The Race To Be Year End Number One Hots Up

With one of the contenders for the year end number one spot not playing for eight months it makes sense to follow race points to get a better indication of who is better placed to win the top place.

It's very close at the top. Nadal's win in Madrid put him at number 2 in the race with 4,010 points. Just 130 points behind Djokovic who has 4,140 points. Quite amazing considering Nadal didn't play the AO.

http://live-tennis.eu/race

Ha ha ha! That potential number 5 seeding at RG is looking sillier by the day...

Is there any need to be so defensive over Nadal all the time? Everyone's already forced to respect him enough already. Is it really such an insult to him that the tournament just follows proceedings and ranks him as they would?

As for Nadal's comeback, yes it has been remarkable for a player who's suffered such injury.

It's been a remarkable comeback and a fantastic sequence of results. He's certainly the most consistent player on tour at the moment, and it's only the drubbing from Novak at MC that makes me hesitate to say he's the best too.

I'd like to see his form at places like Canada, Cincy and Shanghai (or anything post-Wimbeldon really!) before getting too expectant of YE#1 though.

HM Murdoch.

Maybe Canada but IMO you won't see Nadal play well or even at all in Cincy or Shanghai. They as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles. Also even if you imagine for a moment that Novak could beat Rafa every time they played his form at the moment doesn't suggest he'd always get to play him. Out of the three masters tournaments both have played Novak has got knocked out early twice. Winning titles and getting to number 1 isn't just about beating Rafa.

break_in_the _fifth

I don't know about being defensive. I just think it's funny that everyone knows that if seeding is to be used it's correct purpose then Nadal RG would seed him higher. This was from The Sunday Times yesterday

Nadal’s the No 5 seed? You cannot be serious
French Open boss risks ridicule by ignoring Rafael Nadal's record on clay despite the Spaniard's persistent knee injury

REGARDLESS of what the world rankings might say, seeding Rafael Nadal anything other than No 1 in a clay-court event would be like making Frankel fourth favourite if a comeback was deemed feasible on the turf or giving Tiger Woods a couple of shots on both the front and back nine.

The Majorcan is simply the master of his art when it comes to winning matches and titles on the crushed-brick surface. Last week the French Open tournament director, Gilbert Ysern, arguably the world’s most respected tennis administrator, laid himself open to ridicule from many of the sport’s most vocal critics — John McEnroe foremost among them — when he insisted Nadal’s forthcoming attempt at winning an eighth singles title in nine years at Roland Garros will see him seeded according to his world ranking.

It should come as no surprise that McEnroe inquired whether Monsieur Ysern was being serious.

PPV so sorry no link

hawkeye wrote:With one of the contenders for the year end number one spot not playing for eight months it makes sense to follow race points to get a better indication of who is better placed to win the top place.

It's very close at the top. Nadal's win in Madrid put him at number 2 in the race with 4,010 points. Just 130 points behind Djokovic who has 4,140 points. Quite amazing considering Nadal didn't play the AO.

http://live-tennis.eu/race

Ha ha ha! That potential number 5 seeding at RG is looking sillier by the day...

Indeed Hawkeye. With your inability to come up with anything original, it seems you and the seeding commitee at RG have got something in common.

For the record only one of these is actually looking silly. And it's not RG.

The French will probably stick him in as a wildcard at this rate, lol.

You know HE a huge Rafa fan I may be but you seriously are not doing the man any favours as to suggest that his seeding be changed for RG simply because he is who he is and has achieved what he has. IF it had been any other player.. and for the purpose of pressing home my point.. would you advocate the same treatment for Andy Murray if he had been in the same position. ?? I seriously think not.

The only person who is not commenting (or seemingly care for that matter) about his seeding is Rafa himself. I for one believe that rules are rules and if that is to be his seeding at RG then sobeit. We can hope however that he gets his ranking up to No.4. at least that would be a bonus.

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch.

REGARDLESS of what the world rankings might say, seeding Rafael Nadal anything other than No 1 in a clay-court event would be like making Frankel fourth favourite if a comeback was deemed feasible on the turf or giving Tiger Woods a couple of shots on both the front and back nine.

