French Open Day 15. Let's get ready to crumble?...

First topic message reminder :

You know what's on.  Roll up. Roll up

Come to think of it, Stan is really something, beating the no.1&2 players to win his AO in 2014 and now doing the same to win his FO title! He's now back into top four, not bad, not bad!

Great job, by Stan congratulations to him. I knew this was going to be really tough that for Novak to win he would probably have to go five sets, but he just was too nervy out there and credit to Wawrinka he was just in beast mode and crunching every ball that he could. Thoroughly outplayed Novak.

Stan had BPs in 10 out 19 Nole's service games; including 10 out of last 15.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Come to think of it, Stan is really something, beating the no.1&2 players to win his AO in 2014 and now doing the same to win his FO title!  He's now back into top four, not bad, not bad!

The frustrating thing is that he won't be a consistent contender.

For every tournament he looks like a world beater, there'll be another where he's terrible.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Come to think of it, Stan is really something, beating the no.1&2 players to win his AO in 2014 and now doing the same to win his FO title!  He's now back into top four, not bad, not bad!

The frustrating thing is that he won't be a consistent contender.

For every tournament he looks like a world beater, there'll be another where he's terrible.

Does that make him our modern day Safin?

summerblues wrote:Stan had BPs in 10 out 19 Nole's service games; including 10 out of last 15.

That's what surprises me and disappoints me.

Novak has served so well this year but when he's nervous, it's one of the first things to go.

It appears that he responds to the fact that he is the underdog..
He raises his game to their level and beyond.
When he players a lesser player he drops to their level

Well, I was so wrong about this.
Thought Novak would win this title this year for a long time.
Thought Stan would lose today and most likely in 3 or 4. Maybe SB was right on the previous comment about hard/clay vs slam/masters and also Socal was right about Stan being the most dangerous opponent for Novak, at least out of that half, which he said a few days ago.

Novak at 30/41 for W/UE, not good enough, while Stan at 60/45.

Total points at 137-117.

Novak played well on some of the big points (kudos for dashing to the net to save first BP and the MP) but you are not likely to win if the opponent wins 20 more points than you.

Yep Murdoch that is Stan's trouble is that he is so up and down can you believe he lost first round in this tournament last year. At his best he can beat anyone but when doesn't play well he can lose to anyone. He is just aggressive and explosive with his shots he needs to see the ball and feel the ball well to pull off the way he plays match in and match.

Well I wish I was wrong HB. But I think Novak got the toughest draw possible in this FO. Coming into this tournament I think he got all three of the players that could of put him out all in a row at the end of the tournament. It was not very good luck to say the least.

As it turns out your analysis of the Stan-Novak matchup was sound, you do have a good eye for these type of things. I am not sure it was unlucky though overall. I wouldn't call it bad luck that Nadal was on his worst form ever and that no clay youngsters are coming through, for instance. Winning this slam wasn't that much harder or easier than most others.

When you see that backhand flowing it's as if you are breathing 100% oxygen. BRAVO Stanimal

Yeah, and ripping off a DTL winner on match point makes it sweet

Haven't seen you in a while coolpixel His backhand was pure gold and clutch

Stan's BH is the only current SHBH that I can think of that can hold its own against DHBHs in rallies.

Henman Bill wrote:As it turns out your analysis of the Stan-Novak matchup was sound, you do have a good eye for these type of things. I am not sure it was unlucky though overall. I wouldn't call it bad luck that Nadal was on his worst form ever and that no clay youngsters are coming through, for instance. Winning this slam wasn't that much harder or easier than most others.

Yes it was unlucky. He had to beat three straight multislam champions to win the title as opposed to Fed's run where he didn't face a single player in the top ten, now that is the kind of luck I would like to see once for someone not named Federer.

Bogbursh good to see attacking tennis again...

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:As it turns out your analysis of the Stan-Novak matchup was sound, you do have a good eye for these type of things. I am not sure it was unlucky though overall. I wouldn't call it bad luck that Nadal was on his worst form ever and that no clay youngsters are coming through, for instance. Winning this slam wasn't that much harder or easier than most others.

Yes it was unlucky. He had to beat three straight multislam champions to win the title as opposed to Fed's run where he didn't face a single player in the top ten, now that is the kind of luck I would like to see once for someone not named Federer.

Sampras won 3 of his Wimby's without facing a top 10 player, if that helps.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:As it turns out your analysis of the Stan-Novak matchup was sound, you do have a good eye for these type of things. I am not sure it was unlucky though overall. I wouldn't call it bad luck that Nadal was on his worst form ever and that no clay youngsters are coming through, for instance. Winning this slam wasn't that much harder or easier than most others.

Yes it was unlucky. He had to beat three straight multislam champions to win the title as opposed to Fed's run where he didn't face a single player in the top ten, now that is the kind of luck I would like to see once for someone not named Federer.

