Wimbledon 2016 - Day 7

First topic message reminder :

Schedule - http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/schedule/index.html

Live Scores - http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/index.html

Good to see new faces - Johnson, Vesley, Pouille, Mahut.

MoTD - Kyrgios v Murray (IMVHO).

Kyrgios breaks at the start of the 4th with more breathtaking tennis. This match is done. Looks like he should be fairly fresh for tomorrow as well. Obviously a very different challenge but the way he is playing he's going to be a serious danger to Andy.

It will be a good match at least. Nicks temper is still his serious problem, his baselining will be put to a much sterner test though

I'd give him less than 20% chance of beating Murray.

Murray will get so many balls back and frustrate him. He'll eventually implode.

Good win for Kyrgios. Tennis level he looks ready to challenge Andy and he's battle-hardened, whereas Andy hasn't yet faced anyone even slightly challenging. Murray slight favourite but I'd make it about 55-45.

BS, I see you brought out heavy jinxing artillery today. I suppose Nole's loss yesterday gave Andy hopes that now need to be protected?

Lol - if I was jinxing I would be saying Kyrgios was favourite. He isn't but this is still probably the second and third most likely players to take the title facing off in R4. It's a tough one to call as Kyrgios is so hard to break on grass and has enough game to grab a break a set. He's basically Raonic with talent. 

I thought he played extremely well today and showed a lot of maturity to choose the correct strategy to beat the tricky Lopez. The only negative was that he looked nervy at the end and got very lucky to hit the very edge of the line with a Russian roulette second serve at break point down. Oddly the commentators I was listening too were also saying how well he played. I think you have very unrealistic expectations if you expect a better display than that.

Born Slippy wrote:the second and third most likely players to take the title

Cute.

2nd and 4th on the odds I grant you but, obviously, Milos is being overrated.

My reference was to the "second" part, not the "third" part.

Who is "first" if not Andy?  Roger?  Certainly not with bookies.

That's quite funny. I'd just assumed Fed was favourite. Bookmakers have that wrong I think.

Anyway, hope you are right and it's an easy title for Andy. It really is ludicrous that he only has two slam titles.

Vesely playing very good tennis. Totally bullying the higher ranked Sousa. Really backing up his win over Thiem.

Born Slippy wrote:... It really is ludicrous that he only has two slam titles.

That is where the problem arises.

Some say it is Murrays fault either citing mental frailties or lack of on court focus due to his on court behaviour or being too passive or lack of technical ability in key areas or lack of power in the forehand ... others say the fault lies not with Murray but with the era being too strong with all time greats dominating the scene.

Take your pick. Same result but with different explanations. People end up arguing over different explanations for the same set of results, while the world continues to revolve.

Kyrgios today looked good - and, more importantly, seemed to have his sensible head on for once. Even agreed, in his post-match interview, that the umpire was right to cuation him for slow play (on match point).
Andy has had Nick's measure at a number of GS, but if the Aussie plays well and Andy is a bit off, then a Kyrgios win is possible.
First time I've really seen Zverev today. Lots of raw talent, with the emphasis on the raw.

Yeah, you watch Berdych play like that, and it's hard to believe it's the same guy who is made to look so average by the big 4. When he's allowed to play, he looks phenomenal.

emancipator wrote:Completely disagree HB, I think both Novak and Roger would take a slam over OG. As a tennis player slams are the hard currency. It's the only thing people remember many years down the line when all is said and done. They're playing for legacy and in that regard an OG means diddly squat.

An Olympic Gold, means that they match the achievements of Rafa and Andre Agassi. Without it they don't

You can argue until you're blue in the face that Slams are more important, no-one will argue with you. However, either you're taking no notice of what these two see as priority or simply ignoring it, if you don't think that this year the Olympic Gold will have more importance for them than the US Open

I think you also forget that in terms of legacy, nothing enhances a reputation than winning an event that is watched by billions of others, simply because it's part of The Olympics

For Andy and Rafa, they'd take the US Open any day

sirfredperry wrote:Didn't Marc Rosset get Olympic Gold. Doubt many remember that, yet the same people would recall if he'd won a Slam.