This has cheered me up tbh. Making comparisons with two sports where seedings have no bearing what so ever in a single competition. Frankel would be 4th favorite if the punters deemed it so. As for giving Tiger a couple of shots. Technically that would be doing him a favour. As giving him shots would enable him to post an even lower score. Starting said paragraph in CAPITALS does not hide what a hopeless comment it was.

As for the 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line. Frankly, if you meant this as literal, which I'm assuming you are not, it would be amazingly disrespectful to the rest of the tour. You say in your post that winning titles and getting to No. 1 isn't just about beating Rafa. Yet in your opening paragraph you intimate that because Rafa probably won't play, it will allow others the chance to win.

As usual, you are dismissing decades of tradition and heritage for the sole benefit of one man. The fact you cannot see that is staggering.

Why was Nadal ranked at number 2 for all those years at US Open when he was no where near the 2nd best player there? Not even close. I'm not going to go down that route. Because it has been done to death a million times. And you are still incapable of grasping the fundementals.

It seems unlikely to be much of a race for number 1 if Nadal starts skipping mandatory tournaments. In any event, unless he has somehow come back able to play more consistently on hard than he used to be, he needs a huge lead over Djokovic by the end of Wimbledon to have a chance.

Whether Nadal starts from qualifying @RG or be seeded #1, he is still the favorite, HE.

Haddie-nuff wrote:You know HE a huge Rafa fan I may be but you seriously are not doing the man any favours as to suggest that his seeding be changed for RG simply because he is who he is and has achieved what he has. IF it had been any other player.. and for the purpose of pressing home my point.. would you advocate the same treatment for Andy Murray if he had been in the same position. ?? I seriously think not.

The only person who is not commenting (or seemingly care for that matter) about his seeding is Rafa himself. I for one believe that rules are rules and if that is to be his seeding at RG then sobeit. We can hope however that he gets his ranking up to No.4. at least that would be a bonus.

Ah, some common sense.

Well said Haddie.

Johnyjeep wrote:

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch.

REGARDLESS of what the world rankings might say, seeding Rafael Nadal anything other than No 1 in a clay-court event would be like making Frankel fourth favourite if a comeback was deemed feasible on the turf or giving Tiger Woods a couple of shots on both the front and back nine.

This has cheered me up tbh. Making comparisons with two sports where seedings have no bearing what so ever in a single competition. Frankel would be 4th favorite if the punters deemed it so. As for giving Tiger a couple of shots. Technically that would be doing him a favour. As giving him shots would enable him to post an even lower score. Starting said paragraph in CAPITALS does not hide what a hopeless comment it was.

As for the 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line. Frankly, if you meant this as literal, which I'm assuming you are not, it would be amazingly disrespectful to the rest of the tour. You say in your post that winning titles and getting to No. 1 isn't just about beating Rafa. Yet in your opening paragraph you intimate that because Rafa probably won't play, it will allow others the chance to win.

As usual, you are dismissing decades of tradition and heritage for the sole benefit of one man. The fact you cannot see that is staggering.

Why was Nadal ranked at number 2 for all those years at US Open when he was no where near the 2nd best player there? Not even close. I'm not going to go down that route. Because it has been done to death a million times. And you are still incapable of grasping the fundementals.

JohnyJeep. You have put words in my mouth that I did not say. Please edit your quote.

Haddie-nuff wrote:You know HE a huge Rafa fan I may be but you seriously are not doing the man any favours as to suggest that his seeding be changed for RG simply because he is who he is and has achieved what he has. IF it had been any other player.. and for the purpose of pressing home my point.. would you advocate the same treatment for Andy Murray if he had been in the same position. ?? I seriously think not.

The only person who is not commenting (or seemingly care for that matter) about his seeding is Rafa himself. I for one believe that rules are rules and if that is to be his seeding at RG then sobeit. We can hope however that he gets his ranking up to No.4. at least that would be a bonus.

