Pre-gaming Wimbledon 2024

[El Dude]

I am talking about present okay I remember that win, what has he done after that? I will re word my post to make it clearer for you

Well to be fair, he's won two Masters and is exactly the type of player that becomes a one-Slam wonder at Wimbledon. He's not as good as Goran Ivanisevic was, but probably better than Mark Philippoussis was - who was just a rising Roger Federer away from winning Wimbledon in 2003.

I'll probably never consider Hurkacz as a serious contender at a Slam, but he'll be a top darkhorse at Wimbledon for at least the next few years.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Well to be fair, he's won two Masters and is exactly the type of player that becomes a one-Slam wonder at Wimbledon. He's not as good as Goran Ivanisevic was, but probably better than Mark Philippoussis was - who was just a rising Roger Federer away from winning Wimbledon in 2003.

I'll probably never consider Hurkacz as a serious contender at a Slam, but he'll be a top darkhorse at Wimbledon for at least the next few years.

Well I am not a fan of his, but to be fair on current form I feel he has to be considered as a player that could as you say be a top dark horse at Wimbledon, this year and also in the next few years.
BTW I still cant get over why Patrick Rafter could not win Wimbledon,he had the game on grass, moving on..........

 

[El Dude]

Well I am not a fan of his, but to be fair on current form I feel he has to be considered as a player that could as you say be a top dark horse at Wimbledon, this year and also in the next few years.
BTW I still cant get over why Patrick Rafter could not win Wimbledon,he had the game on grass, moving on..........

I was only very casual in my tennis fandom back then, so in reviewing the history in some depth over the last ten years or so, Rafter is a bit enigmatic - how he just "popped" in 1997, but then after not quite being able to get over the hump in 99-01, retired while still being a top 10 player, with his last year, 2001, probably being his third best. All it says in Wikipedia is that he spent all of 2002 recovering from injuries then announced his retirement at the beginning of 2003, saying he lost motivation to compete.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I was only very casual in my tennis fandom back then, so in reviewing the history in some depth over the last ten years or so, Rafter is a bit enigmatic - how he just "popped" in 1997, but then after not quite being able to get over the hump in 99-01, retired while still being a top 10 player, with his last year, 2001, probably being his third best. All it says in Wikipedia is that he spent all of 2002 recovering from injuries then announced his retirement at the beginning of 2003, saying he lost motivation to compete.

Pat had 'rotor cuff' problems which ended his career, since his retirement he has a further 2 surgeries on his rotar cuff. I attended a luncheon in Melbourne Pat was guest speaker and someone asked him why he couldnt win Wimbledon? Pat laughed and said ' it wasnt meant to be'.

 

[Moxie]

I am rooting for a T Rex to enter the center court, bite the head off some royal, vomit, and then devour some players.

Having said that, I will still watch it. I am still on the Struff band wagon. I watched the match he lost in RG, he can play big but he still lacks a lot of consistency. This might not be such a problem in W. Not that I root for him, far from that. I only do realize he can play really good tennis.

I do not agree that it is more open than RG. But grass is indeed more random than clay.

Curious about your last comment. You don't agree that this Wimbledon is more open that the last RG, yet you say that grass is more "random" than clay. It seems to me that Novak being more of a question mark than he was at the French automatically makes W more "open" than RG seemed, at the outset, anyway. I'd love it if you'd illuminate that thought.

Also, perhaps as to why you'd like a T-Rex to come in and ruin it altogether?

 

[El Dude]

Curious about your last comment. You don't agree that this Wimbledon is more open that the last RG, yet you say that grass is more "random" than clay. It seems to me that Novak being more of a question mark than he was at the French automatically makes W more "open" than RG seemed, at the outset, anyway. I'd love it if you'd illuminate that thought.

I don't know what mrzz's thoughts are, but I kind of agree with him. The Alcaraz-Sinner duo is firmed up even more and both squashed health concerns at RG. I think the also-rans like Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev, are less likely to sneak in a title on grass, and as you say, Novak is even more questionable. Plus, no King of Clay factor as a dangerous floater.

There's still the "wildcard factor" of grass, so perhaps more dangerous floaters and possible upsets from darkhorses - not just Hurkacz, but Struff, Berrettini, Rublev, and even guys like Bublik and Khachanov could be dangerous, at least in earlier rounds. But, I think the factors I mention in the first paragraph make the tournament overall a bit less open.

 

[Moxie]

I don't know what mrzz's thoughts are, but I kind of agree with him. The Alcaraz-Sinner duo is firmed up even more and both squashed health concerns at RG. I think the also-rans like Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev, are less likely to sneak in a title on grass, and as you say, Novak is even more questionable. Plus, no King of Clay factor as a dangerous floater.

