Roland Garros 2017, Paris, France, ATP GRAND SLAM

[10isfan]

The outcome of the Verdasco v Zverev is not a surprise, especially because they were playing a best of three match. The draw gods were cruel to AZ, but I don't expect him to ever win FO.

 

[AnonymousFan]

Tsonga in trouble

 

[mrzz]

Haha, not really. 10 titles at RG is great, but it isn't in the same league as a calendar Slam. "10" is just a number - it is 9 + 1. Rafa already won more RG titles than any player has won of any Slam. Not sure why 10 is so magical.

Also, the rarity of winning RG is far over-stated. Actually, of the four Slams it probably has more one-Slam wonders, and maybe more players winning it overall. That doesn't make it harder to win. It is a specialist thing - most players are either significantly better or worse on clay.

Actually I think this calendar slam vs X slams (where X is an arbitrary integer larger than 4) is quite subjective. Both are hard, sure, but the calendar slam has been reached once, while up to now, nobody has ever won 10, so you could argue that 10 is harder... until someone does it!

I agree that from 9 to 10 is not exactly a big difference, 9 it is already a monster achievement. I honestly do not have a clue which is harder.

In fact, the argument of the one slam wonders could work the opposite way: it means it is harder to get consistency there. Anyway, that's a quite subjective territory, where every argument can be twisted.

You could even argue that surely for Nadal is easier to get 10 RG's than to get a calendar slam, as he never got even close to one (he could reasonably close to a "Rafa" slam once).

As a Federer fan, I think that 7 Wimbledons are harder than even 11 RG's (adding 1 more just to be on the safe side) !

 

[kskate2]

Tsonga in trouble

Bigger trouble. Down 4-2 in the 4th w/ the light fading.

 

[El Dude]

Who knows, mrzz. 9 RG titles is amazing, 10 slightly more amazing. My point--which I think you agree with--is that any specific number isn't inherently amazing because of what that number is. For instance, it will be nice to see Roger get to 100 titles, but it isn't really much more impressive than 99.

As for what is more amazing, I agree it is subjective. I still think the calendar Slam is particularly impressive. 10 titles at one Slam means you were incredibly dominant on that one surface for a very long period of time. We already know this about Rafa...nothing will change with the 10th title. But a calendar Slam means you're completely dominant across all surfaces for an entire year. The fact that no one has done it since 1969 makes it even more impressive.

 

[kskate2]

So Jo Willie breaks back at 5-3 and now we are on serve. They suspend play at 5-4 at 9:55pm

 

[Carol]

Actually I think this calendar slam vs X slams (where X is an arbitrary integer larger than 4) is quite subjective. Both are hard, sure, but the calendar slam has been reached once, while up to now, nobody has ever won 10, so you could argue that 10 is harder... until someone does it!

I agree that from 9 to 10 is not exactly a big difference, 9 it is already a monster achievement. I honestly do not have a clue which is harder.

In fact, the argument of the one slam wonders could work the opposite way: it means it is harder to get consistency there. Anyway, that's a quite subjective territory, where every argument can be twisted.

You could even argue that surely for Nadal is easier to get 10 RG's than to get a calendar slam, as he never got even close to one (he could reasonably close to a "Rafa" slam once).

As a Federer fan, I think that 7 Wimbledons are harder than even 11 RG's (adding 1 more just to be on the safe side) !

I'd like that you explain to me why you think that 7 Wimbledon are harder than 11 RG (besides you are a Federer's fan :lulz2

 

[10isfan]

Would it kill anyone to start matches earlier instead of at 11 AM so they can be completed? This isn't fair to some players. Alex Zverev would agree.

 

[mrzz]

I'd like that you explain to me why you think that 7 Wimbledon are harder than 11 RG (besides you are a Federer's fan :lulz2

There is a very complicated formula behind it, using some physical constants from the surface materials, climate factors from the regions involved, planet conjunction periods and the fact that 13 (which is next number in the sequence 7, 11...) is an imaginary number.

 

[Carol]

Who knows, mrzz. 9 RG titles is amazing, 10 slightly more amazing. My point--which I think you agree with--is that any specific number isn't inherently amazing because of what that number is. For instance, it will be nice to see Roger get to 100 titles, but it isn't really much more impressive than 99.

As for what is more amazing, I agree it is subjective. I still think the calendar Slam is particularly impressive. 10 titles at one Slam means you were incredibly dominant on that one surface for a very long period of time. We already know this about Rafa...nothing will change with the 10th title. But a calendar Slam means you're completely dominant across all surfaces for an entire year. The fact that no one has done it since 1969 makes it even more impressive.

