Nitto ATP Finals 2023, Turin, Italy

[kskate2]

I was listening to Roddick, Courier and Kyrgios chatting after the final… they were all saying that the Fedal (crucible as Shawn calls it), created a player who would always work on his vulnerabilities until they were no longer so. Kyrgios was saying how Novak’s first choice isn’t to be full on aggressive, but against Alcaraz and Sinner, he made that adjustment. Sinner played inside the baseline in their first match and barely even got a look at it in the final.

Good point about making adjustments. We all knew Djoke wouldn't play the same way in the second match especially w/ a recent loss to analyze and dissect. I like Cahill, but sending his charge out there and expecting the same gameplan to rattle Djoke was a mistake. That lightening really only strikes once. If anything they should have taken more cues and adjustments from the Charlie SF match.

 

[Kieran]

Federer, nadal wouldn’t have had a chance..

Alcaraz and sinner would’ve thrashed rafa on this surface, rafa was pedenstrain on indoors. They could’ve beaten fed too

Both mysteriously played ‘poorly’ aganst same man in semis and finals after both had dominated medvedev. Coincidence or maybe, perhaps, possibly, kieran, was it the goat himself who played at a godly level? The same level he showed when he thrashed fed 1, 2 at AO 16 and thrashed rafa 1, 2 at doha. Carlitos and sinner did well to get 5 and 6 games.

Clocking forehands at avg speed of 84mph, serving like karlovic, best return ever, best defense ever, volleying, slicing, droppers… when at his best, no-one has a chance, even the former greats. I mean, kinda makes sense kieran, it’s why he was able to win 4 majors in a row, has 400 weeks at #1, record masters, record eoy cup,, highest ranking points and elo rating ever. When the goat is at his best, it’s highest level ever attained and younster or fedal, doesn’t matter

Sinner didn’t just mysterioulsy drop his level. During round robin, novak’s fh avg speed as 69.. in finals 84. Novak also rarely missed, served lights out and returned lights out. Sinner was rushed and had leas time to set up to hit his shots so naturally, he had more UFEs.. he was under pressure on his service games as navak was getting everything back and couldn’t handle novak’s serves..

3,3 was a good score. He’s the goat kieran, what can you do other than prey he doesn’t play his best?

There’s no way you thought Sinner was going to play the same in the final. And that Novak was too. You predicted that so you could save face if Novak lost by nobody could have expected him to. He beat 3 novices at this event, and HH. Let’s not lose the head, eh?

 

[El Dude]

With regards to this being an easy title, according to Ultimate Tennis Statistics' "Relative Difficulty" stat, it is a bit on the easier side for ATP Finals, but not one of the easiest: #36 out of 54.

Hardest ATP Finals - two are tied: Edberg in 1989. He beat Agassi and Gilbert in the RR, then Lendl in the SF and Becker in the Final. Djokovic in 2015. He beat Nishikori and Berdych, lost to Federer in the RR. Then beat Nadal in the SF, Roger in the Final.

Easiest - Lendl in 1985. He beat Smid, Mayotte, Gomez, then Becker in the final.

Not sure how they calculate "Relative Difficulty," though.

 

[Fiero425]

There’s no way you thought Sinner was going to play the same in the final. And that Novak was too. You predicted that so you could save face if Novak lost by nobody could have expected him to. He beat 3 novices at this event, and HH. Let’s not lose the head, eh?

OMG! I had no idea you had such animus & a low regard for the top talent of the tour! IDK what you want?! Rune & Alcaraz have proved they can defeat Novak in the crunch; actually having winning records! HH's one of the best servers on the tour & this court is supposedly the fasted! Djokovic's draw was tough; esp. getting the "new guns" in his path! All superlatives have been used on the guy and it's deserved! He's the last man standing of the Big 3 and dealing w/ them from his beginning of pro play incentivized him! His numbers might not be as good w/o them pushing him & Andy Murray! His critics have resorted to undermining other players and pointing out his weakness on the Overhead! That's their biggest gripe!

 

[shawnbm]

Regardless of how one views the younger guns, there can be no denying that Novak came to play and played better when it counted in the knockout rounds. He was stellar when it counted the most. Kudos to the Italian for not taking the easy way out and losing his last RR match even though he knew it might mean facing Djokovic in the final if things went as planned. Sinner just isn't Nole--yet (to be honest, I don't think he ever will be, but that is just prognostication).