There's still the "wildcard factor" of grass, so perhaps more dangerous floaters and possible upsets from darkhorses - not just Hurkacz, but Struff, Berrettini, Rublev, and even guys like Bublik and Khachanov could be dangerous, at least in earlier rounds. But, I think the factors I mention in the first paragraph make the tournament overall a bit less open.

I still think that what you are both saying is that it's actually more open. But are you (and you are guessing @mrzz is saying) that it's less "open" because it's likely either Alcaraz or Sinner?

 

[El Dude]

I still think that what you are both saying is that it's actually more open. But are you (and you are guessing @mrzz is saying) that it's less "open" because it's likely either Alcaraz or Sinner?

I think its "2" towards less open, "1" towards more...so a net result of +1 to less open.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Well to be fair, he's won two Masters and is exactly the type of player that becomes a one-Slam wonder at Wimbledon. He's not as good as Goran Ivanisevic was, but probably better than Mark Philippoussis was - who was just a rising Roger Federer away from winning Wimbledon in 2003.

I'll probably never consider Hurkacz as a serious contender at a Slam, but he'll be a top darkhorse at Wimbledon for at least the next few years.

Philippoussis was really good on grass from about 1998-2003. He was really the first one to expose Pete at Wimbledon in 1999. It was a shame that he suffered the injury and couldn't finish the match. I'd say Philippoussis was about the same as Tim Henman. Both were really good grass players for 5+ years, but just had the unfortunate timing of peaking in the Pete Sampras era (and later the rise of Roger Federer).

Any other time period, Philippoussis and Henman sneak in a Wimbledon a la Michael Stich (that guy got really lucky peaking in 1991).

As for Hurkacz, I'd put him on the Ruud and de Minaur tier. They aren't the most talented of players, but you know you'll get the most out of them. As opposed to a player like Tsitsipas, who has all the talent but continuously underachieves in slams.

 

[El Dude]

Philippoussis was really good on grass from about 1998-2003. He was really the first one to expose Pete at Wimbledon in 1999. It was a shame that he suffered the injury and couldn't finish the match. I'd say Philippoussis was about the same as Tim Henman. Both were really good grass players for 5+ years, but just had the unfortunate timing of peaking in the Pete Sampras era (and later the rise of Roger Federer).

Any other time period, Philippoussis and Henman sneak in a Wimbledon a la Michael Stich (that guy got really lucky peaking in 1991).

As for Hurkacz, I'd put him on the Ruud and de Minaur tier. They aren't the most talented of players, but you know you'll get the most out of them. As opposed to a player like Tsitsipas, who has all the talent but continuously underachieves in slams.

I agree with the "tier" for Hurkacz, except that I'd say he's far more dangerous on grass than those two.

But I'm not sure about what you said about Stich being lucky peaking in 91 vs the late 90s/early 00s. From about 98-02 was one of the weakest eras in Open Era history, in terms of "talent density." Becker and Edberg were gone, Sampras fading (though still great, especially on grass), and only Agassi was really still in his prime among ATGs, but not great on grass. Yes, Federer got really good, but only at the end of that era, and really only in the latter half of 2003.

In 1991, on the other hand, Edberg and Becker were in their prime--having won 5 of the last 6 Wimbledons--Sampras and Agassi were in their early primes, Lendl was still very good, and Courier was beginning his short prime. To win Wimbledon, Stich had to beat Courier in the QF, Edberg in the SF, Becker in the F. I'd hardly call that "sneaking in a Wimbledon."

 

[the AntiPusher]

Philippoussis was really good on grass from about 1998-2003. He was really the first one to expose Pete at Wimbledon in 1999. It was a shame that he suffered the injury and couldn't finish the match. I'd say Philippoussis was about the same as Tim Henman. Both were really good grass players for 5+ years, but just had the unfortunate timing of peaking in the Pete Sampras era (and later the rise of Roger Federer).

Any other time period, Philippoussis and Henman sneak in a Wimbledon a la Michael Stich (that guy got really lucky peaking in 1991).

As for Hurkacz, I'd put him on the Ruud and de Minaur tier. They aren't the most talented of players, but you know you'll get the most out of them. As opposed to a player like Tsitsipas, who has all the talent but continuously underachieves in slams.

I'm curious.. How did the Poo expose Pete Sampras?