That's not the point.

The point is that as soon as Roger (quickly followed by Novak and then Andy) declared how important Olympic Gold was to him in 2012, it immediately gets elevated in value.

We on these boards, might geekily point out that a slam is worth more, but Roger and Novak are beyond slams - they want anything that helps them been seen as the best ever and Olympic Gold is now part of that conversation

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:the second and third most likely players to take the title

Cute.

Indeed.. and this is the guy that claimed Federer played his best ever W match last year to beat Murray in the semi and yet the lame version, off tour for five months, losing to greenhorns on grass, is apparently the clear favourite this year

Something doesn't add up.

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Completely disagree HB, I think both Novak and Roger would take a slam over OG. As a tennis player slams are the hard currency. It's the only thing people remember many years down the line when all is said and done. They're playing for legacy and in that regard an OG means diddly squat.

An Olympic Gold, means that they match the achievements of Rafa and Andre Agassi. Without it they don't

You can argue until you're blue in the face that Slams are more important, no-one will argue with you. However, either you're taking no notice of what these two see as priority or simply ignoring it, if you don't think that this year the Olympic Gold will have more importance for them than the US Open

I think you also forget that in terms of legacy, nothing enhances a reputation than winning an event that is watched by billions of others, simply because it's part of The Olympics

For Andy and Rafa, they'd take the US Open any day

Somehow I don't think either of them will be losing any sleep over this.

The OG was a big deal in the media when Rafa was making a big challenge for GOAT bolstered by his fans who needed something to narrow the gap with Federer. Now that his challenge has petered out the 'importance' of that OG has too. I'm pretty sure it's importance in terms of tennis legacy will continue to diminish with time.

Nore Staat wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:... It really is ludicrous that he only has two slam titles.

That is where the problem arises.  

Some say it is Murrays fault either citing mental frailties or lack of on court focus due to his on court behaviour or being too passive or lack of technical ability in key areas or lack of power in the forehand ... others say the fault lies not with Murray but with the era being too strong with all time greats dominating the scene.

Take your pick.  Same result but with different explanations.  People end up arguing over different explanations for the same set of results, while the world continues to revolve.

NS

I'm not sure it's an either/or, more a bit of both - Andy has lots of good elements to his game, but compared with Fed and Rafa in particular his forehand isn't outstanding, while he doesn't have the machine-like consistency and intensity of Rafa and Novak at their best. Basically, he isn't quite as good a player as a serious GOAT contender, the clay court GOAT and a guy who is now clearly considered in the higher echelons of the all time greats. Is two slams an under-achievement? Well, from 19 slam semi finals and 10 slam finals, it certainly is a poor return, but as has been mentioned before, his slam final record is 2-5 against Novak and 0-3 against Federer, so it's not as though he's had easy opposition at the business end of the slams.

Born Slippy wrote:Anyway, hope you are right and it's an easy title for Andy.

I would not go as far as to say easy title for Andy.

Bookies have him at about even odds to win the whole thing, which I think is giving him too much of a chance.  To me he is clearly the biggest favorite now (and well ahead of Federer), but even odds against the field is too much.

Also, I do not think the match against Kyrgios will be easy.  I think Kyrgios has a very realistic chance to win - just not 45% chance.  I would say 25-30%, which I think is very very good for a 4th round opponent.  Looking at bookies' numbers, it seems they see it more like 20% (i.e., closer to what eman was suggesting).

I do wonder if Andy may now find matches against the second tier guys like Berdych, Tsonga, or even Gasquet, more difficult.  In the past, when they met him, they would know that even if they somehow beat him, they would quite likely have to play two more even more difficult opponents to win the title, and that may have been disheartening.  But now, with Rafa and Nole gone, and Fed seemingly well below par, they may feel that beating Andy will give them a realistic chance to go all the way, so he may find they all of a sudden have more fight than in the past.

Nore Staat wrote:Same result but with different explanations.  People end up arguing over different explanations for the same set of results, while the world continues to revolve.

