French Open discussion thread

[Mad for Chelsea]

First topic message reminder :

I thought it was about time we got one of these started. While Federer surprisingly (cough cough) had the advantage of starting his campaign nice and early on day 1, Djokovic is currently in action against Sousa of Portugal. Also on at the moment we have everyone's favourite Briton... James Ward. He's been handed a tough draw against Tommy Robredo, but is battling hard, despite being a break down in the first.

We're also due our first major upset over on court 1, with Nishikori on his way out against Klizan. Injury issues? Finally we have Mahut vs Kukushkin in a pleasant match between two talented shot-makers. That one's at one set all, with the intriguing possibility of the winner meeting Isner in R2.

EDIT: in the time it took me to write this one, Ward has broken back, and is level at 3-3, well done that man .

[bogbrush]

How can anyone say 26 is old? That's a strawman argument if ever I saw one.

Sure, he had his medical problems in 2008, and there's no doubt the back became a more chronic problem, off and on, becoming more on than off up to last year. The GF wasn't age, the back might be just mileage on an underlying condition, that's how it seems from trend.

I can't quite see what's controversial about suggesting a guy who is 33 in a few weeks, who's played >1000 matches and crammed huge seasons for years has been past it for a few years. Seems pretty stupid to say otherwise actually, and to fly in the face of all evidence in terms of increasing losses to lower ranked - non Nadal / Djokovic / Murray - players (which did begin only in 2008, for what it's worth).

[Born Slippy]

Going to be a good day for Spain today. Nadal, Ferrer, GGL and Verdasco all to win I think.

[socal1976]

How can anyone say 26 is old? That's a strawman argument if ever I saw one.

Sure, he had his medical problems in 2008, and there's no doubt the back became a more chronic problem, off and on, becoming more on than off up to last year. The GF wasn't age, the back might be just mileage on an underlying condition, that's how it seems from trend.

I can't quite see what's controversial about suggesting a guy who is 33 in a few weeks, who's played >1000 matches and crammed huge seasons for years has been past it for a few years. Seems pretty stupid to say otherwise actually, and to fly in the face of all evidence in terms of increasing losses to lower ranked - non Nadal / Djokovic / Murray - players (which did begin only in 2008, for what it's worth).

Yes but the federer being old argument has been going on now for like 5 years BB. It was used to explain away losses many years ago. Maybe I stretched it a bit going back to 2008 wimby. But really how many years now is it that we have heard that federer is way passed it. Probably back to 09 and 2010. I know I actually did start to hear the fed is old arguments long before they had any validity in fact. Right now he certainly is old by tour standards but it isn't the first time we hear these arguments.

[CaledonianCraig]

Fact of the matter is that different players mature and pass their sell by date at different ages. Federer is past his prime best now and has been for perhaps three years. However, it is the top notch consistency that has deserted him. He can turn back the clock now and again hence how he can deep into tournaments but invariably he gets found out more often now. Even GOATs have a sell by date.

[lags72]

Players do seem to need longer to 'mature' these days, hence teenage Slammers being conspicuous by their absence. However, when it comes to the opposite end of the scale, it seems that very little has changed now for several decades in terms of the wider picture.

In my eyes, 30 has always been the tennis 'watershed' and not because it's a nice round number, but simply because all past evidence points to it as the age at which the Slam wins start to dry up and overall performance on tour suffers ; and given that Slam titles have of course always been the key motivator for the overwhelming majority of the high-achievers, it's little wonder that this is also the period when retirement beckons. Anything beyond 30 and we're into the twilight zone. (Federer is very close to 33, so if he has been on some sort of 'farewell tour' then I guess you could say it began around three years ago, with Wimbledon 2012 a perfectly-planned swansong ......!)

We have yet to see any change to the pattern of Slam success when it comes to older winners.  During the past twenty years, only five Slams have been won by a player aged over 30. And in the previous twenty years (1974-1994) the figure was the same : just five wins by the over-30 brigade -  so that's five from a total of 80 Slams held, or a paltry 6.25% hit rate ...!!