 

[mrzz]

Curious about your last comment. You don't agree that this Wimbledon is more open that the last RG, yet you say that grass is more "random" than clay. It seems to me that Novak being more of a question mark than he was at the French automatically makes W more "open" than RG seemed, at the outset, anyway. I'd love it if you'd illuminate that thought.

Also, perhaps as to why you'd like a T-Rex to come in and ruin it altogether?

In RG, we had question marks over both Sinner and Alcaraz, for different reasons. Those question marks basically are not there anymore. So we have both the #1 player in the world and the current champion/winner of the last major at full strength. This narrows things down a lot.

And the T Rex comment comes from the fact that there is no player in the the top 50 that I root for, so basically I am rooting for everyone to lose...

 

[El Dude]

In RG, we had question marks over both Sinner and Alcaraz, for different reasons. Those question marks basically are not there anymore. So we have both the #1 player in the world and the current champion/winner of the last major at full strength. This narrows things down a lot.

Yeah, that's my thinking too.

And the T Rex comment comes from the fact that there is no player in the the top 50 that I root for, so basically I am rooting for everyone to lose...

I kind of feel similar, though without the edge of vindictiveness ;-). Meaning, no T-Rex - I just want high drama. For instance, I like both Sinner and Alcaraz but haven't bonded with either; but I'm really looking forward to more match-ups, both curious about how good they become, but also how they match-up. It still isn't pinned down, as far as I can tell. But what I find particularly compelling is that it seems they're more...symmetrical, if that makes sense, than Rafa-Roger-Novak, who had overlapping kingdoms, but each with their own "domains of dominance" - whether by surface or era. Alcaraz and Sinner seem to have more overlap, so we might be treated with some epic battles and shifts in the war over the next 5-10 years. And then the question of whether (or when) someone else emerges to disrupt their dawning hegemony, be it Rune or eventually someone like Mensik or (dare we hope) Fonseca.

I think you and I are quietly forming the Fonseca contingent...hoping he becomes a top player. We'll know more in another year or two.

 

[El Dude]

I'm curious.. How did the Poo expose Pete Sampras?

Evidently by taking one set off him at Wimbledon?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I'm curious.. How did the Poo expose Pete Sampras?

Mark was outplaying Pete that day. That was the first time since the Kraijcek match (that was an aberration) that Pete wasn't the best player on the court at Wimbledon. Yes, Pete played some 5-setters in 1997 and 1998, but there wasn't a time there when you thought he was in danger of losing. Aside from the Kraijcek match, Pete had an aura of invincibility at Wimbledon from 1993-1998. You didn't quite feel that in 1999 (and going forward). The right opponent could have beaten Pete at Wimbledon in 1999 and 2000. If only Mark stayed healthy that day, maybe he goes on to do what Roger did in 2001. Yes, Pete won in 2000, but that was a really easy draw.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Mark was outplaying Pete that day. That was the first time since the Kraijcek match (that was an aberration) that Pete wasn't the best player on the court at Wimbledon. Yes, Pete played some 5-setters in 1997 and 1998, but there wasn't a time there when you thought he was in danger of losing. Aside from the Kraijcek match, Pete had an aura of invincibility at Wimbledon from 1993-1998. You didn't quite feel that in 1999 (and going forward). The right opponent could have beaten Pete at Wimbledon in 1999 and 2000. If only Mark stayed healthy that day, maybe he goes on to do what Roger did in 2001. Yes, Pete won in 2000, but that was a really easy draw.

Okay Poo played a good match, but how did he expose Pete on grass?.. Yes Roger caught Pete on the decline but regardless he won the match.

 

[nehmeth]

Well, if not the seeded players, Jordan Thompson will at least upset the spectators with that porn tache

He’s got a full beard.

 

[nehmeth]

Rob Hi

I did mention Jack Draper at the beginning of this post, his game suits the grass, and I think at Queens he just ran out of puff, he did say his body felt good but mentally he was stuffed lol !it is a learning curve going forward, hopefully his injuries issues are behind him now which plagued him for most of last year

Hopefully the transition from counterpuncher to offensive player will save some wear and tear on his body.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Hopefully the transition from counterpuncher to offensive player will save some wear and tear on his body.

Agree, also with Wayne Ferreria on his coaching team, you can see he has become more of an offensive player.

 

[kskate2]

Jack Draper will be seeded at Wimbledon this year, which will help his cause.

He will be a tough out no matter who he faces. My fear for him is what I like to call the British plague. I hope he can withstand the pressure we know they will put on him. Every year they get a morsel of a promising player on grass, they stuff it up by turning these kids into headcases (note: Henman, Konta, Robson, etc).