Monte Carlo Masters

First topic message reminder :

The draw is out for the third Masters tournament of the year:
http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2016/410/mds.pdf

Quarter finals if the top 8 seeds make it through:
Djokovic - Ferrer
Federer - Tsonga
Wawrinka - Nadal
Berdych - Murray

Federer opens against Bellucci or Garcia Lopez then likely Bautista Agut to get to the quarters. Not too bad a test after 2 months off.

Nadal has a really tough draw - probably R2 Rosol, R3 Thiem, QF Wawrinka (or Simon/Dimitrov), SF Murray (or Berdych/Raonic). If he can make it through that lot to the final, perhaps he will have the form to beat Djokovic there.

Sorry temp don't agree

Fair enough.

Surprised at the Djokovic loss. In Miami, at about 60%, he won the title, and should have won (at least this match). Whatever be the reasons/non-reasons for his loss, it is still a loss. This loss is not really a yardstick for the rest of the season.

laverfan wrote:Surprised at the Djokovic loss. In Miami, at about 60%, he won the title, and should have won (at least this match). Whatever be the reasons/non-reasons for his loss, it is still a loss. This loss is not really a yardstick for the rest of the season.

Yes that is generally my take on it as well.

But we are not talking about a Djokovic loss we are talking of a Vesley win.. we are forever debating who amongst the young guns coming through are showing any promise of being able to rattle the cages of those at the top.. when we find a 21yr old, rank 55, who can actually knock the number one off his pedestal you are trying to find reasons why Novak lost.. does it not come into your thinking that this lad might, just might, for one moment have found the answer ..I believe he did.  Dominic Thiem is playing Rafa tomorrow no one will be surprised if he beats Rafa.. are we to assume then that Rafa is still playing badly or that Thiem is fulfilling his promise.  Why are you running away LF  have the courage of your conviction

Highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvCH_LAN_0

Haddie-nuff wrote:But we are not talking about a Djokovic loss we are talking of a Vesley win.. we are forever debating who amongst the young guns coming through are showing any promise of being able to rattle the cages of those at the top.. when we find a 21yr old, rank 55, who can actually knock the number one off his pedestal you are trying to find reasons why Novak lost.. does it not come into your thinking that this lad might, just might, for one moment have found the answer ..I believe he did.  Dominic Thiem is playing Rafa tomorrow no one will be surprised if he beats Rafa.. are we to assume then that Rafa is still playing badly or that Thiem is fulfilling his promise.  Why are you running away LF  have the courage of your conviction

These random wins happen. This came out of the blue from Vesely. By that I mean he has not shown signs he had this type of results in him before and its not like he has been threatening big things in the past. That alone tells me this is more of just one of those freak results that happen now and again but in the long run doesn't count for much.

If Vesely was climbing swiftly up the rankings and going deep in tournaments (and he has done neither) I'd say this could be his breakthrough win but he hasn't so lets keep our feet on the ground. To be honest I'd be more surprised if he won in the next round than if he lost.

However freakish you want to make it.. it is a freak win that 54 other players above him have not managed to achieve.. and Ive seen Novak play a lot worse than he did today.
But I still have no doubt that it was a match that will be viewed by every coach on tour !!!

Haddie-nuff wrote:However freakish you want to make it.. it is a freak win that 54 other players above him have not managed to achieve.. and Ive seen Novak play a lot worse than he did today.
But I still have no doubt that it was a match that will be viewed by every coach on tour !!!

Not so freakish. Djokovic lost a Davis Cup rubber against Kazakhstan player a month or so ago.

EDIT Strike that - that was a doubles match.

I think this could be the beginning of the end for Djokovic.  Djokovic will age and decline.  It is just a question of when that starts to happen.  Maybe Federer's record of 17 slams is going to be safe.  Maybe Federer might even manage another slam title during Djokovic's decline.

Also this could be the breakthrough of a young Vesley (22) to become the next king of clay or a prince of clay (there is only one king of clay).  All his Challenger level successes have been on the clay.