I can't remember anyone here EVER referring to 26 as being 'old' (if it was considered old, I doubt there would have been such widespread astonishment when Bjorn Borg hung up his racquet !),  so I have absolutely no idea where that line comes from.

[sirfredperry]

Going to be a good day for Spain today. Nadal, Ferrer, GGL and Verdasco all to win I think.

Nadal, yes (gosh he's had an easy time of it so far). Ferrer, yes. GGL, yes. Verdasco....no. Murray to win in four.

[sirfredperry]

lags72. It's not just slams. The last teenager to win ANY tournament was Cilic in 2008, for Pete's sake.
You would think with the game getting more and more physical that the youngsters would be coming through and that the 30-somethings would fade away. But it aint been so, possibly because the youngsters need their bodies to fill out more (remember how skinny and comparatively unfit a teenaged Murray was).
It seems that we're now talking about the 22s and the 23s as the up-and-coming (even that awful word "promising") players. To think that Rafa, Djoko and Andy were all teenaged top tenners.

[The Special Juan]

Nadal's had an easy draw? "Petkovic into quarter finals. On route she's beaten the 97th, 71st, 103rd and 148th best players in the world."

[banbrotam]

I think whislt been 30 you're not going to get any better, plenty of players are staying near peak for longer

i.e. in the 80's your peak was about 22-25 and by 28 you were starting to fade and after 30 you had faded. Of course there were exceptions

Now the peak seems to be 26-29 and then a slight fade a 30 before perhaps falling off the cliff at 32

[Josiah Maiestas]

GGL struggling in 5 with Young, won't count on him to be Monf!

Ferrer is playing magic .. him vs Nadal could be decisively close...

[Josiah Maiestas]

Lajovic is hopeless   he is intent on making Nadal look like a God, Jack Sock would have done much better   

[Guest]

Nothings a given against Le Monf though, Nadal will proly see off Lajovic, nearly certainly play Ferrer, I think Verdasco will beat Murray in 4

[bogbrush]

How can anyone say 26 is old? That's a strawman argument if ever I saw one.

Sure, he had his medical problems in 2008, and there's no doubt the back became a more chronic problem, off and on, becoming more on than off up to last year. The GF wasn't age, the back might be just mileage on an underlying condition, that's how it seems from trend.

I can't quite see what's controversial about suggesting a guy who is 33 in a few weeks, who's played >1000 matches and crammed huge seasons for years has been past it for a few years. Seems pretty stupid to say otherwise actually, and to fly in the face of all evidence in terms of increasing losses to lower ranked - non Nadal / Djokovic / Murray - players (which did begin only in 2008, for what it's worth).

Yes but the Federer being old argument has been going on now for like 5 years BB. It was used to explain away losses many years ago. Maybe I stretched it a bit going back to 2008 wimby. But really how many years now is it that we have heard that federer is way passed it. Probably back to 09 and 2010. I know I actually did start to hear the fed is old arguments long before they had any validity in fact. Right now he certainly is old by tour standards but it isn't the first time we hear these arguments.

Not sure if it's exactly on-topic here, but what had the greatest impact for me wasn't when he was losing matches to Djokovic & Murray, but when he started losing matches to the field. 2008 was seismic (to coin a phrase) in that respect, as he lost to Roddick (!), Blake at the Olympics (!!!!) and Fish. Those first two in particular were losses to guys he completely owned and prior to that year there is simply no way they happened.

It has carried on like that more or less, hence I see a watershed between 2007 and 2008 as being the point where Roger began losing to anyone. I admit pre-2008 he had his moments (most especially the 2 x defeats to Canas) but they really were very few and far between. So something happened; 2008 I can accept could be GF-induced, afterwards though? Back? What? I stress I'm NOT into how good Djokovic etc. are, I'm looking at how he began losing fairly regularly to "ordinary" players.

[Josiah Maiestas]

Message to Lajovic:

HIT THE BALL WITH PACE.

[kingraf]

I'm sure he wishes it was that simple. Don't know how Sock could have done any better, Nadal has traditionally socked him pretty quickly.

[ChequeredJersey]

So easy to talk about what people have to do to beat Rafa. Huge difference between that and actually doing it!