Sampras won 3 of his Wimby's without facing a top 10 player, if that helps.

No it doesn't.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:As it turns out your analysis of the Stan-Novak matchup was sound, you do have a good eye for these type of things. I am not sure it was unlucky though overall. I wouldn't call it bad luck that Nadal was on his worst form ever and that no clay youngsters are coming through, for instance. Winning this slam wasn't that much harder or easier than most others.

Yes it was unlucky. He had to beat three straight multislam champions to win the title as opposed to Fed's run where he didn't face a single player in the top ten, now that is the kind of luck I would like to see once for someone not named Federer.

That's dismal. Law of averages gives it to Federer after he's played peak Nadal year after year after year.

Honestly even Ferrer could win RG before Novak, who isn't clutch like Fedal.

My two cents on the match. Honestly I can't think of a better performance in a GS final. Federer never got to that level. It was a masterclass pure and simple. I think when Djokovic reflects, his regret will be that he was always the one being bullied around the court. Sure, against Stan he would expect to be the more defensive player but his mindset was too stuck in the 'wait for errors' mode. He needed his forehand to be the weapon it was against Murray.

coolpixel wrote:Bogbursh good to see attacking tennis again...

Indeed.

I hope this will encourage the younger players that their new power games are the way to get past Djokovic & Murray. They just need to make it reliable

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Honestly even Ferrer could win RG before Novak, who isn't clutch like Fedal.

Typically poor post by you, why am I not surprised. Where is Jahu you guys can get the troll all star team rolling.

Federer's French open was almost as impressive as Johannsson's AO open win.

I recognise some of the names here (dipping in after more than a year)... I thought by now we would have moved beyond diminishing a slam win because the draw/weather/crowd/surface etc.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:As it turns out your analysis of the Stan-Novak matchup was sound, you do have a good eye for these type of things. I am not sure it was unlucky though overall. I wouldn't call it bad luck that Nadal was on his worst form ever and that no clay youngsters are coming through, for instance. Winning this slam wasn't that much harder or easier than most others.

Yes it was unlucky. He had to beat three straight multislam champions to win the title as opposed to Fed's run where he didn't face a single player in the top ten, now that is the kind of luck I would like to see once for someone not named Federer.

It is interesting that you want to drag in Federer into this. Wawrinka blew Djokovic out of clay.

Congratulations to Magnus Norman in producing players who can beat Fedalovicurray!

I recognise some of the names here (dipping in after more than a year)... I thought by now we would have moved beyond diminishing a slam win because the draw/weather/crowd/surface etc.

Taking an MTO in the semi final to win then losing in the final is karma.

With the combination of the weak sisters fed played in his peak and the seeming good fortune he gets in almost every draw I am surprised he doesn't have 30 slams.

coolpixel wrote:I recognise some of the names here (dipping in after more than a year)... I thought by now we would have moved beyond diminishing a slam win because the draw/weather/crowd/surface etc.

Yes it's funny isn't it. Most people are extolling Stan's performance. One person is instead denigrating Federer's 09 win. Talk about a lack of grace in defeat.

coolpixel wrote:I recognise some of the names here (dipping in after more than a year)... I thought by now we would have moved beyond diminishing a slam win because the draw/weather/crowd/surface etc.

.... an opposition, too. .

greengoblin wrote:My two cents on the match. Honestly I can't think of a better performance in a GS final. Federer never got to that level. It was a masterclass pure and simple. I think when Djokovic reflects, his regret will be that he was always the one being bullied around the court. Sure, against Stan he would expect to be the more defensive player but his mindset was too stuck in the 'wait for errors' mode. He needed his forehand to be the weapon it was against Murray.

I have to agree.. Stan adopted exactly the right tactics against Novak.. he simply refused to be sucked into his game.
He dictated the match.. he hustled and bullied, exactly what I wanted Rafa to do. No way was Stan going to be toyed with. What I found impressive, was his focus even when he was broken.. no way was he not going to fight .

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Taking an MTO in the semi final to win then losing in the final is karma.

Not to mention the absurd time delays again today.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:As it turns out your analysis of the Stan-Novak matchup was sound, you do have a good eye for these type of things. I am not sure it was unlucky though overall. I wouldn't call it bad luck that Nadal was on his worst form ever and that no clay youngsters are coming through, for instance. Winning this slam wasn't that much harder or easier than most others.

Yes it was unlucky. He had to beat three straight multislam champions to win the title as opposed to Fed's run where he didn't face a single player in the top ten, now that is the kind of luck I would like to see once for someone not named Federer.

Why do you have to be so bitter and bring up feds all the time? Also he beat 5th seed delpo in the sf. At least get your facts right.

Who cares about that anyway.

ALLEZ STAN! Commiserations Djoko.

@SoCal... Djokovic will get another chance.

bogbrush wrote:

coolpixel wrote:Bogbursh good to see attacking tennis again...