Seeding at RG is not really about doing Rafa any favors. The argument for not using ranking points for seeding Rafa is not about giving him a reward for who he is or for historical reasons either. It's because if tournaments use seeding it is to avoid the potential top matches occurring before the semi's or finals. In Rafa's case there are obvious reasons why ranking points are not descriptive of his standard of play. Not his historical standard of play but his standard of play very recently. He could go into RG as number one in the race. RG isn't obliged to use ranking points for seeding. That's why the decision not to seed Rafa higher is being questioned. Not just by me. Although here on 606v2 maybe I'm alone. Did you read the Sunday Times article? It was saying that "the French Open boss risks ridicule". They are strong words.

Of course any player (including Murray)in Rafa's position should have their seeding adjusted. But there are no other players in his position. If RG did seed Nadal higher perhaps there would be an outcry from players who thought he was stealing a seeding that they deserved more? They would be wrong. And fear of such an outcry is no reason for doing the wrong thing.

I do think if Rafa plays well (and doesn't get injured) he will win RG whatever his seeding. In fact they could enter him as a WC and he would still win. But the fact that he is so good is again no reason not to do the correct thing.

As a fan I don't mind so much about Rafa's ranking (unless there is a really good quarter final and I miss it because it's less easy for me to watch during the week. Then I would be ) In fact things are looking good for me getting exactly what I want which is Rafa and Roger on opposite sides of the draw in RG. If Roger stays at 3 (which is likely) and Rafa gets back to 4 (which is possible) then I will be guaranteed that If I could ask for one more thing it would be for Roger to be in Novak's half but that's probably asking for too much. Oh and the same at Wimbledon. My top wish list remains a Rafa/Roger final at a slam.

This article wasn't really meant to be about RG seeding anyway. It was about how Nadal and Djokovic are virtually tied in race points. The race to be year end number one is hotting up.

I've seen nothing to doubt that he's as good as 2008 - but considering that virtually every player is also better than 2008 then this is no surprise

Not certain, that I find Rafa that threatening that the Top 3 should be worried away from the dirt

After all, if the race started a month before the Clay court season then by now Rafa would always be in the lead or thereabouts - so why is this year getting so much attention?

I mean nobody thought he'd struggle on the dirt

Does anyone really think he's going to be the same in Autumn, i.e. buck the trend of previous years?

And we have to point out, that he's played once against one of his rivals on his favoured surface - and lost

Plus this is in a period when all of his rivals seem out of sorts - almost as if they are all quite content for the Clay court season to pass them by (Novak will have other chances for RG) with the strain of last years extra-ordinary summer meaning they're still scrathcing around for form and realise that a fresh Nadal is bound to dominate

Untill SW19 that is

^

I think Djokovic is less of a threat to Nadal on grass than he is on hard or clay. So who are his other big threats? I can only think of one Federer and hopefully he will be at the other side of the draw (if Federer is ranked 3 and Nadal 4). I would imagine a great final if they met but Federer would have to play really well to win.

hawkeye wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:You know HE a huge Rafa fan I may be but you seriously are not doing the man any favours as to suggest that his seeding be changed for RG simply because he is who he is and has achieved what he has. IF it had been any other player.. and for the purpose of pressing home my point.. would you advocate the same treatment for Andy Murray if he had been in the same position. ?? I seriously think not.

The only person who is not commenting (or seemingly care for that matter) about his seeding is Rafa himself. I for one believe that rules are rules and if that is to be his seeding at RG then sobeit. We can hope however that he gets his ranking up to No.4. at least that would be a bonus.

Seeding at RG is not really about doing Rafa any favors. The argument for not using ranking points for seeding Rafa is not about giving him a reward for who he is or for historical reasons either. It's because if tournaments use seeding it is to avoid the potential top matches occurring before the semi's or finals. In Rafa's case there are obvious reasons why ranking points are not descriptive of his standard of play. Not his historical standard of play but his standard of play very recently. He could go into RG as number one in the race. RG isn't obliged to use ranking points for seeding. That's why the decision not to seed Rafa higher is being questioned. Not just by me. Although here on 606v2 maybe I'm alone. Did you read the Sunday Times article? It was saying that "the French Open boss risks ridicule". They are strong words.