Nore Staat wrote:I think this could be the beginning of the end for Djokovic.  Djokovic will age and decline it is a question of when that starts to happen.  Maybe Federer's record of 17 slams is going to be safe.  Maybe Federer might even manage another slam title during Djokovic's decline.

Also this could be the breakthrough of a young Vesley (22) to become the next king of clay or a prince of clay (there is only one king of clay).  All his Challenger level successes have been on the clay.

Very tongue in cheek eh Nore Staat.

Haddie-nuff wrote:But we are not talking about a Djokovic loss we are talking of a Vesley win.. we are forever debating who amongst the young guns coming through are showing any promise of being able to rattle the cages of those at the top.. when we find a 21yr old, rank 55, who can actually knock the number one off his pedestal you are trying to find reasons why Novak lost.. does it not come into your thinking that this lad might, just might, for one moment have found the answer ..I believe he did.  Dominic Thiem is playing Rafa tomorrow no one will be surprised if he beats Rafa.. are we to assume then that Rafa is still playing badly or that Thiem is fulfilling his promise.  Why are you running away LF  have the courage of your conviction

The problem with youn'guns is lack of consistency.

Vesley is 4/8 for the year and 44/62 career. Thiem is 24/6 for the year, and much more consistent. I also like Thiem (and Goffin, too). He had Djokovic in trouble in Miami too.

The current Top 4 are slowly walking away into the Sunset (perhaps except Djokovic), so it is a surprise. It is bound to happen, but Nishikori or Raonic seem better candidates to cause such upsets.

I would love to see some young blood provide these stalwarts (warts?) a run for their money.

Djoko must of gotten a huge bill by his Offshore Bankers in MC now, in the wake of Panama stuff, extra $10M hike on their fees, must of gotten him by surprise and totally defocused him

LF, where are you hiding? I kiss you

Jahu wrote:LF, where are you hiding? I kiss you

Did you get some R&R and break from this madness called Tennis?

No r&r, but fixed my garden, mowed the lawns of all neighbors, now Djoko making me sleep good with his loss.

Still re-convalescing form your Sword, but since you're my fav americano Lady, its all good

Fed to win this MC now, that would be a bomb.

Jahu wrote:No r&r, but fixed my garden, mowed the lawns of all neighbors, now Djoko making me sleep good with his loss.

Still re-convalescing form your Sword, but since you're my fav americano Lady, its all good

I should be kind to your garden and the neighbors in the future. Glad to see that the hate-the-Djokovic tree has plenty of fertilizer and compost and thriving.

Wow!  Shocker.  I did not see the match, so do not have an opinion on how hard Nole may have been trying.  On one hand, it might make sense for him to take it easy in at least one of the Masters 1000 before RG.  On the other hand, I would have thought that Madrid - or even Rome - would have been a better place to relax.

Anyway, it now improves everyone else's chances in MC maybe three-fold.

For Rafa, this is an opportunity to start reasserting his clay court dominance.  I really think that if he does not do well this clay court season, then he is unlikely to ever come back.  And by doing well, I think he needs to be at least the 2nd best clay courter behind Djokovic.  He needs to win something before RG, and this might be the best chance.

Likewise for the youngsters.  Unlike Nadal, they have time to wait it out and let Djokovic grow old, but still, this is a great opportunity to try to win a big tournament.

laverfan wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:But we are not talking about a Djokovic loss we are talking of a Vesley win.. we are forever debating who amongst the young guns coming through are showing any promise of being able to rattle the cages of those at the top.. when we find a 21yr old, rank 55, who can actually knock the number one off his pedestal you are trying to find reasons why Novak lost.. does it not come into your thinking that this lad might, just might, for one moment have found the answer ..I believe he did.  Dominic Thiem is playing Rafa tomorrow no one will be surprised if he beats Rafa.. are we to assume then that Rafa is still playing badly or that Thiem is fulfilling his promise.  Why are you running away LF  have the courage of your conviction

The problem with youn'guns is lack of consistency.