 

[Moxie]

With regards to this being an easy title, according to Ultimate Tennis Statistics' "Relative Difficulty" stat, it is a bit on the easier side for ATP Finals, but not one of the easiest: #36 out of 54.

Hardest ATP Finals - two are tied: Edberg in 1989. He beat Agassi and Gilbert in the RR, then Lendl in the SF and Becker in the Final. Djokovic in 2015. He beat Nishikori and Berdych, lost to Federer in the RR. Then beat Nadal in the SF, Roger in the Final.

Easiest - Lendl in 1985. He beat Smid, Mayotte, Gomez, then Becker in the final.

Not sure how they calculate "Relative Difficulty," though.

That's a good question, since they all play the top 8 guys, or the top 8 available. Meaning by ranking, it's all much the same. Ultimate Tennis Statistics may rank historical ones by their rankings of players, but if you have 3 players who're 20/20/22 years old, they don't have much record to go by, plus those 3 had never even made the ATP finals before. I wonder how this one made #36? Maybe H2H?

 

[El Dude]

That's a good question, since they all play the top 8 guys, or the top 8 available. Meaning by ranking, it's all much the same. Ultimate Tennis Statistics may rank historical ones by their rankings of players, but if you have 3 players who're 20/20/22 years old, they don't have much record to go by, plus those 3 had never even made the ATP finals before. I wonder how this one made #36? Maybe H2H?

Right, but with two caveats: One, the format wasn't always the top 8. In 1985, the Masters Grand Prix was the top 16 players, which is why Smid was there. Two, clearly there's variance in the quality of the top 8 in any given year. I believe the stat (Relative Difficulty) is determined by Elo Rating.

Anyhow, I think #36 out of 54 is about right...that means it is on the edge of the lower third of ATP Finals, in terms of difficulty. That sounds about right. I mean, Alcaraz is no push-over, and Sinner has been surging. Hurkacz is really good on fast courts and took Novak to three sets. Rune is erratic but dangerous. Definitely not a harder than average ATP Final, but not as weak as some are implying.

 

[Moxie]

Regardless of how one views the younger guns, there can be no denying that Novak came to play and played better when it counted in the knockout rounds. He was stellar when it counted the most. Kudos to the Italian for not taking the easy way out and losing his last RR match even though he knew it might mean facing Djokovic in the final if things went as planned. Sinner just isn't Nole--yet (to be honest, I don't think he ever will be, but that is just prognostication).

I view the young guns as having great potential for the future, and they acquitted themselves well, particularly Sinner. But I do think that maybe Novak was a bit low with cold or something, earlier in the week? Not an excuse, just an observation. However, when the rubber met the road, he raised himself to his full height, as we all expected. (Or, except for perhaps @MikeOne. LOL.) Experience will out. Plus, he's been amazing on indoor hards. I don't agree with those who think that Sinner should have taken Novak out the cheap (and cheaters way.) Rune could have done it, but didn't summon his best. Novak, like the best of 'em, got the window of opportunity and did not look back.

 

[Moxie]

Right, but with two caveats: One, the format wasn't always the top 8. In 1985, the Masters Grand Prix was the top 16 players, which is why Smid was there.

I did not know that about the format. Interesting. (And yet another reason eras are hard to compare.) Note: I've never even heard of Smid.

Two, clearly there's variance in the quality of the top 8 in any given year. I believe the stat (Relative Difficulty) is determined by Elo Rating.

Yes, as I suggested. But you have 3 really young players, so how much does their ELO rating mean, at this point? Serious question.

Anyhow, I think #36 out of 54 is about right...that means it is on the edge of the lower third of ATP Finals, in terms of difficulty. That sounds about right. I mean, Alcaraz is no push-over, and Sinner has been surging. Hurkacz is really good on fast courts and took Novak to three sets. Rune is erratic but dangerous. Definitely not a harder than average ATP Final, but not as weak as some are implying.

Obviously, Alcaraz is not chopped liver. He has 2 Majors and a not insignificant weeks at #1. I'm fine with your assessment of the resumes of the rest. I'm not actually "implying" anything. This gets back to our argument that you think I am, basically all the time, trying to "imply" something. I'm questioning methodology, which I think is fair. YOU like the way they assessed it because you buy into it. Personally, I think there's too little data, based on the data they use, to rate it. Or rate it the way they do. Don't you even think it's a bit dodgy, given the youth and lack of resume of a few players? I'm not trying to underrate Novak's win, which is what you think. I'm just questioning the Ultimate Tennis Statistic's ranking of this particular YEC. I'd be much more impressed if they said "too little data to rank."