Of course any player (including Murray)in Rafa's position should have their seeding adjusted. But there are no other players in his position. If RG did seed Nadal higher perhaps there would be an outcry from players who thought he was stealing a seeding that they deserved more? They would be wrong. And fear of such an outcry is no reason for doing the wrong thing.

I do think if Rafa plays well (and doesn't get injured) he will win RG whatever his seeding. In fact they could enter him as a WC and he would still win. But the fact that he is so good is again no reason not to do the correct thing.

As a fan I don't mind so much about Rafa's ranking (unless there is a really good quarter final and I miss it because it's less easy for me to watch during the week. Then I would be ) In fact things are looking good for me getting exactly what I want which is Rafa and Roger on opposite sides of the draw in RG. If Roger stays at 3 (which is likely) and Rafa gets back to 4 (which is possible) then I will be guaranteed that If I could ask for one more thing it would be for Roger to be in Novak's half but that's probably asking for too much. Oh and the same at Wimbledon. My top wish list remains a Rafa/Roger final at a slam.

This article wasn't really meant to be about RG seeding anyway. It was about how Nadal and Djokovic are virtually tied in race points. The race to be year end number one is hotting up.

You know what HE I think you may well be flying solo on this forum on this one.. I realise you may well think this is the "correct" thing to do but Rafa finds himself in a unique position because he is at No.5. not due to lack of form but through injury. However I do not feel that the rest of the tour would see that as being any reason to adjust Rafa´s seedings. Rafa is not complaining, and neither would I expect him to, but at the end of the day may be his opponents in earlier rounds wont exactly enjoy the position they find themselves in either. If Rafa comes through this very unusual situation to be the winner of RG once more I think it will put to bed any doubt that he is indeed the King of Clay

hawkeye wrote:^

I think Djokovic is less of a threat to Nadal on grass than he is on hard or clay. So who are his other big threats? I can only think of one Federer and hopefully he will be at the other side of the draw (if Federer is ranked 3 and Nadal 4). I would imagine a great final if they met but Federer would have to play really well to win.

Yes, we saw how unthreatened Nadal was by djokovic in the last wimbeldon final they played together in 2011.

hawkeye wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch.

REGARDLESS of what the world rankings might say, seeding Rafael Nadal anything other than No 1 in a clay-court event would be like making Frankel fourth favourite if a comeback was deemed feasible on the turf or giving Tiger Woods a couple of shots on both the front and back nine.

This has cheered me up tbh. Making comparisons with two sports where seedings have no bearing what so ever in a single competition. Frankel would be 4th favorite if the punters deemed it so. As for giving Tiger a couple of shots. Technically that would be doing him a favour. As giving him shots would enable him to post an even lower score. Starting said paragraph in CAPITALS does not hide what a hopeless comment it was.

As for the 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line. Frankly, if you meant this as literal, which I'm assuming you are not, it would be amazingly disrespectful to the rest of the tour. You say in your post that winning titles and getting to No. 1 isn't just about beating Rafa. Yet in your opening paragraph you intimate that because Rafa probably won't play, it will allow others the chance to win.

As usual, you are dismissing decades of tradition and heritage for the sole benefit of one man. The fact you cannot see that is staggering.

Why was Nadal ranked at number 2 for all those years at US Open when he was no where near the 2nd best player there? Not even close. I'm not going to go down that route. Because it has been done to death a million times. And you are still incapable of grasping the fundamentals.

JohnyJeep. You have put words in my mouth that I did not say. Please edit your quote.

I most certainly have not put words in your mouth. Please explain what you meant by 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line?

You have yet to address the issue of Nadal receiving favorable seeding at US Open (and Wimbledon for the matter before he eventually mastered Grass) because of his outstanding clay court achievements which gave him enough points to warrant this preferential seeding at events he did not deserve?. Was there an outcry from anyone (including yourself) when this was happening? No, there was not.

The seedings will be done the way they have always been done. Period. Absolutely no one will be open to ridicule apart from a paper (which is normally very good) trying to be outspoken in order to receive sales. And by the sounds of it, it's not a journalist but John McEnroe. Who let's face it, is fairly outspoken at the best of times.

