressions of Rublev are unchanged: The kid has a ton of talent, but is very temperamental. He can hit the ball well, but struggles with his serve. When things aren't going smoothly, he loses his temper and suffers for it. If he can get a handle on his emotions, he's going to be a top 10 player. I see a Berdych-type.

As for Chung, he showed some incredible defense - Rublev was pounding him, and he kept returning. Very attritional, though, so his upside is limited. Definitely top 20, though. I suppose Ferrer is his absolute upside.

such rookie observations.....oh boy. Chung and Ferrer are totally not from the same mould, can you not see some subtleties.......please.

 

[El Dude]

I know you’re a bit slow, Ricardo, so I’ll be patient with you. I didn’t say Chung and Ferrer are of the same “mould” but that Chung’s absolute upside is akin to Ferrer in terms of level. “Upside” implies level or ability, not type or mould.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[herios]

I know you’re a bit slow, Ricardo, so I’ll be patient with you. I didn’t say Chung and Ferrer are of the same “mould” but that Chung’s absolute upside is akin to Ferrer in terms of level. “Upside” implies level or ability, not type or mould.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Way too early to come up with a certain assessment about any player who played here.
For now, what we know is that Chung bossed them around.

 

[El Dude]

Of course it is way too early, but what's wrong with speculating? It is all just in fun, herios.

 

[Moxie]

OK, given their relative ranks at the start, and how they finished, I think it's fair to grade them:

By ranking going into the tournament:

1. Rublev - made final: A-/B+
2. Khachanov: D-/F
3. Shapo: Didn't get out of group, but he's young: C
4. Coric: Lost in SF
5. Donalson: won no matches: F
6. Chung: Won: A+
7. Medvedev: made SFs, lost to Chung: B/B+
8. Quinzi (qualifier) - D, just for getting there

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Quinzi did much better than expected. He was way below in rankings compared to other folks and so if he had been bagelled in every set that he played, it would not have been a surprise. But, he actually managed to take the match to 5 sets on two different occasions. So, Quinzi deserves a much better grade.

 

[Ricardo]

I know you’re a bit slow, Ricardo, so I’ll be patient with you. I didn’t say Chung and Ferrer are of the same “mould” but that Chung’s absolute upside is akin to Ferrer in terms of level. “Upside” implies level or ability, not type or mould.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

you talked about Chung's attritional game/defense and then associated his upside to Ferrer, and you can honestly say it had nothing to do with comparing their game style/type? even with thick skin on your face already, you are not getting away with it.

now I'll tell you what makes one 'slow'. after so many players showing that their best level doesn't happen until late 20s or more (Wawrinka, Ferrer, Lopez...etc even Murray), you still keep playing the role of an expert by repeatedly telling us about 'absolute upside' of players who are just past 20. Frankly after so many cases of late 20s bloomers only an idiot would talk like that.

even if you try hard to sound smart, just think about it......Pioline was not some great underachiever correct? you don't just dig out some stats (he made a couple slam finals) and talk as if you know something, because you really are that clueless.....and as proven, SLOW

 

[Ricardo]

Of course it is way too early, but what's wrong with speculating? It is all just in fun, herios.

you were not speculating but used that tone of lecturing......'his absolute upside is Ferrer' does that sound like speculating or drawing up conclusion? give it a break al dud, you really don't know what you are talking about.