Vesley is 4/8 for the year and 44/62 career. Thiem is 24/6 for the year, and much more consistent. I also like Thiem (and Goffin, too). He had Djokovic in trouble in Miami too.

The current Top 4 are slowly walking away into the Sunset (perhaps except Djokovic), so it is a surprise. It is bound to happen, but Nishikori or Raonic seem better candidates to cause such upsets.

I would love to see some young blood provide these stalwarts (warts?) a run for their money.

You really are missing the point arnt you... it matters not if he goes on to win a major at this stage .. what he has done is he has had the b@lls to take his game to Novak.. Novak did not dictate that match as he has done so often in the past.. he was made to play Vesleys game.
And credit to the lad he stuck with his own play throughout.. sadly all others have been drawn in and allowed Novak to dominate (including Rafa)Dolgopolov first showed how to keep Novak guessing and moving him around.. ditto Vesley ... Soderling first showed how to beat Rafa.. and the others followed. As I say there will not be a coach on tour that does not watch yesterdays match.

For Rafa, this is an opportunity to start reasserting his clay court dominance. I really think that if he does not do well this clay court season, then he is unlikely to ever come back. And by doing well, I think he needs to be at least the 2nd best clay courter behind Djokovic. He needs to win something before RG, and this might be the best chance


Absolutely agree..now or never

The remarkable thing about the Djoko loss was that it's been so long since something similar happened. It transpires that it's THREE YEARS since he's gone out this early in any tournament. You would have thought that sooner or later he'd have come a cropper but somehow, through around 60 tournaments, he managed to avoid an early exit.
This shows just how hard it's going to be to win a CYGS. Twenty eight five-set matches and you've got to be fit and well enough to win em all and also hope that you don't run up against an inspired opponent (Stan at RG in 2015).

Its because his opponents have always allowed him to dictate his game
Rafa, is no exception, he has been drawn into Novak's game, let him dominate and been intimidated by him
Vesley didn't, it was a courageous match by him.. he stuck to his own game throughout.
Soderling did this to Rafa and what happened thereafter... the mould was set

I hope there will be a breakthrough soon.. because the game is getting stagnant and this lad gave me hope that others will have the balls to follow

Haddie makes good points here; Djokovic can never be "the end of tennis", in the same way that daft observers opined when the Berlin Wall came down and they pronounced the end of history, because his game is itself an answer to the players who came before him and will in turn be answered by other players.

This happens throughout history; Borg raised the bar of athleticism and the double-hander; McEnroe contered with virtuosity, Lendl kicked the physical bar up; but does that mean Lendl > McEnroe > Borg > Newcombe/Laver etc so had those earlier guys been born at the same time or later than Ivan they'd have been also-rans? Of course not. Just as, if Nadal or Federer was now breaking through they'd be designing parts of their game to beat Djokovic and articles would be written all over the place about how he had been surpassed.

Federer has shown there are ways to beat Djokovic using variety and shortened points, but he's handicapped by sustaining it over long matches, and Wawrinka showed that sheer power can neutralise the Serbs astonishing retrieval skills.

I didn't see the match yesterday but Haddie indicates that a similar thing happened, and she's spot on that coaches will take note. The game will move on beyond Djokovic - his challenge will be to adapt to this and see if, like Federer, he can in some way reinvent himself so he's successful well into his 30's.

bogbrush wrote:Haddie makes good points here; Djokovic can never be "the end of tennis", in the same way that daft observers opined when the Berlin Wall came down and they pronounced the end of history, because his game is itself an answer to the players who came before him and will in turn be answered by other players.

This happens throughout history; Borg raised the bar of athleticism and the double-hander; McEnroe contered with virtuosity, Lendl kicked the physical bar up; but does that mean Lendl > McEnroe > Borg > Newcombe/Laver etc so had those earlier guys been born at the same time or later than Ivan they'd have been also-rans? Of course not. Just as, if Nadal or Federer was now breaking through they'd be designing parts of their game to beat Djokovic and articles would be written all over the place about how he had been surpassed.  Djokovic was able to match and overcome Nadal on non-clay surfaces, but on the clay a peak Nadal was always better than a Djokovic.