Is the race for No. 1 hotting up? Probably not. I would wager again that at this point of the season Nadal is always there or there abouts. More often than not he fades badly. If, as you suggest, he skips some Masters further down the line, it will be even harder for him to pick up the points.

We will know more about his form once RG is over.

Johnny, I agree with a lot of what you say but I find one area that I disagree about. If Nadal is healthy I have no doubt that he will be able to compete quite effectively for the big tournaments post RG. Nadal has not struggled the same way off the clay and grass as he has in the past. Lets remember that he in the last couple of years he has made it to the finals of 4 hardcourt slams. It is a big IF, but if his legs hold up most likely he will close the gap and rapidly with djokovic. But Djokovic is still ahead in the points race and there is no guarantee for Nadal that he will outgain him in Rome at RG. If he doesn't outgain Djokovic in those two tournaments and have a comfortable lead in the points race going into wimby, then I think he will be hardpressed to truly challenge for #1. But I don't think we can rely on him bombing the US hardcourt swing like he often would do in the past.

I think Wimbledon will tell a clearer picture. If Nadal is leading the YTD race, then I think we need to start seriously considering Nadal winning the race (put 50 bucks on this on 20/1 odds after his first tournament back).

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:^

I think Djokovic is less of a threat to Nadal on grass than he is on hard or clay. So who are his other big threats? I can only think of one Federer and hopefully he will be at the other side of the draw (if Federer is ranked 3 and Nadal 4). I would imagine a great final if they met but Federer would have to play really well to win.

Yes, we saw how unthreatened Nadal was by djokovic in the last wimbeldon final they played together in 2011.

Nice one Socal!! Because that was such hilarious stuff from HE, that I actually couldn't be bothered dignifying it with a reply. I think HE forgets that current No.2 and 3 in the world actually matched a player (in Nole) who actually didn't play any worse than he did against Nadal a year previously

HE seems to live in this never never land where clay rules on the surface and in her thoughts

We may of course, come early Septemeber, have egg on our faces - but I doubt it.

Johnyjeep wrote:

You have yet to address the issue of Nadal receiving favorable seeding at US Open (and Wimbledon for the matter before he eventually mastered Grass) because of his outstanding clay court achievements which gave him enough points to warrant this preferential seeding at events he did not deserve?. Was there an outcry from anyone (including yourself) when this was happening? No, there was not.

Really good point. Of course, it has to be remembered that not all Rafa fans have difficulty seeing past their own bias. Haddie made a very reasonable post earlier stating that the seedings shouldn't change.

But you're right, I never heard any complaints about him behind seeded 2 for a hard court slam when he wasn't realistically the second most likely to win it.

Johnyjeep wrote:

I most certainly have not put words in your mouth. Please explain what you meant by 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line?

You have certainly put words in my mouth you quoted me as saying this in your comment made at 10.15am

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch.

REGARDLESS of what the world rankings might say, seeding Rafael Nadal anything other than No 1 in a clay-court event would be like making Frankel fourth favourite if a comeback was deemed feasible on the turf or giving Tiger Woods a couple of shots on both the front and back nine.

I didn't say this it was a quote from Barry Flatman of The Sunday Times. It's a shame I can't provide a link as it's PPV (as I explained)

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:^

I think Djokovic is less of a threat to Nadal on grass than he is on hard or clay. So who are his other big threats? I can only think of one Federer and hopefully he will be at the other side of the draw (if Federer is ranked 3 and Nadal 4). I would imagine a great final if they met but Federer would have to play really well to win.

Yes, we saw how unthreatened Nadal was by djokovic in the last wimbeldon final they played together in 2011.

Ha ha! Nadal handed that particular Wimbledon to Djokovic on a plate (Djokovic has his 2011 Madrid win over Nadal to thank for this).