 

[El Dude]

I did not know that about the format. Interesting. (And yet another reason eras are hard to compare.) Note: I've never even heard of Smid.

Yes, as I suggested. But you have 3 really young players, so how much does their ELO rating mean, at this point? Serious question.

Actually, I think young player Elo might mean more than, say, Andy Murray's Elo in 2018-19, when he was clearly a shadow of his former self but his Elo only slowly declined, and was still over 2200 (about top 5) deep into 2019. As you and I have discussed, Elo isn't great for very recent form, because it accrues over time and only slowly goes down (e.g. a player could absolutely kill it, reach 2500 Elo, then lose their next ten matches and still be above #1 caliber 2400...it takes awhile to go down). Actually, UTS has a "Recent Elo" stat...not sure how recent it draws from, but it is better for pinpointing form in any given moment.

But a young player who is still on the rise has earned their Elo...it is a pretty good indicator of how good they've become, and may actually be a bit behind.

Obviously, Alcaraz is not chopped liver. He has 2 Majors and a not insignificant weeks at #1. I'm fine with your assessment of the resumes of the rest. I'm not actually "implying" anything. This gets back to our argument that you think I am, basically all the time, trying to "imply" something. I'm questioning methodology, which I think is fair. YOU like the way they assessed it because you buy into it. Personally, I think there's too little data, based on the data they use, to rate it. Or rate it the way they do. Don't you even think it's a bit dodgy, given the youth and lack of resume of a few players? I'm not trying to underrate Novak's win, which is what you think. I'm just questioning the Ultimate Tennis Statistic's ranking of this particular YEC. I'd be much more impressed if they said "too little data to rank."

I don't want to go back to that kerfuffle, to be honest - and I'm not implying that you are implying (haha). I just posted the UTS stat because it gives us a metric to assess with. I don't know how accurate it is, but I generally agree with the result: that this YEC was below average in difficulty, but not hugely so. Some recent ones have been far easier: Dimitrov's 2017 was the second easiest in the Open Era, and Novak's 2014 and last year were both much easier, in the bottom ten.

Dimitrov beat Goffin, Thiem, and Bautista Agut in the RR; Sock in the SF and Goffin in the Final.

 

[El Dude]

Speaking of Elo, Jannik Sinner is now at 2256 Elo - the best of his career. For context, that's 53rd highest in the Open Era, just a fraction behind Harold Solomon and ahead of Patrick Rafter. It is also higher than Dominic Thiem's best (2250), and very close to Tsitsipas (2258).

 

[Kieran]

OMG! I had no idea you had such animus & a low regard for the top talent of the tour! IDK what you want?! Rune & Alcaraz have proved they can defeat Novak in the crunch; actually having winning records! HH's one of the best servers on the tour & this court is supposedly the fasted! Djokovic's draw was tough; esp. getting the "new guns" in his path! All superlatives have been used on the guy and it's deserved! He's the last man standing of the Big 3 and dealing w/ them from his beginning of pro play incentivized him! His numbers might not be as good w/o them pushing him & Andy Murray! His critics have resorted to undermining other players and pointing out his weakness on the Overhead! That's their biggest gripe!

Not at all but neither do I think that 20 year old kids in development are hardened experience US navy seals when it comes to battle. They’re not. Remember, I called it immediately after the semi, that Novak would roll Sinner who’d learn the difference between the road to the final - and the final itself.

I didn’t criticise Novak, it’s just that all you bandwagon merchants are very touchy…

 

[MikeOne]

Not at all but neither do I think that 20 year old kids in development are hardened experience US navy seals when it comes to battle. They’re not. Remember, I called it immediately after the semi, that Novak would roll Sinner who’d learn the difference between the road to the final - and the final itself.

I didn’t criticise Novak, it’s just that all you bandwagon merchants are very touchy…

Interesting to read what your perspective here is when a few months back, you picked carlos to beat Novak in wimbledon finals. You felt he was ready to dethrone novak in arguably toughest surface, in a slam final but now have flipped and have no confidence in the 20 year olds? What has changed?

