The Grass Season

First topic message reminder :

With the grass season underway, I thought we could use a thread to discuss the pre Wimbledon events.

The draws are out for Stuttgart and S'Hertogenbosch, which start properly tomorrow. Both 250s but a noticeable difference in quality. Stuttgart has most of the quality:

Stuttgart

Full Draw 

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/current/stuttgart/321/draws

Anticipated QF

Federer - Troicki
Thiem - Lopez
Simon - Pouille
Kohlschreiber - Cilic

Summary/Prediction


If he's fit, it's hard to look past Federer here. His very first match could be tough though as he will face the big serving Taylor Fritz, if Fritz can get past a qualifier. I suspect it will be Lopez in the SF, with Fed to come through a tough 3 setter. I'm picking Kohlschreiber to come through the other half. Federer to win the final in straights.

Worth looking out for the first round match between Del Potro and Dimitrov. The winner will have a good shot to then beat Pouille and make the QF at least. Stepanek is also playing last round of qualies today - will be a real danger for anyone in R1.

S'Hertorgenbosch

Full Draw

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/scores/current/s-hertogenbosch/440/draws

Anticipated QF

Ferrer - Muller
Karlovic - Seppi
Querrey - Johnson
Mahut - Tomic

Summary/Prediction

A much weaker field, which Ferrer of a couple of years ago would have walked. However, he's been generally poor this year and I don't see him getting past Muller, who I think will then also edge out Ivo in the SF. The other half is very tough with no one really in form. I'm going to pick Querrey to come through. Muller for the title.

Stepanek knocks off Cilic in straights to make the QF as a qualifier. Has he ever played better than over the last month or so?

Born Slippy wrote:Stepanek knocks off Cilic in straights to make the QF as a qualifier. Has he ever played better than over the last month or so?

It is also nice that there is enough money in the sport to keep him playing.  If he wanted to could he cherry pick a few Challenger tournaments and ATP 250 to win a few trophies and keep the "pennies" rolling in?

Federer labours past the 18-year old Taylor Fritz (6-4 5-7 6-4) in the first round at Stuttgart to record win #1071, level with Lendl as the second all-time in the Open Era, he has played one less match than Lendl.

Rafa Nadal has ruled himself out of Wimbledon. To be fair I would have been more surprised if he had made it as wrist injuries do not clear up in a few weeks.

Sad news all the same.

barrystar wrote:Federer labours past the 18-year old Taylor Fritz (6-4 5-7 6-4) in the first round at Stuttgart to record win #1071, level with Lendl as the second all-time in the Open Era, he has played one less match than Lendl.

Fed looked like 2013 all over again. Changing his back arch on serve to protect the back, poor lateral movement... clearly not 100%. Hope he can work himself into some form of confidence by Wimbledon.

NS, you don't play challengers to keep the pennies rolling in...$6000 for winning a title. If you're knocked out midway you're barely breaking even for staying in town.

NS, you don't play challengers to keep the pennies rolling in...$6000 for winning a title. If you're knocked out midway you're barely breaking even for staying in town.

Tsonga has pulled out of Queens, which must be casting some doubt on his participation at Wimbledon.

lydian wrote:NS, you don't play challengers to keep the pennies rolling in...$6000 for winning a title. If you're knocked out midway you're barely breaking even for staying in town.

One would think some basic expenses would be covered otherwise they wouldn't attract anyone to the tournaments - just locals & those a train journey away -  with some cheap accommodation or on site accommodation ... maybe a public school or university accommodation out of term time.

No, they rely on sponsorship from manufacturers and their national tennis associations...or bank of Mum & Dad. They have to pay the flights & costs...and get subsidised by the sponsors. This is why they mainly have to progress through CHs to ATP Tour quickly or else its a real grind. Many promising players will have been driven to the wall by not being able to make ends meet underneath ATP Tour...this is why more money needs to be given to CHs...something like 90% of all tennis pro prize money goes to the top 10 players...

You guys that watch the random 250s. What do you watch it on, I mean what channel/ internet service? Or is just random internet websites streaming it?

Henman Bill wrote:You guys that watch the random 250s. What do you watch it on, I mean what channel/ internet service? Or is just random internet websites streaming it?

I subscribe to TennisTV; they show many 250/500/1000 level tournaments. No GS, of course.

Born Slippy wrote:I think the comparison to Murray above is a little unfair though, given Murray's own wrist problems in 2007 and conveniently cuts off about two weeks before he reached the final in US08.

I remembered Andy's 2007 shortly after I posted it.  Whether or not we include his USO08 is fine with me either way.  I am not really trying to focus on Andy-vs-Delpo detailed comparison, just to give enough background to show that - before the injury - Delpo had results that could have justified belief in a very strong career.