Maybe because in 1969 they didn't play so many tournaments around the world, or there was not so much competition like at the present

 

[Carol]

There is a very complicated formula behind it, using some physical constants from the surface materials, climate factors from the regions involved, planet conjunction periods and the fact that 13 (which is next number in the sequence 7, 11...) is an imaginary number.

Yeah........

 

[El Dude]

Maybe because in 1969 they didn't play so many tournaments around the world, or there was not so much competition like at the present

Well, exactly - that just furthers the point of how incredible the calendar Slam is, no? Imagine what a player would have to do to accomplish it now. Roger would have done it at least once, I think, if not for Rafa. Rafa could have done it if the AO was at the end of the year in 2010 - he was that level of dominant then, as you know. Novak came close a couple times. But the point is, these three greats - even at their very best - couldn't quite do it - even in the era of more homogenous courts.

 

[Carol]

If you see to win the Calendar Slam never was easy and continued, many years between the winners
Budge 1938
Connolly 1953
Laver 1962 & 69
Margaret Smith 1970
Graf 1988
Only Lever and Margaret were close

 

[the AntiPusher]

So Jo Willie breaks back at 5-3 and now we are on serve. They suspend play at 5-4 at 9:55pm

Hey Hey..what's going on with my dark horse pick, JowillieTs..is down 4-5.. what gives?

 

[Fiero425]

Hey Hey..what's going on with my dark horse pick, JowillieTs..is he up or down 5-4

IIRC, he just broke back to be on serve; still saved by darkness!

 

[the AntiPusher]

IIRC, he just broke back to be on serve; still saved by darkness!

Fiero, what's wrong with JowillieTs..is he playing sloppy or just getting outplayed..

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, what's wrong with JowillieTs..is he playing sloppy or just getting outplayed..

As I said earlier, that's what makes the "Big 4" special! When there's recent success by a player like J-W, Thiem, A. Zverev, it shouldn't be a surprise when they can't back it up at a major! You just don't see "also-rans" winning smaller events, even a Masters the way Sasha did recently being able to do anything in a major subsequently! It's almost guaranteed they'll be upset; exhaustion, nerves, expectations all taking their toll! We've already seen the lack of consistency with pretty good players who break down mentally or physically like Grigor, Kei, & Milos! All kinds of game, but will ultimately be "footnotes" in the history of the game!

 

[Puppet Master]

As I said earlier, that's what makes the "Big 4" special! When there's recent success by a player like J-W, Thiem, A. Zverev, it shouldn't be a surprise when they can't back it up at a major! You just don't see "also-rans" winning smaller events, even a Masters the way Sasha did recently being able to do anything in a major subsequently! It's almost guaranteed they'll be upset; exhaustion, nerves, expectations all taking their toll! We've already seen the lack of consistency with pretty good players who break down mentally or physically like Grigor, Kei, & Milos! All kinds of game, but will ultimately be "footnotes" in the history of the game!

Sascha is a hero, leave him alone , Fiero.
His heroics in Rome won't be forgotten and I have started to appreciate him very much this year. He is one of my favourite players to watch currently.
He played many matches this clay season, and just couldn't fight hard enough against an in-form Verdasco. Clay isn't even his best surface and he has a masters title already.
He truly deserves his newly forged nickname, Alexander the Great. Heck, he even looks like him. (Google what his bust looked like.)
As for Tsonga, and other also rans, you'd be hard pressed to call it an upset, even though it is one by definition.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Sascha is a hero, leave him alone , Fiero.
His heroics in Rome won't be forgotten and I have started to appreciate him very much this year. He is one of my favourite players to watch currently.
He played many matches this clay season, and just couldn't fight hard enough against an in-form Verdasco. Clay isn't even his best surface and he has a masters title already.
He truly deserves his newly forged nickname, Alexander the Great. Heck, he even looks like him. (Google what his bust looked like.)
As for Tsonga, and other also rans, you'd be hard pressed to call it an upset, even though it is one by definition.

Don't give up on JowillieTs..make sure tonight you add Jo to your tennis prayers and Jo will (no pun intended) come out with a renowned strength, refreshed and find a way to get the match to a 5 set to get the W

 

[El Dude]

Tsonga seems to be one of the players that many secretly hope, in their heart of hearts, can pull down a big one before he retires. At 32, that seems highly unlikely, but you just never know.