But I don't think you can just take one match and use it to illustrate how good or bad a player is on a particular surface. Djokovic's game is best suited to hard court. He likes to take the ball early and hit fast and deep from the baseline. To do this most effectively he needs to be able to rely on the bounce. The most reliable bounce is on hardcourt. On clay he has a bit more time to allow for a less reliable bounce. Grass is the most difficult for him as there is a less reliable bounce and also less time to make adjustments. I always think of Djokovic as having a similar style of play to Davydenko. Davydenko brilliant as he could be was relatively poor on grass for the same reasons. Djokovics results (Wimbledon title withstanding) back up my theory.

Grass is Novak's least effective surface for sure. That's down to movement rather than bounce in my opinion. But his last 2 Wimbledon appearances have been W & SF. That's not too shabby. No Wimbledon champion is a bad grass court player.

Oh, and the reason he beat Rafa in that Wimbledon final? He was the better player at that time and on that day. Rafa had no answer.

I just find it funny Hawkeye that you use the words "threat", obviously djokovic is a "threat" to Nadal on grass the last time they played he beat and him beat rather soundly. I never made the claim that grass was Novak's best surface, I just said the idea that he is less of a threat to Nadal on grass than on other surfaces is pretty funny. Lets just see if Rafa can hold serve on his favorite surface and Novak's second favorite surface before we start counting our year end #1s. The pressure is on Nadal to hold serve, something he failed to do in monte carlo.

Danny_1982. Mmm. Interesting about the movement. Can't say I've noticed but what makes you think grass is difficult for Djokovic to move on?

Yes totally agree about Djokovic being the better player than Rafa in the Wimbledon 2011 final at that time and on that particular day. In fact I would go further than that. I would say that Djokovic was by FAR the better player that day and Nadal was (relatively speaking) rubbish! But my point was you can't judge either players prowess on grass based on just one match. They are more or less the same age and Nadal has two Wimbledon tiles and three final appearances compared with Djokovic's one solitary Wimbledon title. That must say something about their relative ability on this particular surface.

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:^

I think Djokovic is less of a threat to Nadal on grass than he is on hard or clay. So who are his other big threats? I can only think of one Federer and hopefully he will be at the other side of the draw (if Federer is ranked 3 and Nadal 4). I would imagine a great final if they met but Federer would have to play really well to win.

Yes, we saw how unthreatened Nadal was by djokovic in the last wimbeldon final they played together in 2011.

Nice one Socal!! Because that was such hilarious stuff from HE, that I actually couldn't be bothered dignifying it with a reply. I think HE forgets that current No.2 and 3 in the world actually matched a player (in Nole) who actually didn't play any worse than he did against Nadal a year previously

HE seems to live in this never never land where clay rules on the surface and in her thoughts

We may of course, come early Septemeber, have egg on our faces - but I doubt it.

I agree, I actually think on grass Andy and Roger have a lot more to say about things and all 4 of the top guys probably have pretty equal chances of winning. The idea that Nadal isn't threatened by Djokovic on grass is well pretty amusing considering their last meeting on grass. I mean Nadal is a great player he can win wimbeldon but, I wouldn't race to make him the clear favorite.

Hawkeye - He gets traction on a hard court when changing direction, and slides very effectively on clay. But can't really do either on grass and therefore is not as well balanced changing direction. And therefore not quite as quick at it.

He still moves very well, just not as well. Particularly if its at all damp, like it can get under the roof.

I don't think it's his tennis as his tennis doesn't really have a weakness. And a clay bounce is just as unreliable as grass. That's how I see it anyway.

hawkeye wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

I most certainly have not put words in your mouth. Please explain what you meant by 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line?

You have certainly put words in my mouth you quoted me as saying this in your comment made at 10.15am

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch.

REGARDLESS of what the world rankings might say, seeding Rafael Nadal anything other than No 1 in a clay-court event would be like making Frankel fourth favourite if a comeback was deemed feasible on the turf or giving Tiger Woods a couple of shots on both the front and back nine.

I didn't say this it was a quote from Barry Flatman of The Sunday Times. It's a shame I can't provide a link as it's PPV (as I explained)

Hawkeye please read your post 9.42am. It is there in black and white. First 2 lines of post. I have not made it up. I quoted you direct.