CaledonianCraig wrote:That was not the injury that has kyboshed him. He came back after that and exiting largely in first week of slams, then had a string of QF's and early exit then semi but never reached another final or won a Masters - that is how I define not kicking on.

I agree that if you were to judge him on his performances between his two injuries, then he does not look so good.  But I do not think it is fair to disregard his first injury.  To me, he was never the same after that.  Remember, it was not a small injury - he was gone for almost a year.

After that first injury he came back to have perhaps his most consistent run at the slams and if you listen to some he won the gold medal for Murray in 2012. So he was in fine fettle after his first comeback.

I have always had a soft spot for Del Boy, he is a real competitor, but he is pretty correct in the way he goes about his business.

Whilst I find his style of play of itself somewhat bludgeoning and would not look out for his matches vs. all comers, I always look(ed) forward to his matches against the top guys - there have been humdingers vs. Fed, Nadal, Djoko, and even Murray.  Soderling was a bit like that for his purple patch in 2009-2010.

Nore Staat wrote:I find this comparison with Wawrinka spurious. "Aged" Wawrinka versus an up and coming tyro who was still developing and nowhere near his peak beating Nadal and Federer in successive matches.  Wawrinka took a long time to make a break through in comparison.  You need to compare records at the same age level.  

But what is the point - he got injured and that's that.  This is sounding like a GOAT debate when context and narrative is thrown out the window.

The "debate" is about some posters, who seem to have (IMHO) a rose tinted view about what Del Potro would have done, had it not been for his injury setbacks

You seem to be missing the point. I think and history backs this up, only players with more variety and better movement than Del Potro win multiple slams / masters, i.e. dominate or nearly dominate the game

Wawrinka was merely used by me as an example of a what the minimum requirement is for a multi-slam winner. However, note for him his movement isn't great. Hence he ticks just one of the movement / variance boxes and even then only just. Now it's correct for HM to say that his power got him his slams, but that was coupled with his variety, i.e. it's an irresistible combination when it's 'on'.

Del Potro, simply never had both power and variety or even power and great movement and so would always had struggled to win lots of slams

CaledonianCraig wrote: and if you listen to some he won the gold medal for Murray in 2012

Of course CC!! Murray never wins owt without help from someone

Oh there's no doubt DelPo exhausted Federer @ OG12...only a fool would argue otherwise given Fed's score in the final.

As the Telegraph reported: "this was a curiously flat performance from the world No 1, and one that showed how much his semi-final — that 4 1/2-hour epic against Juan Martin Del Potro — had drained his batteries."

banbrotam wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: and if you listen to some he won the gold medal for Murray in 2012

Of course CC!! Murray never wins owt without help from someone

The "Federer was too tired to play" seems to get trotted out a lot by the anti Murray brigade and, to the casual observer, it could appear a valid excuse. It just isn't sustainable. This is the same Federer who survived brutal back to back three setters in Rome 06 before going toe to toe with Nadal for 5 hours - in three consecutive days. They also conveniently ignore that the much less physically gifted Del Potro was able to beat Djokovic easily in the same timescales.

Federer didn't lose due to fading fitness. He got beaten by a top class player who, on the day, played his very best tennis.

DP was a clever player.  Check out his time taken between points and it was up there if not greater than Nadal, Murray, Djokovic - basically like them he put a lot of effort into the point and it presumably took him that extra to recover for the next serve.  He had huge weapons and accuracy.  It is likely he would have developed his game - but he got injured and the rest as they say is history and an opening topic for the bar room brawler.

Well seeing as there is not another thread to post this on is anyone watching  the match between Del Po and Simon..no ????well its one set all and Delpo is a double break up in the third.. welcome back JDP

5-0 up and serving for the match,
The way he is playing Fed will have a problem winning here
Vamos Delpo

Tied that one up nicely.. so great to see him back..
6-0 a visit to the bakery for Simon !!!!

Wonder what odds I'd have got for correctly predicting the SFists in S-H?

Seldom, if ever, have I seen Simon so rattled. He is normally one of the most composed calm players to watch...but he was throwing his racquet and looked distinctly uncomfortable out there.. whereas Delpo looked like he was having a walk in the park

Great result for DelPo

Hopefully, Delpo's wrist troubles are now behind him. More wins like these will enable his climb back up the rankings.

lydian wrote:Oh there's no doubt DelPo exhausted Federer @ OG12...only a fool would argue otherwise given Fed's score in the final.

As the Telegraph reported: "this was a curiously flat performance from the world No 1, and one that showed how much his semi-final — that 4 1/2-hour epic against Juan Martin Del Potro — had drained his batteries."