What are we saying here?  That no matter how much we talk on the forum, we will not talk another few slam titles out of it for Andy?  I imagine most posters here are vaguely aware of that.

I thought the purpose of a tennis forum was to have idle talk on all things tennis while the world continues to revolve.  Was I wrong all along?

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Anyway, hope you are right and it's an easy title for Andy.

I would not go as far as to say easy title for Andy.

Bookies have him at about even odds to win the whole thing, which I think is giving him too much of a chance.  To me he is clearly the biggest favorite now (and well ahead of Federer), but even odds against the field is too much.

Also, I do not think the match against Kyrgios will be easy.  I think Kyrgios has a very realistic chance to win - just not 45% chance.  I would say 25-30%, which I think is very very good for a 4th round opponent.  Looking at bookies' numbers, it seems they see it more like 20% (i.e., closer to what eman was suggesting).

I do wonder if Andy may now find matches against the second tier guys like Berdych, Tsonga, or even Gasquet, more difficult.  In the past, when they met him, they would know that even if they somehow beat him, they would quite likely have to play two more even more difficult opponents to win the title, and that may have been disheartening.  But now, with Rafa and Nole gone, and Fed seemingly well below par, they may feel that beating Andy will give them a realistic chance to go all the way, so he may find they all of a sudden have more fight than in the past.

Think it has to be taken round by round. That is I would say that Federer has a better chance of beating Johnson tomorrow than Murray to beat Kyrgios. If both win then I feel that Murray would then look to have the easier path. Can't see Tsonga beating Gasquet tomorrow after the long match today.

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Completely disagree HB, I think both Novak and Roger would take a slam over OG. As a tennis player slams are the hard currency. It's the only thing people remember many years down the line when all is said and done. They're playing for legacy and in that regard an OG means diddly squat.

An Olympic Gold, means that they match the achievements of Rafa and Andre Agassi. Without it they don't

You can argue until you're blue in the face that Slams are more important, no-one will argue with you. However, either you're taking no notice of what these two see as priority or simply ignoring it, if you don't think that this year the Olympic Gold will have more importance for them than the US Open

I think you also forget that in terms of legacy, nothing enhances a reputation than winning an event that is watched by billions of others, simply because it's part of The Olympics

For Andy and Rafa, they'd take the US Open any day

Oh you couldn't be more wrong in Rafa's case...

https://rafaelnadalfans.com/2016/05/26/rafael-nadal-cant-understand-players-who-dont-want-to-go-to-olympics-rio-2016/

Rafa will give his back teeth to be in Rio this year !! he is Spain's flag bearer .. and is so honoured

summerblues wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Same result but with different explanations.  People end up arguing over different explanations for the same set of results, while the world continues to revolve.

What are we saying here?  That no matter how much we talk on the forum, we will not talk another few slam titles out of it for Andy?  I imagine most posters here are vaguely aware of that.

I thought the purpose of a tennis forum was to have idle talk on all things tennis while the world continues to revolve.  Was I wrong all along?

The way I see it this forum has recently lost a few more members due to issues pertaining to overheated positioning on the explanation front.  Some tend to overheat more than others.  As Henman Bill recently remarked on the first page of this thread one needs to avoid a situation.  So my comment was intended as a cautionary tale making use of something bornslippy said.

Nore Staat wrote:So my comment was intended as a cautionary tale

..which in turn struck me as somewhat patronizing so I pushed back a little - all in good humor though.  Happy to agree we see it differently, and leave it at that.

Iceland

Calder106 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Anyway, hope you are right and it's an easy title for Andy.

I would not go as far as to say easy title for Andy.

Bookies have him at about even odds to win the whole thing, which I think is giving him too much of a chance.  To me he is clearly the biggest favorite now (and well ahead of Federer), but even odds against the field is too much.

Also, I do not think the match against Kyrgios will be easy.  I think Kyrgios has a very realistic chance to win - just not 45% chance.  I would say 25-30%, which I think is very very good for a 4th round opponent.  Looking at bookies' numbers, it seems they see it more like 20% (i.e., closer to what eman was suggesting).