Federer has shown there are ways to beat Djokovic using variety and shortened points, but he's handicapped by sustaining it over long matches, and Wawrinka showed that sheer power can neutralise the Serbs astonishing retrieval skills.

I didn't see the match yesterday but Haddie indicates that a similar thing happened, and she's spot on that coaches will take note. The game will move on beyond Djokovic - his challenge will be to adapt to this and see if, like Federer, he can in some way reinvent himself so he's successful well into his 30's.

It is not clear that history repeats itself - or it might skip a few generations before repeating.  With Federer it was age and changing technology and a peak performing Rafael Nadal with a deadly tactic that exploited new string technology, that nullified him.  [Nadal has aged more than Federer and he is no longer able to sustain this tactic against Federer].  Djokovic's ability to nullify Federer only really came into its own when Federer was past his peak and was on a downward slope.  It only really comes to light when Djokovic is on slow to medium courts with predictable conditions and a good bounce.  On other courts it is more due to age.

As yet no-one has been able to turn the tables with Djokovic.  Andy Murray is capable of beating Djokovic only when he is in peak fitness and mental mode.  Wawrinka was able to beat Djokovic only for a short period.  As yet there is no-one with the game and the consistency to regularly challenge Djokovic.  At the age of 28 heading towards 29 next month, Djokovic is reaching that period where recent history tells us there will be a drop off in performance.

History has shown it is more associated with changing technologies and conditions that has allowed in the past young tennis players to break through at a young age.  Over the past ten years or so there has been no significant change in technology nor conditions that the young players can exploit.  Furthermore medical advances and greater professionalism and money in the sport has allowed the older player to sustain his / her levels of fitness and performance for longer.

It does not need consistency by one player ...as the demise of Rafa has indicated but by several players,
it needs any player to have the courage as Vesely did yesterday.. that match need not be a one off ..if some of his tactics are adopted by others.  There has/had to be someone who can make that breakthrough he showed it can be done.

I would contend it was only the unique abilities of Djokovic that was able to overcome Nadal on non-clay surfaces with great difficulty. But for others it has been due to a clear decline in Nadal's ability to sustain the type of game that he was playing in his peak - and this was due to significant wear and tear in his knees. From being a two time winner and three time runner up at Wimbledon he became an early round whipping boy following two significant injuries.

If ANY top player has too many dips against an opponent playing at a decent level he will lose. No big surprise. We saw it with Rosol V Nadal, Fognini V Federer and Murray on a number of occasions. Nothing surprising. I'd only start to raise eyebrows if Djokovic follows this loss up with another defeat early doors in Rome or Madrid.

Djokovic started playing Rafa differently after Rafa lost to Soderling.
Soderling exploited Rafa by sending him out wide and hitting flat.
True Rafa was having problems with his knees at that time.. but other players used similar tactics against him after that
It is my opinion that Rafa's decline started when he realised that his opponents had found his Achilles heel.. he began to lose confidence in his own game and opened the door wider still to his opponents.. I wait to see if all of you are right or  better still that I might be on the right track
Or what the hell does little old me know

Another naff day at the office for Murray. Raining double faults and Paire ripping him apart. Oh dear. Paire strolling to a straight sets win leading 6-2 3-0. Full credit to the Frenchman who has played great stuff but least said about Andy the better I am afraid.

Nore Staat wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Haddie makes good points here; Djokovic can never be "the end of tennis", in the same way that daft observers opined when the Berlin Wall came down and they pronounced the end of history, because his game is itself an answer to the players who came before him and will in turn be answered by other players.