No problem. At last us Murray fans have an excuse for the Fed US Open defeat, given his two/three day match with Nadal

Strangely, it gets mentioned about one per hundred mentions of Roger's Olympic final woes 

Spot on bankro. We could look at every tennis match ad infinitum and put losses down to fatigue but don't. But Murray's successes are given special precedence.

While it's true Del Potro never had a Masters win, he wasn't far off. He was a tiebreak away from winning against Murray in Canada 2009, and again a tiebreak away from winning in Shanghai 2013.

He was a setup against Rafa at Indian Wells 2013, and maybe a breakup or at least a game up in the second set, before losing, perhaps due to tiredness. He was the best player at that tournament, beating Murray and Djokovic, who you would have judged the two best players on hard court had you judged at that point, in hard fought, high quality matches, while Rafa cruised through easy wins against a below par Federer and Berdych on the other side of the draw leaving himself with just enough energy/fitness and match experience to eek out the final.

He also reached the 2009 WTF finals final and lost that due to tiredness. I think physical fitness has been a factor in him not winning a masters.

Bashing Rafa 6-2 6-2 6-2 at the US Open may have helped him save energy for the Federer final.

He also has 6 masters semis defeats, 7 if we include the WTF so 10/11 semis achieved in total.

His career has merited 1 masters, it just hasn't happened.

Still, with a slam in the cabinet I doubt he is complaining. There was a point in that match against Federer in the US Open 2009, when he was a set and a break behind and you could get 20/1 on him to win the match.

Nore Staat wrote:DP was a clever player.  Check out his time taken between points and it was up there if not greater than Nadal, Murray, Djokovic

Yes, Delpo has always been one of the worst time abusers.  I did not clock him, but my hunch would be that worse than Andy or Novak and comparable to (and maybe even worse than) Rafa.

Federer-Thiem and Del Potro-Kohli semis. Great result for the tournament.

Kohlschreiber the only one cruising through in straight sets, Federer and Thiem both won in tiebreaks and tight 3-setters.

By no means obvious what happens from here in these semis and who wins this.

summerblues wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:DP was a clever player.  Check out his time taken between points and it was up there if not greater than Nadal, Murray, Djokovic

Yes, Delpo has always been one of the worst time abusers.  I did not clock him, but my hunch would be that worse than Andy or Novak and comparable to (and maybe even worse than) Rafa.

Now the above players are being mentioned when it comes to time violation.. yet as I remember at the time of the article by HE (Now a sticky) it was only Rafa under the microscope., I mentioned all the above players at the time but it was only Rafa that was fair game How times change

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on bankro. We could look at every tennis match ad infinitum and put losses down to fatigue but don't. But Murray's successes are given special precedence.

Sure but this was exceptional...4.5hrs...and Federer's level was probably the worst I've ever seen him play in a final. He beat Murray 3-1 a few weeks earlier at the slam...I just don't believe he loses to Murray on grass at that time without something being really amiss. But for sure the games is littered with titles due to the other player being injured, exhausted, whatever...it's life but doesn't make me punch the air and say "well done" to the player who vastly benefits.

It doesnt make you air such posts about any other circumstance though lydian. So where do we stop? And I suppose you dont celebrate or asterisk a win for Rafa if he has beaten a knackered opponent or two on his way to a slam win? Of course not.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It doesnt make you air such posts about any other circumstance though lydian. So where do we stop? And I suppose you dont celebrate or asterisk a win for Rafa if he has beaten a knackered opponent or two on his way to a slam win? Of course not.

This was the same poster that was saying the wind helped Murray when he won the USO - but was put right when others said that it was blowing on both sides of the court!!!

And why not a dicky bird on occasions Murray has gone through a draining five setter of a semi and then lost the slam final?

End of the day the only thing each player is in control of is their own destiny. It is up to each individual player to get through to the final in the best possible shape. If Roger could not put Juan Martin del Potro away sooner then that is his look-out and has sweet FA to do with Andy Murray so I see no need to try to fault or downplay his achievement. And before I get accused of bias that stands for the reverse when Murray runs down energy reserves on matches. You can only blame yourself for not finding a way to get the job done sooner.

Rain delay in Fed-Thiem at one set all.

Bizarre second set. Thiem went up 5:0 only for Fed to get back (Thiem showed some nerves at 5:3 when he opened the game with two doubles). In the TB, Fed then had a MP on his own serve at 7:6 but it was Thiem there who got back.

All in all, very nice: summer, grass, Fed, two SHBHs, what is there not to like?

Please, at IW2013 both Murray and Djoko were playing poorly, that Delpo without his DHBH but just a BH slice could beat both of them! Its not like both of them were in top form. Delpo had no such luck vs Rafa in the final.

Frustrating for Thiem. Just broken for a 4-3 lead and the rain comes down.