If Barry Flatman does say that you didn't say you were quoting him so I am entitled to believe it was your thought. That said I'd be amazed if he actually made that analogy as its not remotely compatible to Nadals situation.

Socal, yes fair enough you are right. Nadal is certainly better now as you state. I am playing the percentages I grant you. I just think Novak is much better on HC at mo. Nadal would need a decent lead I think (quite feasible) after RG to stand any chance.

I hope he does manage it. Will make it interesting. As I think Fed is fading badly tbh. I hope I am wrong about that but form is a hard thing to turn around. And he is showing no signs of doing so.

My thoughts on Novak on grass. I think its the bounce more than anything. More balls are out of his striking zone than clay and hard courts.

I think he his most susceptible to variety and when the ball drops below net height because for me he doesn't generate the spin. It's all relative obviously but Nadals incredible spin seems to place the ball in his comfort zone more than say Federer.

Murray also has the hand skills I think to trouble Novak on grass. Have Murray and Djokovic ever met on Grass out of curiosity? Can't think of an occasion?

The Olympics Johnny and Andy won and went on to capture the gold.

JohnyJeep.

Go back and look at my post! I say "This was from The Sunday Times yesterday" and the rest of my post is exactly that a quote from the Sunday Times. It's an article by Barry Flatman.

At the end of the quote I say" PPV so sorry no link". Unfortunately The Times and The Sunday Times are behind a pay wall. Why not pay and have a look? You don't need to though because I havn't made it up.

Lol ah yes thanks Socal. Bit of a faux pas there. I remember watching it as well!!! I've just come out of a long cricket meeting.

Murray was awesome that day. Was a really good match if I recall cus Novak played really well. Murray had other extrinsic factors helping him so would be interesting to see how they fair if they play at Wimbledon.

Hawkeye, there is no way on gods green earth that the first paragraph of your 9.42 post is a direct lift from The Times.

This is what I was quoting you as saying for the benefit of doubt:

Maybe Canada but IMO you won't see Nadal play well or even at all in Cincy or Shanghai. They as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles.

I followed it up with:


As for the 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line. Frankly, if you meant this as literal, which I'm assuming you are not, it would be amazingly disrespectful to the rest of the tour. You say in your post that winning titles and getting to No. 1 isn't just about beating Rafa. Yet in your opening paragraph you intimate that because Rafa probably won't play, it will allow others the chance to win.

I have explained my confusion re the analogy. It was still a hopeless comment. I wouldn't care if the Queen of England said it.

Yes, no worries we all forget things. I actually see Andy as possibly being the number 1 or 2 favorite at wimby, but I want to see how the ensuing schedule pans out.

Johnyjeep wrote:

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch.

REGARDLESS of what the world rankings might say, seeding Rafael Nadal anything other than No 1 in a clay-court event would be like making Frankel fourth favourite if a comeback was deemed feasible on the turf or giving Tiger Woods a couple of shots on both the front and back nine.

This has cheered me up tbh. Making comparisons with two sports where seedings have no bearing what so ever in a single competition. Frankel would be 4th favorite if the punters deemed it so. As for giving Tiger a couple of shots. Technically that would be doing him a favour. As giving him shots would enable him to post an even lower score. Starting said paragraph in CAPITALS does not hide what a hopeless comment it was.

As for the 'they as always will be a nice opportunity for other players to pick up titles' line. Frankly, if you meant this as literal, which I'm assuming you are not, it would be amazingly disrespectful to the rest of the tour. You say in your post that winning titles and getting to No. 1 isn't just about beating Rafa. Yet in your opening paragraph you intimate that because Rafa probably won't play, it will allow others the chance to win.

As usual, you are dismissing decades of tradition and heritage for the sole benefit of one man. The fact you cannot see that is staggering.

Why was Nadal ranked at number 2 for all those years at US Open when he was no where near the 2nd best player there? Not even close. I'm not going to go down that route. Because it has been done to death a million times. And you are still incapable of grasping the fundementals.

Johnyjeep. Aghhh!

This is your comment from 10.51am. Look in the box where you say "hawkeye wrote". I didn't write that at all Barry Flatman did! Barry Flatman wrote it in this Sundays Sunday Times. Now do you understand?