This happens throughout history; Borg raised the bar of athleticism and the double-hander; McEnroe contered with virtuosity, Lendl kicked the physical bar up; but does that mean Lendl > McEnroe > Borg > Newcombe/Laver etc so had those earlier guys been born at the same time or later than Ivan they'd have been also-rans? Of course not. Just as, if Nadal or Federer was now breaking through they'd be designing parts of their game to beat Djokovic and articles would be written all over the place about how he had been surpassed.  Djokovic was able to match and overcome Nadal on non-clay surfaces, but on the clay a peak Nadal was always better than a Djokovic.

Federer has shown there are ways to beat Djokovic using variety and shortened points, but he's handicapped by sustaining it over long matches, and Wawrinka showed that sheer power can neutralise the Serbs astonishing retrieval skills.

I didn't see the match yesterday but Haddie indicates that a similar thing happened, and she's spot on that coaches will take note. The game will move on beyond Djokovic - his challenge will be to adapt to this and see if, like Federer, he can in some way reinvent himself so he's successful well into his 30's.

It is not clear that history repeats itself - or it might skip a few generations before repeating.  With Federer it was age and changing technology and a peak performing Rafael Nadal with a deadly tactic that exploited new string technology, that nullified him.  [Nadal has aged more than Federer and he is no longer able to sustain this tactic against Federer].  Djokovic's ability to nullify Federer only really came into its own when Federer was past his peak and was on a downward slope.  It only really comes to light when Djokovic is on slow to medium courts with predictable conditions and a good bounce.  On other courts it is more due to age.

As yet no-one has been able to turn the tables with Djokovic.  Andy Murray is capable of beating Djokovic only when he is in peak fitness and mental mode.  Wawrinka was able to beat Djokovic only for a short period.  As yet there is no-one with the game and the consistency to regularly challenge Djokovic.  At the age of 28 heading towards 29 next month, Djokovic is reaching that period where recent history tells us there will be a drop off in performance.

History has shown it is more associated with changing technologies and conditions that has allowed in the past young tennis players to break through at a young age.  Over the past ten years or so there has been no significant change in technology nor conditions that the young players can exploit.  Furthermore medical advances and greater professionalism and money in the sport has allowed the older player to sustain his / her levels of fitness and performance for longer.

I think Murray is probably the very last player to look to for the answer to Djokovic; he is a contemporary whose game is similarly based.

All I'm saying is that the next generation always has the advantage of having the lead guy to model against, and new technology to utilise. It is ALWAYS tempting to look at the top guy dominating and say he'll be there for the foreseeable, and they ALWAYS fail to deliver on that. I was shocked that Federer started losing not only to Nadal etc, but to all sorts of players who really weren't of his true class. I recall the twin losses to Canas with blinding clarity because they were so crazy, but looking back maybe they told me something.

I think we mostly agree, it's just clarification and the limitation of the medium.

Allez Paire. Send him packing.

I reckon if a younger Federer clone appeared he would be beating Djokovic today on grass and at the US Open a majority of the time.  It would be struggle at the Australian Open with perhaps Djokovic holding the advantage.  On the clay I am not sure but I still think Federer would be able to hold his own against Djokovic.  Without Nadal Federer would have many French Open titles.  There were instances when Federer was sublime on any surface - the variation and angles.  He was never able to sustain it against Nadal on the clay.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Djokovic started playing Rafa differently after Rafa lost to Soderling.
Soderling exploited Rafa by sending him out wide and hitting flat.
True Rafa was having problems with his knees at that time.. but other players used similar tactics against him after that
It is my opinion that Rafa's decline started when he realised that his opponents had found his Achilles heel.. he began to lose confidence in his own game and opened the door wider still to his opponents.. I wait to see if all of you are right or  better still that I might be on the right track
Or what the hell does little old me know

Yes, completely agree with this. On the tactic of going wide to the forehand I commented on it at the time. The key was the ability to play a backhand down the line, get Rafa out there, then hit a hard (but not necessarily devastatingly hard), shorter-angled shot across.