Regarding the RF and AM and tiredness and whatever debate.  

A win is a win is a win.  
A lose is a lose is a lose.  

But there are reasons why someone wins and reasons why someone loses.  

When focussing on individuals there is a narrative.  The individual's performances from tournament to tournament from year to year are components of that narrative.  Someone following for example Roger Federer will be able to describe RF's narrative, why he did well in that tournament and not so well in that other tournament.  Similarly someone following Andy Murray will be able to describe AM's narrative from tournament to tournament etc.  

Someone describing the RF narrative is not necessarily knocking another persons achievement and same for someone describing AM's narrative.  They are just presenting the narrative with a focus on one player.

Now with Roger Federer because he wins so often the big tournaments (at least in the past) it is normal to focus on why he didn't win.  With Andy Murray because he loses so often the big tournaments (no disrespect intended) it is fair to focus on why he wins (compared to why he normally loses).  

This simple difference in perspective helps to explain the differences in nature of the comments on these two players even for the completely neutral commentator.

Thank you for your attention.

It becomes different though when 'reasons' are offered as to why Murray won Olympic Gold (Federer fatigue), US Open (wind) and Wimbledon (Djokovic fatigue). All very disingenious especially if other factors in reverse are totally ignored.

This argument is akin to weak era debates as in pointless even going there as they do nobody favours and are impossible to disprove/prove and only serve to discredit players for their achievements. We could go bavk to a time when tennis was played on wood and cite fatigue for player A losing and right through the Open era but we don't so why make exceptions?

Well done Thiem, he recovered from his 2nd set mini-meltdown just in time to save a MP and then win the match in the third.

I am surprised how well he is doing on grass.

Thiem certainly looks a good bet to be a slam winner in the coming years. A strong all-round game and no real discernible weaknesses.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It becomes different though when 'reasons' are offered as to why Murray won Olympic Gold (Federer fatigue), US Open (wind) and Wimbledon (Djokovic fatigue). All very disingenious especially if other factors in reverse are totally ignored.

This argument is akin to weak era debates as in pointless even going there as they do nobody favours and are impossible to disprove/prove and only serve to discredit players for their achievements. We could go bavk to a time when tennis was played on wood and cite fatigue for player A losing and right through the Open era but we don't so why make exceptions?

Not necessarily disingenuous (ie not necessarily intentional) - but I can see that some people explaining why a certain player lost may "overstep the mark" in presenting it as to why the other player won (in an unbalanced perspective).

But even if some of it veers into disingenuous, so what?  Why is the motive of the poster so important?

Suppose someone says "Andy is not good enough to win the big titles without some additional luck".  That seems like a statement that should well belong in a forum like this. I would almost say that one of the reasons for existence of a tennis forum would be to discuss statements just like that one.

One can agree.  Once can disagree.  One can ignore.  But why focus on whether or not the poster who presented it were disingenuous or not?  What does it really matter?

Given we have seen just how hard it is to win big tournaments and events. Perhaps, just perhaps we should give the big wins Murray gets the respect they deserve

Perhaps focus on how well he played to get them, rather than suggest he only got them because of his opponent

The implication of the latter is that Murray didn't deserve those wins based on his own standard. it should be no surprise why that rankles what few fans of Murray there are left here. Such an asterisk on federer wins have historically cause hysterics, so we shouldn't do it to others


Anyone catch the last set? How does Rogers back look? I can't see it here

summerblues wrote:But even if some of it veers into disingenuous, so what?  Why is the motive of the poster so important?

Suppose someone says "Andy is not good enough to win the big titles without some additional luck".  That seems like a statement that should well belong in a forum like this.  I would almost say that one of the reasons for existence of a tennis forum would be to discuss statements just like that one.

One can agree.  Once can disagree.  One can ignore.  But why focus on whether or not the poster who presented it were disingenuous or not?  What does it really matter?

Simple really because I don't see such posts about any other player. Nadal won the US Open in 2010 beating Djokovic who had played a gruelling five set semi compared to straight sets win for Nadal. Never mentioned by anyone and discredited by anyone. Australian Open 2013 and Murray won a five set semi against Federer whilst Djokovic had an easier semi but is this cited as anything other than a bona fide slam wins for Novak or excused away. No and neither should it. Murray's first slam final saw him play on three days on bounce beating Rafa in a semi stretching over two days but do we asterisk Roger's win due to Murray's fatigue. No.

I have the dignity and courtesy to take defeats and wins without excuses or need to belittle but if the gloves come off then I may just need to be a little nastier and less generous as a poster.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Simple really because I don't see such posts about any other player.

But how is this even relevant?  If posters like to pick on Murray, they can pick on Murray.  They do not have to spread their criticism fairly.