I do wonder if Andy may now find matches against the second tier guys like Berdych, Tsonga, or even Gasquet, more difficult.  In the past, when they met him, they would know that even if they somehow beat him, they would quite likely have to play two more even more difficult opponents to win the title, and that may have been disheartening.  But now, with Rafa and Nole gone, and Fed seemingly well below par, they may feel that beating Andy will give them a realistic chance to go all the way, so he may find they all of a sudden have more fight than in the past.

Think it has to be taken round by round. That is I would say that Federer has a better chance of beating Johnson tomorrow than Murray to beat Kyrgios. If both win then I feel that Murray would then look to have the easier path. Can't see Tsonga beating Gasquet tomorrow after the long match today.

I would concur with this.

Murray has a much tougher 4rth rd opponent but after that he really shouldn't lose before the final, particularly as Tsonga has just played a long five setter.

Federer should win handily tomorrow but beyond that is anyone's guess and potentially he could lose to any of Cilic, Nishikori or Raonic.

In a potential final between Murray and Fed - the former has to start as a clear favourite. I don't think Fed has the fitness to go beyond three long sets with Murray given the nature of the rallies that are likely to form the bulk of the points.

Either way, should be fun.

summerblues wrote:... Iceland

Let's not forget Hodgson's stated commitment to attacking football At least Iceland have decided to try and score a few goals for the record (5-1 now).

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Anyway, hope you are right and it's an easy title for Andy.

I would not go as far as to say easy title for Andy.

Bookies have him at about even odds to win the whole thing, which I think is giving him too much of a chance.  To me he is clearly the biggest favorite now (and well ahead of Federer), but even odds against the field is too much.

Also, I do not think the match against Kyrgios will be easy.  I think Kyrgios has a very realistic chance to win - just not 45% chance.  I would say 25-30%, which I think is very very good for a 4th round opponent.  Looking at bookies' numbers, it seems they see it more like 20% (i.e., closer to what eman was suggesting).

I do wonder if Andy may now find matches against the second tier guys like Berdych, Tsonga, or even Gasquet, more difficult.  In the past, when they met him, they would know that even if they somehow beat him, they would quite likely have to play two more even more difficult opponents to win the title, and that may have been disheartening.  But now, with Rafa and Nole gone, and Fed seemingly well below par, they may feel that beating Andy will give them a realistic chance to go all the way, so he may find they all of a sudden have more fight than in the past.

I agree he's being overrated. I don't think he's well ahead of Fed though. Ultimately if they play in the final (which has to be the most likely outcome) then Fed has won the last 5 matches. At best, I'd have them about level and with Murray facing Kyrgios next I think Fed should be the current favourite.

Johnson was good v Dimi and could cause probs for Fed. I doubt whether Kyrgios will play as well today as he did yesterday, nor if he will be allowed to. JWT can beat Gasquet despite the long Isner match yesterday.
Raonic should be too much for Goffin. Cilic-Nishi? Toss a coin. Berdych should win. Wonder if Querrey will go the way of so many who have beaten a big player in one round by succumbing in the next. Been a big emotional weekend for the American, and Mahut is no mug on grass.

Born Slippy wrote:

............................................

.....................................

I agree he's being overrated. I don't think he's well ahead of Fed though. Ultimately if they play in the final (which has to be the most likely outcome) then Fed has won the last 5 matches. At best, I'd have them about level and with Murray facing Kyrgios next I think Fed should be the current favourite.

Ah but when Federer won those clashes, he was in far better shape.

Coming into this Wimbledon, he looks - based on his showings so far against fairly low-ranked opposition (in one case, very low) - to be seriously under-cooked. He should be too strong for Johnson, but after that ...hmm.... could easily go out.

Murray meanwhile, with Ivan courtside once again, does look very determined, and very solid when it comes to getting the job done.

JWT can blow almost anyone off the court when everything clicks for him. He will be hugely motivated after yesterday.