[The Special Juan]

Ferrer's reached his 10th consecutive QF.

[kingraf]

In the Free State, school rugby matches are called off when the score reaches 50-0, Get the feeling Nadal wouldn't have completed a match this week if a similar rule was in place for tennis.

[bogbrush]

Ferrer's reached his 10th consecutive QF.

There's a pattern of the same men reaching the end of big events unless hit by injury. We might have touched on it once or twice.

[bogbrush]

In the Free State, school rugby matches are called off when the score reaches 50-0, Get the feeling Nadal wouldn't have completed a match this week if a similar rule was in place for tennis.

I suppose that presents a handy explanation for getting beaten by Djokovic, should that happen. Anyone want to bet with me the word "undercooked" won't be (over)used?

[The Special Juan]

Ferrer's reached his 10th consecutive QF.

There's a pattern of the same men reaching the end of big events unless hit by injury. We might have touched on it once or twice.

I think fans need to find a balance between berating the lack of new players and praising the current ones for being consistently good.

[kingraf]

Odds on a bagel?

[The Special Juan]

I'll give you 1/5

[HM Murdock]

So something happened; 2008 I can accept could be GF-induced, afterwards though? Back? What? I stress I'm NOT into how good Djokovic etc. are, I'm looking at how he began losing fairly regularly to "ordinary" players.

It may not be quite as many as you think.

In 2009 he had 12 defeats, 7 of which were to Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. One was, of course, to JMDP. The remaining 4 were Wawrinka (MC), Tsonga (Canada), Benneteau (Paris) and Davydenko (WTF).

2010 was a poor year for losing to the "the field" but then from the end of 2011 through to 2012, he got himself back to number 1.

What stands out to me is that it is not a pattern of gradual decline. Lets chalk 2008 off to GF. We have a poor 2010 sandwiched between a very decent 2009 and a re-ascent to # 1 over 2011-2012.

I suspect the back has been an intermittent problem for years.

I also think he's been a stubborn sod who has been slow to get a coach, slow to change his approach in the face of new challenges and slow to change that blooming racquet!

[Josiah Maiestas]

Well I know for a fact WTA players would push Rafa more than this Lajo guy. If you cannot keep the SHBH in then learn to play DH ffs.

How has this guy beat the other 3?   

[bogbrush]

So something happened; 2008 I can accept could be GF-induced, afterwards though? Back? What? I stress I'm NOT into how good Djokovic etc. are, I'm looking at how he began losing fairly regularly to "ordinary" players.

It may not be quite as many as you think.

In 2009 he had 12 defeats, 7 of which were to Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. One was, of course, to JMDP. The remaining 4 were Wawrinka (MC), Tsonga (Canada), Benneteau (Paris) and Davydenko (WTF).

2010 was a poor year for losing to the "the field" but then from the end of 2011 through to 2012, he got himself back to number 1.

What stands out to me is that it is not a pattern of gradual decline. Lets chalk 2008 off to GF. We have a poor 2010 sandwiched between a very decent 2009 and a re-ascent to # 1 over 2011-2012.

I suspect the back has been an intermittent problem for years.

I also think he's been a stubborn sod who has been slow to get a coach, slow to change his approach in the face of new challenges and slow to change that blooming racquet!

I did look at all that a while back but was too lazy to revisit it; I agree it didn't become any kind of torrent, but compared to pre-2008 it was very significantly different.

I think you're right about the statistic-muddying effects of the back (just as we'd say the same about Nadal's travails, though they tend to result in absences or advertised injury-affected results rather than slightly under-the-radar performance dips).

Can't argue he's stubborn though. The racquet.....

[bogbrush]

Ferrer's reached his 10th consecutive QF.

There's a pattern of the same men reaching the end of big events unless hit by injury. We might have touched on it once or twice.

I think fans need to find a balance between berating the lack of new players and praising the current ones for being consistently good.

Yes, let's all get together and praise David Ferrer for being a really great player (obviously not when he was in his mid-20's though, when he was rubbish.........).

