Next Event You Care About

First topic message reminder :

What is the next tennis tournament* you actually really care about? Where you'll be actually following the results with more than a passing interest, where you actually care who wins, or where you might actually watch a match? Are you all set for Spain's trip to Canada coming up? Or had you not even heard of that and won't bother to watch until the next slam that comes around?

* professional, 250+, men's singles. Before anyone nominates the mixed doubles at their local club next week.

I suspect that with the fat pad (Hoffa's) behind the patella he'll always have pain until, if he decided to have, surgery to cure the issue. I actually wonder if surgery might have been a better option now he's been away 7-8 months...arthroscopy that is, not "open knee".

hawkeye wrote:Your two favorite players are Rafa and Andy I guess? Of course you would like to see the two play. But it's hardly a rivalry at the moment considering the H2H and lack of finals. Have they played any finals. I can only remember Indian Wells (or Miami?). Well I say I remember but by that I mean the result and that the match was poor. As I said I don't buy into the player mark 2 hype.

HE, the last match they played was a final (Tokyo '11), and a very enjoyable match But, yes, to be more of a rivalry Andy has to be winning more. Also, regards the player mark 2 thing, I guess if it wasn't possible to make incremental improvements in your results, there'd be no point in paying for a coach, would there? I don't think Andy needs to be mark 2 to have a good rivalry with Rafa, just mark 1.1.

And obviously when I say "good rivalry with Rafa", I don't mean in the sense that they'd be competing for records in the history of the game or anything - I mean the sort of rivalry where future matches would be difficult to predict (excluding clay matches naturally).

YvonneT. I suppose it depends on what you mean by rivalry. Any match by definition is a rivalry as both players will be competing for a win. But the best rivalry's are those between equals or near equals when the competition is for like you say records and the history of the game. In that sense Rafa only has one rival. Well only one rival that he can compete with in the here and now. He has had and will have (I hope knees allowing) many of the the more common but still interesting rivalry's. A few players spring to mind. Davydenko, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Soderling, Berdych and even Youzhny just off the top of my head have all posed serious problems. Djokovic is obviously n a category above this (to say the least). Murray could go in that first group?

IMBL and Haddie-nuff

You both made me smile... but Rafa can't have a rivalry with himself! If only I could persuade you both to appreciate Roger? You don't know what your missing...

HE, sorry but in terms of records, I'd put Djokovic slight above Federer as a current rivalry (i.e. future matches matter, rather than past matches):
- only last year, they played a match that would have given Djokovic a non-calendar slam or Nadal record RG wins
- it would seem to be Djokovic that will be the main rival to stop Nadal catching Federer's slam total
- Djokovic could potentially catch Rafa on slam totals.

So Djokovic & Federer are certainly a category above Murray and to me, Murray is a step ahead of the rest - yes, not competing for records, but a chance of regular wins. I am biased of course, but I think if you gave Rafa a choice of slam opponents out of the ones you've listed & Murray, he would rather avoid Murray.

YvonneT wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Your two favorite players are Rafa and Andy I guess? Of course you would like to see the two play. But it's hardly a rivalry at the moment considering the H2H and lack of finals. Have they played any finals. I can only remember Indian Wells (or Miami?). Well I say I remember but by that I mean the result and that the match was poor. As I said I don't buy into the player mark 2 hype.

HE, the last match they played was a final (Tokyo '11), and a very enjoyable match But, yes, to be more of a rivalry Andy has to be winning more. Also, regards the player mark 2 thing, I guess if it wasn't possible to make incremental improvements in your results, there'd be no point in paying for a coach, would there? I don't think Andy needs to be mark 2 to have a good rivalry with Rafa, just mark 1.1.

2011 - Yes Andy clinched the singles title breaking open an initially close contest with top-seed Rafael Nadal to eventually cruise to a 3-6, 6-2, 6-0 victory. After an arduous first two sets that were far more bruising than their scores would suggest, Murray blitzed defending champion Nadal in the third, losing only four points en route to a surprising bagel to take the Rakuten Japan Open Tennis Championships in Tokyo.

How many players have given Rafa a Bagel in a final I wonder?

Andy has a lot of potential SL that is a fact. I think when Nadal comes back he will find a different murray. A murray with a more aggressive mindset and better forehand. I am interested to see how the new nadal matches up with each of his big rivals. Murray he has owned at the slams and it will be interesting to see if he can reassert that position.

But at the most it is just "potential". Murray gets a lot of benefit without having to prove things. I can remember for a few years despite what Djokovic had achieved Murray was always talked about as the better player of the two. We were told he would "prove" this when they played. (This was during a long period when they didn't meet).

Yes and in two of their last three big match meetings Murray has won. If you are saying you haven't noticed any discernible difference in Murray's game since Lendl became his coach then you are either lying or in self-denial.

CC. Don't try and drag me down that route again... Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with you is lying or in "self denial"

https://www.606v2.com/t35888-nothing-much-has-changed-thinks-rafa

socal1976 wrote:Andy has a lot of potential SL that is a fact. I think when Nadal comes back he will find a different murray. A murray with a more aggressive mindset and better forehand. I am interested to see how the new nadal matches up with each of his big rivals. Murray he has owned at the slams and it will be interesting to see if he can reassert that position.

One thing for sure socal I doubt if he could repeat Novaks 6 on the bounce wins over Rafa which was awesome.

However I think it's a good match up for Andy if Rafa returns fit and an improved Mr. Murray should be a test for him albeit with the exception of clay.

hawkeye wrote:CC. Don't try and drag me down that route again... Do you really think that everyone who disagrees with you is lying or in "self denial"

https://www.606v2.com/t35888-nothing-much-has-changed-thinks-rafa

Put it this way. You, many times in the past, remained adamant Murray would never win a slam labelling him things such as a choker/bottler and insisted he'd remain slamless. So what has changed that he has won the Olympics, US Open and reached the last three slam finals?

CC. You are a liar! Or at the very least you are getting me mixed up with someone else. I have never called Murray a "choker/bottler". I don't think he is. And I never insisted that he would never win a slam. That's simply not the sort of thing I would say. I may have pointed out when he hadn't won a slam that he hadn't won one. Stating the obvious. And I may have said that I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. But I know enough about sport to know that even unlikely things can happen. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that David Ferrer could go on and win the next 4 slams but from looking at how he's fared upto now that's unlikely.

hawkeye wrote:Murray gets a lot of benefit without having to prove things. I can remember for a few years despite what Djokovic had achieved Murray was always talked about as the better player of the two.

Yes, there is certainly some truth to it as regards 606. I remember back in 2010 there was a period when the boards would give the impression that although Nole was #3 and Andy was #4, it was not a good reflection of their play and Andy was just about to move ahead. We know how that ended

Andy is a fine player and I think the 6:1 slam deficit vs Nole does not quite do him justice but I also think that Nole has throughout their careers been the better player, and is likely to remain so.

In fairness Andy is British, and so are these boards, so one can expect a bit of bias towards him. I do not see the same bias in the US, where I think they get just about fair treatment.