Moderators. It is way too easy on this site to muddle quotes like this.

Johnyjeep wrote:Lol ah yes thanks Socal. Bit of a faux pas there. I remember watching it as well!!! I've just come out of a long cricket meeting.

Murray was awesome that day. Was a really good match if I recall cus Novak played really well. Murray had other extrinsic factors helping him so would be interesting to see how they fair if they play at Wimbledon.

One of my favourite matches between the two of them. Not because of the result, but because matches between two top players where both play really well are actually quite rare. Normally if one of them plays to a high level the other struggles to match it.

But it really was top quality and sooo tight. Murray played better in that than the final. Or indeed the US open final.

Hawkeye, I give up. See my post of 11.34pm. I explained what I was quoting you as saying. And explained the confusion re the anology. There is no issue. it wasn't particularly clear to me that you were quoting someone else ie where Barry's words ended and yours began. But as it was your post if I hit the quote button to respond, it would still show up as "Hawkeye said".

It appears you have quite brilliant selective reading skills. As I have continually highlighted your sentence I am quoting since then and asked for your explanation. Barry Flatman made that analogy. I get it. It's poor beyond belief. If I had paid good money to read dross like that I would be demanding my money back. Or at the very least have a quick scan of page 3 before lining the bird cage with it.

Hawkeye when you read something in the paper you are still allowed to ask yourself 'does that sound right?'. Does that make sense?

Yes Danny it was an excellent match. As soon as it finished I thought..if he plays like that in the final. He will take some beating. Regardless of who is playing.

Novak on grass: all of the above! Bounce, movement and the variety that a good opponent can bring.

I think, on grass, Novak would rather play Rafa than Andy or Roger.

Andy and Roger throw loads of low slice at him and he hates it! Rafa tends to just play like Rafa and his topspin takes the ball right into Novak's strike zone.

If it's hot and outdoors, Novak's movement is still pretty good on grass. But any moisture or humidity (as you get with the roof on) and it declines quite sharply.

As things stand, it's really hard to call a favourite for Wimbledon. I would normally say Andy and Fed but I don't think either is in great form at the moment. Novak has produced some great tennis but also some very poor tennis and seems to be lacking consistency. So I'd say Rafa is probably the current favourite... but things could change a LOT over the course of Rome and RG!

I'd go along with that HMM. The thing that hampers Novak more than the other 3 is his Western FH. When its bouncing high he loves it, when its not or opponents play aggressive slices his FH can struggle to get under the ball. You're going to see a lot more slices played to Novak in future, even from Nadal who isn't un-adept at that shot. However...they may strengthen his FH in doing so!
A lot will depend on the weather...in 2001 it was damp and Goran won, in 2002 it was hot and dry and Hewitt won. If it's hot and dry then all 4 guys have a chance with Federer slightly less. If its rainy/indoors then you have to favour Roger assuming his serve is on song.

Hmmm, Fed's fading, Andy not in best of form, Djoko inconsistent, Nadal not yet back to full speed.
Clearly the Wimbledon door is open for.....Alex Bogdanovic!

HM Murdoch wrote:I would normally say Andy and Fed but I don't think either is in great form at the moment

I wouldn't read much into that. Both go up a notch when on grass as I'd argue it's (currently) their best surface relative to the rivals, particularly if it's hot. They've both tended to contest more finals when the conditions are at their fastest (i.e. 'hot' grass or fast hard courts)

The reasons simple, they are both instinctive players and hence fast conditions, where reflexes are more of an advantage, suit them. Novak, loses a little bit of time to keep in his normal rhythm - hence you get some of the Murray victories over him (i.e. Olympics / Dubai last year)

It is close and as usual the only surprise will be if someone outside the four, wins.

Nadal officially leading the race to London. 5,000 points for the season already. Remarkable considering he skipped a Slam (max 2000, defending 1200) and a Masters (Max 1000, defending 450).

I still dont think its quite a race yet (Nadals best part of the season is coming to a close, while Djokos time to shine is still to come and more importantly, lasts longer)