To be fair your actual words were "consistently good". I agree with you, he is, though I'm not convinced "consistently good" should be delivering 10 consecutive QFs at Slams, not really.

[HM Murdock]

I think you're right about the statistic-muddying effects of the back (just as we'd say the same about Nadal's travails, though they tend to result in absences or advertised injury-affected results rather than slightly under-the-radar performance dips.

The story is that he was exempted from compulsory military service because of a back problem, and that was as long ago as 2003. There's obviously a long term issue.

Makes me wonder if that has any bearing on his 5th set record. In a career full of almost unbelievable statistics, his record in 5th sets is pretty mediocre.

[HM Murdock]

Ferrer's reached his 10th consecutive QF.

I've nothing against Ferrer but his continued success seems akin to the success of marsupials in Australia: evidence of lack of predators rather than inherent advantages.

[lags72]

Daveed has enjoyed a fine career, he is much respected and is in many ways the 'model professional'

His impressive quarter final streak highlights the fine line between being consistently good and being a consistent under-achiever.

In fact I doubt anyone has reached more consecutive Slam QF's without actually winning one ; but I doubt also that this is how he would wish to be remembered ......

[The Special Juan]

Ferrer's reached his 10th consecutive QF.

I've nothing against Ferrer but his continued success seems akin to the success of marsupials in Australia: evidence of lack of predators rather than inherent advantages.

I think this is better than any metaphor I've ever heard or ever will hear. Hat = off.

[The Special Juan]

Ferrer's reached his 10th consecutive QF.

There's a pattern of the same men reaching the end of big events unless hit by injury. We might have touched on it once or twice.

I think fans need to find a balance between berating the lack of new players and praising the current ones for being consistently good.

Yes, let's all get together and praise David Ferrer for being a really great player (obviously not when he was in his mid-20's though, when he was rubbish.........).

To be fair your actual words were "consistently good". I agree with you, he is, though I'm not convinced "consistently good" should be delivering 10 consecutive QFs at Slams, not really.

If the majors were BO 3 then he wouldn't be but his consistency gets him through these BO5 matches. Ferrer playing 7/10 every set for 5 sets is better than someone like Gulbis playing 4/10, then 9/10, then 5/10 etc.

Anyway, I think I'm trying to say Ferrer's an example to all aspiring tennis players about what a bit of hard work can do.

[Josiah Maiestas]

Errani is doing the biz    both of these would beat Lajovic

[Jahu]

Murray to win in 4 today.

[CaledonianCraig]

Murray on court now against Verdasco. Murray plays to his best he wins. Any dips of note like he had against Kohlschreiber then he loses.

[Guest]

When Andy finds himself against the wall I would like to see him do what he did in 2011 and actually go on the attack. This is a match that Andy should win.

I am still un-convinced by Verdasco.

[lags72]

Another five-setter for these two .....??

If so, I want the Wimbledon result rather than the Aussie Open result   

[The Special Juan]

[Verdasco] has played at every Grand Slam event since his debut at Wimbledon in 2003 and this will be his 44th straight major.

Which 3 players are on a longer streak?

[Guest]

Federer for sure.

Ferrer?

[The Special Juan]

2/3 lk.

[Josiah Maiestas]

Murray on court now against Verdasco. Murray plays to his best he wins. Any dips of note like he had against Kohlschreiber then he loses.

This is not grass or HC mate.

[Born Slippy]

Murray is a big underdog here. Verdasco is erratic but his clay pedigree is impressive and he has looked in good form. Probably would be Andy's best ever win on clay.

[Guest]

Jeeezz

Ermmm. I am trying to think of another player. Stepanek?

[lags72]

Lopez ??

[Jahu]

Fed and Lopez.

[Guest]

I am trying to think who is older than Feds and Ferrer...

[The Special Juan]

lags gets it. "Deliciano" it is.

[lags72]

He seems to have been around forever so thought it was a fair guess.

[Guest]

Really Lopez? I thought he dropped out of the top 100 at one time. That is a hell of an achievement!

[The Special Juan]

I think it was mentioned on here not that long ago.

Meanwhile, another left-handed Spaniard is looking sharp today.

[Sponsored content]