Congratulations Tiafoe

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
Tiafoe is wasting a spot in the draw.
Tsitsipas is a real player, with a real future.
Tiafoe is a mental midget, with no future.
Always a shame when Tiafoe wins........you know he's never going to amount to anything....
 

smalahove

Hall of Fame
Tiafoe is wasting a spot in the draw.
Tsitsipas is a real player, with a real future.
Tiafoe is a mental midget, with no future.
Always a shame when Tiafoe wins........you know he's never going to amount to anything....
well, he was the better player today, not only in the score line, so his win was totally deserved. If Tsitsipas can’t muster up better tennis than this, when under pressure in R1, then he’s not the player you think he is .
 

Jonas78

Legend
well, he was the better player today, not only in the score line, so his win was totally deserved. If Tsitsipas can’t muster up better tennis than this, when under pressure in R1, then he’s not the player you think he is .
Tsits is way too hyped. Outside clay his return stats are on par with serve bots. I dont know how much he can improve here either.
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
Well done, big foe.

If you read this sometime, remember the guy in blue pajamas who met you on court in practice session at USO 2017.
Congratulations for the win.
May we ask what were you doing in a blue pajamas in a practice session in the 2017 USO?
 
Tiafoe is wasting a spot in the draw.
Tsitsipas is a real player, with a real future.
Tiafoe is a mental midget, with no future.
Always a shame when Tiafoe wins........you know he's never going to amount to anything....
First time I saw Tiafoe was on a youtube vid in a match in which he looked like he was deliberately tanking it. He was incredibly lethargic, didn't seem to care, basically was just there taking up space. I've since seen him play a few more times and although he has nice groundstrokes, I've been left equally unimpressed.

Then again, my claim to fame was being really good at Activision Tennis on my Atari 2600 so who am I to judge.....
 

Swingmaster

Hall of Fame
First time I saw Tiafoe was on a youtube vid in a match in which he looked like he was deliberately tanking it. He was incredibly lethargic, didn't seem to care, basically was just there taking up space. I've since seen him play a few more times and although he has nice groundstrokes, I've been left equally unimpressed.

Then again, my claim to fame was being really good at Activision Tennis on my Atari 2600 so who am I to judge.....
He always appears to be tanking but I think that's just his natural demeanor. Even when he's winning he gives you the impression that he'd rather be elsewhere. Similar to Kyrgios in that regard, except Kyrgios usually would rather be elsewhere. Tiafoe is always a good sport though. Genuinely congratulates opponents after losing.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Tsisipas was disappointing, after an AO in which he beat Nadal, and a RG in which he scared Djokovic.

I was hoping he'd give us a really exciting semi here against Djokovic.
 

Rafa4LifeEver

Hall of Fame
I bet they all get creepy messages like this often. :-D


But yeah, well deserved win today. Was FOE-nomi-nomi-nal.
Creepy? I'm not sexually interested in him lol, I'm a hetero, gentleman. :-D :-D

I was roaming around and saw him practicing on a practice court.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
Your post makes no sense.
What will Tiafoe ever win?
You really think he's good enough to win a slam?
No.
So its better for Wimbledon if Tsitsipas advances.
Tiafoe is just another Gasquet........a waste of space.

Tsitsipas lost to a player who is a mental midget and has no future
Tsitsipas lost because of Roland Garros, and the mental fatigue that comes with it.
He just needed time to relax, and ease his way into Wimbledon.
 

Jai

Professional
What will Tiafoe ever win?
You really think he's good enough to win a slam?
No.
So its better for Wimbledon if Tsitsipas advances.
Tiafoe is just another Gasquet........a waste of space.


Tsitsipas lost because of Roland Garros, and the mental fatigue that comes with it.
He just needed time to relax, and ease his way into Wimbledon.
What a weird way of looking at things. If who "deserves to win" is based on who has long term potential as a future slam champ, why have 128 player draws at all? Just have the top 8 battle it out from QF onwards. Or maybe max 16 player field. :)

Tsitsipas did not play well enough to advance this time. That's it, end of story for him for this Wimbledon. Saying the guy who beat him did not deserve it doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
What a weird way of looking at things. If who "deserves to win" is based on who has long term potential as a future slam champ, why have 128 player draws at all? Just have the top 8 battle it out from QF onwards.