I have to say I've only seen him against Evans and thought he looked pretty good in that match - far better than in the warm ups. Of course, there is more risk this year but I still think someone will need to play an exceptional match to beat him before the final.

sirfredperry wrote:Johnson was good v Dimi and could cause probs for Fed. I doubt whether Kyrgios will play as well today as he did yesterday, nor if he will be allowed to. JWT can beat Gasquet despite the long Isner match yesterday.
   Raonic should be too much for Goffin. Cilic-Nishi? Toss a coin. Berdych should win. Wonder if Querrey will go the way of so many who have beaten a big player in one round by succumbing in the next. Been a big emotional weekend for the American, and Mahut is no mug on grass.  

I'm glad someone else thought Kyrgios played well yesterday! I was wondering if SB and I were even watching the same match. He showed a lot of maturity in how he played. Whether that's enough to beat Murray is debatable but, with Murray possibly being a little under-cooked and favourite for a slam for the first time, we don't quite know how they will both react. Very intriguing match.

Love second Monday at Wimbledon.  Quite a few good matches.  My predictions:

Mahut
Raonic
Federer
Cilic
Berdych
Tomic
Tsonga
Murray

Fed just looks so rusty, 2 BPs faced already

Johnson settles well in this opener. Hitting freely, and looks good.

Could prove a proper test for Fed if he can keep it going at this level. Lots of UE's already from the maestro.

Fed holds but boy that was a poor service game.  Luckily he was able to produce a few good first serves when needed.

I see Nishi down 0:5 already.

johnson's bh is poor, 3 sets fed

That's more like it.

summerblues wrote:Love second Monday at Wimbledon.  Quite a few good matches.  My predictions:

Mahut
Raonic
Federer
Cilic
Berdych
Tomic
Tsonga
Murray

Mine:

Mahut
Raonic
Federer
Cilic
Vesely
Tomic
Gasquet
Murray

Vesely beating Berdych, mhmm?  I would take it but do not see it.

Gasquet vs Tsonga was maybe the hardest one for me to decide - I can certainly see how Gasquet could win.

Guest82 wrote:

summerblues wrote:Love second Monday at Wimbledon.  Quite a few good matches.  My predictions:

Mahut
Raonic
Federer
Cilic
Berdych
Tomic
Tsonga
Murray

Mine:

Mahut
Raonic
Federer
Cilic
Vesely
Tomic
Gasquet
Murray

querrey
goffin
fed
nishi
berdych
tomic
gasquet
murray

summerblues wrote:Vesely beating Berdych, mhmm?  I would take it but do not see it.

Gasquet vs Tsonga was maybe the hardest one for me to decide - I can certainly see how Gasquet could win.

tsonga will be knackered

Federer starting to look sharper now this last game.

He has also had an excellent draw the first four rounds.

summerblues wrote:Vesely beating Berdych, mhmm?  I would take it but do not see it.

Gasquet vs Tsonga was maybe the hardest one for me to decide - I can certainly see how Gasquet could win.

I have a feeling about Vesely, he's just creeping through the draw and playing decent stuff. Also, think Berdych is there for the taking. One of Berdych, Vesely, Tomic and Pouille is going to be in the semi-final...hmm.

I'd make Gasquet v Tsonga a 50/50 all things being equal. Just think yesterday may tip it in Gasquets favour.

Nishi losing to Cilic on grass is no surprise. Cilic is much the more dangerous opponent for Fed in this surface

Nishikori injured by the sounds of things.

Yes, Federer a little sharper now.

One key stat that will help him feel more at ease : his first serve was at 79% in that opening set. That's close to double what it was in a previous round opener (IIRC v Wiilis) when it dropped to a dismal 42%

Cilic will be a serious obstacle for the Fed, no doubt.

This is now looking good for Fed - he is up a set and a break, and even playing reasonably well.

This will be his 4th unseeded opponent I think. This should be extremely simple. How well will his play look if somebody seeded pushes him. Somewhat of an annoyance that we can't really tell what rogers like till the quarters

Ah that's a Shame. Nishi retires. Given the ease the fed match looks it's a pair of matches with not much to bite into start super Monday