Search results

People who pretend to be objective are the worst. (I'm not referring to Agassi).

Djokovic hasn't won his quarterfinal yet. Thiem might not need to beat Djokodal back to back.

Not for smashing the racquet, but for doing it on the umpire's chair. I know there was no intention to actually hurt the umpire but it was still a physical threat.

Unlucky to lose the point but I feel Pliskova should get banned for her reaction at the end.

I'm not even sure about Wimbledon. His baseline play wasn't very good at all vs Berdych. Cilic had a meltdown in the final so its hard to gauge his level there.

His ranking fell in 2003 but he had completely recovered by 2004/2005, only the eventual champions stopped him in all 7 slams he played in this period.

We often say that certain players have better backhands then forehands, for example Gasquet, Murray, Wawrinka etc. And often it's true in the sense that their backhands relative to the tour are better compared to their forehands relative to the tour. But if we compare their forehands and...

Raonic deserves to win Wimbledon.

Of the names on that list, he was only knocked out by Courier (twice) and Kuerten. And the issue was that he seldom even made it to the QFs.

I didn't watch the Next Gen finals last year but how did it work? A poster above has suggested that format could be a compromise, what do folks feel about it?

I don't want to deny the fact that surfaces were a lot distinct in the 90s but lesser players than Nadal have managed to do well both on clay and fast grass. Courier won FO and reached Wimbledon final, Stich won W and reached FO final, etc. Pretty much every all time great has done well on all...

I suspect that if at the start of competitive tennis, if the courts were as slow as they are now and players already had modern racquets, best of five would not have a thing.

Muster had generally a great record on clay in the 90s, winning a total of 6 masters series and numerous other titles. He of course, won the French Open in 1995. I have a question though, why is his record at Roland Garros otherwise so underwhelming? Outside of his one title win, he made one...

Dunno, Philipoussis had beaten Sampras in a Grand Slam before. But Sampras had successfully come from a set down plenty of times.

Clay is actually the surface which requires the most net ability. On faster surfaces, it is too serve dominated and the point often ends there. Serve and volley often devolves into just serve. But playing on clay is all about constructing points, and this often involves picking the right moment...

He was even injured during Wimbledon 2012, at least in the early rounds.

None of these are particularly controversial.

Yes, without injuries, he would have won: AO 2006 USO 2007 FO 2009 W 2009 USO 2009 AO 2010 AO 2011 W 2012 USO 2012 AO 2013 AO 2014 USO 2014 FO 2016 AO 2018 Truly the most unlucky player of all time, he should be sitting on 30 slams right now.

He looked OK at the Australian Open, and that was after an even longer lay off. He probably won't be ready to win but I don't see him just losing to any random guy either.

He should have taken a set as it was. 40-15 up while serving for the first set.

Wait, is Lew the same as Spencer Gore? I don't think Spencer got banned so why not carry on using that account in that case?

An extremely tedious and nasty troll. He still posts on MTF if for whatever reason, one wants to experience him.

By the way what happened to Serena in the mid 2000s or so when she should have been in her prime? It seems a large part of her slams came when she was very young and after she turned 30. Why did she win so few from around 2003-2006?

"Tilden was arrested in November 1946 on Sunset Boulevard by the Beverly Hills police and charged with a misdemeanor ("contributing to the delinquency of a minor") for soliciting an underage male, a 14-year-old boy with whom he was having sex in a moving vehicle. Tilden did not carry his glasses...

It's interesting how players playing at a high level in the past wasn't that uncommon in the early days of the open era (Laver/Rosewall, even Gimeno). Then for the next few decades, tennis seemed to become a really young sport, with players declining by 26/27. McEnroe, Wilander, Borg all won...

Edit: Double post.

That would be true for most of them up to 1983 or so. But the fields when Laver won in 69 and Rosewall in 71 were pretty strong. And Rosewall has won 2 prestigious WCT finals in his 30s.

That Berdych loss though..... I know Australia is his worst slam but that loss is a bit discouraging.

I'd say 4th round or so. Feels like he has better chances at Wimbledon and New York.

A question for Federer fans, would you take Monte Carlo, Rome and the Olympics over a single Grand Slam?