These kids are ready, they just can’t match the GOAT at his top level. He was superior to levrl he showed vs sinner in RR and carlos in wimbledon finals. Serving lights out, rocketing groundstrokes without missing, running everything down and returning like best ever. When the GOAT is at his top level, 20 year olds, 30 year olds.. fedal or not, he has the upper hand. This is what happens when the GOAt is in top gear. Kinda makes sense.. when a guy who has won 24 slams, 40 masters, has stayed 400 weeks at #1 and he plays his best best level, no player in history can match him.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting to read what your perspective here is when a few months back, you picked carlos to beat Novak in wimbledon finals. You felt he was ready to dethrone novak in arguably toughest surface, in a slam final but now have flipped and have no confidence in the 20 year olds? What has changed?

These kids are ready, they just can’t match the GOAT at his top level. He was superior to levrl he showed vs sinner in RR and carlos in wimbledon finals. Serving lights out, rocketing groundstrokes without missing, running everything down and returning like best ever. When the GOAT is at his top level, 20 year olds, 30 year olds.. fedal or not, he has the upper hand. This is what happens when the GOAt is in top gear. Kinda makes sense.. when a guy who has won 24 slams, 40 masters, has stayed 400 weeks at #1 and he plays his best best level, no player in history can match him.

So why did he lose at Wimbledon?

 

[kskate2]

So why did he lose at Wimbledon?

 

[Kieran]

Interesting to read what your perspective here is when a few months back, you picked carlos to beat Novak in wimbledon finals. You felt he was ready to dethrone novak in arguably toughest surface, in a slam final but now have flipped and have no confidence in the 20 year olds? What has changed?

Nothing has changed. You’re still wrong in everything, every time you post. Here’s what I said about the Wimbledon final. Slightly a bit more to it than your simplistic memory tells us.

These kids are ready, they just can’t match the GOAT at his top level.

Ready for what? They’re kids. I was at the 2007 USO final. I wondered if Novak was ready, if he was going to be as precocious as Rafa, who was already pulling a shift, and in each set he was in a strong position. But he was only a kid. Expecting him to be already at Federer level then would have been immature.

The rest of your post is just irrelevant fanboy stuff…

 

[MikeOne]

Not at all but neither do I think that 20 year old kids in development are hardened experience US navy seals when it comes to battle. They’re not. Remember, I called it immediately after the semi, that Novak would roll Sinner who’d learn the difference between the road to the final - and the final itself.

I didn’t criticise Novak, it’s just that all you bandwagon merchants are very touchy…

….

So why did he lose at Wimbledon?

i said when he plays his top level, he wasn’t in top gear in wimbledon finals, carlos cannot beat novak in top gear on grass.

I looked up 2014 Wimbledon final stats where scoreline was similar and novak faced king roger. Novak had 66 winners and 27 UFEs. Against carlos? 32 winners and 40 UFE. He bas only 2 aces. Contrast this to his match vs carlos in turin.. novak had 3UFEs jn 2 sets.

Clearly novak played well below his top level but had he played the way he played fed in 2014, carlos would’ve lost in 3.

 

[tossip]

Joko only has to take a bathroom break after looking like he is about to faint,and only to come back from locker room ready to run through the wall.

 

[Moxie]

i said when he plays his top level, he wasn’t in top gear in wimbledon finals, carlos cannot beat novak in top gear on grass.

Well, but then why didn't he play his best that day? Everything was on the line, including keeping alive the CYGS.You say that Carlos can't beat Novak in top-gear on grass, but he did beat him, in a high-stakes match. I find it tiresome this notion of "at his best," (which we also got a lot of from Fedfans.) No one plays their best all the time, especially as they get older. I have plenty of theories as to why Novak wasn't ready for Carlos in that final at Wimbledon, which I have already expressed on these forums. But one glaring one is what he said himself: that he basically underestimated him. It seems he's trying not to do that again.

I looked up 2014 Wimbledon final stats where scoreline was similar and novak faced king roger. Novak had 66 winners and 27 UFEs. Against carlos? 32 winners and 40 UFE. He bas only 2 aces. Contrast this to his match vs carlos in turin.. novak had 3UFEs jn 2 sets.

Clearly novak played well below his top level but had he played the way he played fed in 2014, carlos would’ve lost in 3.

2014 was nine years ago. He was MUCH younger, and against a more known opponent. (Who was then 32.) Why should he even still have his 2014 level, at 36? Oh, sure, if he'd played like he did at 27. And if he had been playing a man 6 years older, not 16 years younger. Time comes for us all, Mike.

 

[Kieran]

The funny thing is, @MikeOne says nobody can beat Novak at his top level, and yet after reaching that same level in the semi final, he expects us to believe he was honest when he picked Sinner to win the final?

Make it make sense, brother…