Indeed.

I hope this will encourage the younger players that their new power games are the way to get past Djokovic & Murray. They just need to make it reliable

Easier said than done. I actually don't think Murray fears anyone's power, particularly away from the dirt

He and Roger have the ability to dismantle such game plans, due to the many disguises they have in their game

Other than yesteryear Rafa, Novak's only weakness is power or fast courts, i.e. Kalovic, Wawrinka (today) or Murray / Federer when it's the very fastest conditions

Unfortunately fed eats all the cupcakes and doesn't leave any for other people, I am surprised he isn't as portly as Wawrinka's brothers with all the cupcake draws he has feasted on in his career.

BTW I think stanimal is the only player to win a slam wearing a towel for shorts and a slight paunch to boot.

Well done Stan

Another player (along with Nishikori) I mentioned three years ago had the ability to do very well, only to be drowned out in laughter

Certainly shakes Wimby up a bit

Haddie-nuff wrote:

greengoblin wrote:My two cents on the match. Honestly I can't think of a better performance in a GS final. Federer never got to that level. It was a masterclass pure and simple. I think when Djokovic reflects, his regret will be that he was always the one being bullied around the court. Sure, against Stan he would expect to be the more defensive player but his mindset was too stuck in the 'wait for errors' mode. He needed his forehand to be the weapon it was against Murray.

I have to agree.. Stan adopted exactly the right tactics against Novak.. he simply refused to be sucked into his game.
He dictated the match.. he hustled and bullied, exactly what I wanted Rafa to do. No way was Stan going to be toyed with. What I found impressive, was his focus even when he was broken.. no way was he not going to fight .

Yes he was so determined and focused. I don't think he hit a singe dropshot in the match. Not a sign of lacking variety but simply that he wasn't getting distracted from his game plan.

Good point. He simply decided that to beat the wall you have to kick it down, and he did.

Too powerful and Djokovic was a spectator as the match sat on Stans racquet throughout. The shape of tennis to come.

So where are the tennis experts here on the Forum, who choked me with BS that Djoko will win today, Djoko deserves it, Djoko in 3, Djoko in 4, Stan no chance etc?

So I'm the only expert here who said Stan will win?

Bunch of amateurs you lot, go take a nap

Jahu wrote:So where are the tennis experts here on the Forum, who choked me with BS that Djoko will win today, Djoko deserves it, Djoko in 3, Djoko in 4, Stan no chance etc?

So I'm the only expert here who said Stan will win?

Bunch of amateurs you lot, go take a nap

Thing is Jahu, you say Djoko will lose before every final! You don't get credit when it actually happens.

BB, I suspect you, like me, will also be mighy pleased with this win since it shows extreme physicality and .chasing down 30 shot rallies are not the only way to win slams.

Btw Stan and his wife separated just a couple of months back.

A slam win despite that emotional wreckage.

Truly A STANIMAL.

coolpixel wrote:BB, I suspect you, like me, will also be mighy pleased with this win since it shows extreme physicality and .chasing down 30 shot rallies are not the only way to win slams.

Btw Stan and his wife separated just a couple of months back.

A slam win despite that emotional wreckage.

Truly A STANIMAL.

Lets hope this win will bring them together again.

I doubt it GG. I think the two have had a rocky relationship. They had separated once before. In any case, their personal lives are their own and we can only wish them the best.

Back to tennis, there's a lovely picture on BBC of some Swiss slacker, watching STANIMAL demolish Djokovic, on a mobile phone

coolpixel wrote:BB, I suspect you, like me, will also be mighy pleased with this win since it shows extreme physicality and .chasing down 30 shot rallies are not the only way to win slams.

Btw Stan and his wife separated just a couple of months back.

A slam win despite that emotional wreckage.

Truly A STANIMAL.

Are you suggesting a recipe for winning slams, CP? Wawrinka has done this twice now. This may actually provide motivation to get back together and celebrate the win with someone. It would be very nice.

She is pretty.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Jahu wrote:So where are the tennis experts here on the Forum, who choked me with BS that Djoko will win today, Djoko deserves it, Djoko in 3, Djoko in 4, Stan no chance etc?

So I'm the only expert here who said Stan will win?

Bunch of amateurs you lot, go take a nap

Thing is Jahu, you say Djoko will lose before every final! You don't get credit when it actually happens.

Hey Jahu, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

That said, I called it totally wrong so have to eat humble pie for today.

Commiserations Murdoch, I know you've been a bag of nerves for days. Been there, not a nice place!

Superb tennis from Stan, a very good match to watch for the neutral. Novak was hanging on and didn't play many loose shots, but there were no answers forthcoming either.

Sorry HM, socal and slasher. A very tough defeat to take, but Novak will be back - great champions always are. I hope he gets another chance in the future. That ovation at the end was heartbreaking.