It was the equivalent of what Rafa did against Roger; find a go-to formula that played on the weakest part of the game, and just do it all the time. Federer did it to Roddick by eschewing anything aggressive on the return, just bunt it back and make a rally.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Another naff day at the office for Murray. Raining double faults and Paire ripping him apart. Oh dear. Paire strolling to a straight sets win leading 6-2 3-0. Full credit to the Frenchman who has played great stuff but least said about Andy the better I am afraid.

Murray dug himself out of a huge hole in that set as Paire choked and Murray upped his level. Level at one set all.

Oh dear. Double break in the second. Serving for it at 5-4 in the third but Paire loses 7-5 in the third.

Murray proving time and again hes got guts on top of guts, but his serve.... needs a massive improvement

bit of an epic choke by Paire, from serving for it at 5-4 he drops three games in a row to lose the match. Great play by Murray in that last game, but Paire served up 3 DFs across his two service games, including on both break points (the latter of course a match point).

Some good clutch play from Murray in that set to be fair, must have saved 7/8 BPs or so. Good scrapping even if his game is still not there. Will need to improve to beat Raonic.

How Murray is still afloat in this tournament I will never know. He looked slow and his first serve stats stunk. Only thing to take from that was the fight he showed to come through despite playing so below par and at least there were signs of improvement in that final set. Paire needs to learn how to win when well aheaf.

I love Paire. There's something quintessentially French about him. Has the most lovely BH which he can do anything with, capable of going huge with the FH too, and is more than a little crazy. Also the only player on tour who complains more than Murray does. Complete maverick.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I love Paire. There's something quintessentially French about him. Has the most lovely BH which he can do anything with, capable of going huge with the FH too, and is more than a little crazy. Also the only player on tour who complains more than Murray does. Complete maverick.

I love the way that most of the French lads are very French; Fognini is outstandingly Italian, Murray is the stereotypical Scot. Even Federer fits the Swiss image; clean, neat, urbane, multilingual.

They can stick their political correctness up their *****, stereotypes work and prejudice is an evolved trait for survival, it's just not to be used for wrong.

your stereotyping of murray and Scottish people proving why judging people with broad swipes and prejudice does not actually work at all. It's what lazy people do

onto tennis matters we have a great match in prospect here

bogbrush wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I love Paire. There's something quintessentially French about him. Has the most lovely BH which he can do anything with, capable of going huge with the FH too, and is more than a little crazy. Also the only player on tour who complains more than Murray does. Complete maverick.

I love the way that most of the French lads are very French; Fognini is outstandingly Italian, Murray is the stereotypical Scot. Even Federer fits the Swiss image; clean, neat, urbane, multilingual.

They can stick their political correctness up their *****, stereotypes work and prejudice is an evolved trait for survival, it's just not to be used for wrong.

Stereotypical Scots - so he is inventive, industrious and gutsy. Well said BB.

Thiem started very well.

Thiem forcing three BPs in Nadal's second service game. Nadal saves them all with some good attacking play. Danger over? Nope, not a bit of it. Fabulous FH winner down the line from Thiem on the run earns him another BP, and Nadal attempts a rather dodgy drop shot on this one, it's got too much air on it and Thiem is there to put away the FH. Early break for Thiem, that FH doing lots of damage early on.

Better to think in stereotypes than in monotypes.

Aren't Swiss stereotypically cowardly opting out of wars like they have? BB has opened a whole can of worms here.

There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman ... but what happened to the Welshman?  
Not sure but I think it had something to do with sheep in the valleys.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Aren't Swiss stereotypically cowardly opting out of wars like they have? BB has opened a whole can of worms here.

That's the English for you - always opening up cans of worms.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Aren't Swiss stereotypically cowardly opting out of wars like they have? BB has opened a whole can of worms here.

That's the English for you - always opening up cans of worms.

Ooooooo did you just call Craig English? Now you're in real trouble

If you'll excuse me. I need to get a cup of tea and make fun of the Irish cause they're the ones that can take a joke...

They are good for a joke. Stereotypes I mean, not the Irish