Tsitsipas did not play well enough to advance this time. That's it, end of story for him for this Wimbledon. Saying the guy who beat him did not deserve it doesn't make any sense.
If a player with NO slam winning potential meets a player with NO slam winning potential........it doesn't matter who wins.
But if a player with NO slam winning potential meets a player with SLAM WINNING POTENTIAL (and in the case of Tsitsipas its immediate slam-winning potential), then you know who should win? The player with a chance of winning the slam....

What is the point of Tiaofoe eliminating Tsitsipas?
All it does is open the draw for a lowly ranked player (whoever beats Tiafoe in the next match or two) to make the QF and weaken the draw dramatically....

Do you want the slam to be weak?
I'm no Tsitsipas fan........but I don't want this slam to be weak.
Tiafoe = WEAK.
 

Jai

Professional
If a player with NO slam winning potential meets a player with NO slam winning potential........it doesn't matter who wins.
But if a player with NO slam winning potential meets a player with SLAM WINNING POTENTIAL (and in the case of Tsitsipas its immediate slam-winning potential), then you know who should win? The player with a chance of winning the slam....

What is the point of Tiaofoe eliminating Tsitsipas?
All it does is open the draw for a lowly ranked player (whoever beats Tiafoe in the next match or two) to make the QF and weaken the draw dramatically....

Do you want the slam to be weak?
I'm no Tsitsipas fan........but I don't want this slam to be weak.
Tiafoe = WEAK.
"What is the point of Tiaofoe eliminating Tsitsipas?" - he played better than Tsitsi did on that day, and so eliminated him. That's the point. :) Tsitsi is not "owed" the victory if he doesn't play well enough to win.

IMO, there is no logic in saying that the player who has the potential to win a slam "deserves to win" a match. If he didn't play well enough to win, he didn't "deserve" to win. I might even kinda agree if it was a close 5 setter, with Tsits serving for the match or having MP and then losing (kind of like his loss to Borna at USO last year). But with this straight set loss, how can one even make a case that he deserved to win?
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
"What is the point of Tiaofoe eliminating Tsitsipas?" - he played better than Tsitsi did on that day, and so eliminated him. That's the point. :) Tsitsi is not "owed" the victory if he doesn't play well enough to win.

IMO, there is no logic in saying that the player who has the potential to win a slam "deserves to win" a match. If he didn't play well enough to win, he didn't "deserve" to win. I might even kinda agree if it was a close 5 setter, with Tsits serving for the match or having MP and then losing (kind of like his loss to Borna at USO last year). But with this straight set loss, how can one even make a case that he deserved to win?
Deserves to win?
"Deserves" is your word, not mine.
This is the biggest problem with internet forums.
Most people can't read....
I'm not talking about who deserves to win, I'm saying the tournament suffers when Tiafoe beats Tsitsipas.
The tournament is now WEAKER, because the draw has become very soft in this section.
 

Jai

Professional
Deserves to win?
"Deserves" is your word, not mine.
This is the biggest problem with internet forums.
Most people can't read....
I'm not talking about who deserves to win, I'm saying the tournament suffers when Tiafoe beats Tsitsipas.
The tournament is now WEAKER, because the draw has become very soft in this section.
:) I am sorry I said "deserves", to paraphrase your sentence that it was a shame that Tiafoe won, that there was no point in him defeating Tsitsipas, and that Tsitsipas should have won. :-D

Let's eliminate the word "deserves", OK? I still say the same thing - saying that Tsitsipas should have won, as he is the one with immediate potential to win a slam whereas Tiafoe doesn't; and that there was no point in Tiafoe defeating Tsits, makes NO sense. Tsits didn't play well enough to win. That's on him, not anyone else. He is not owed a victory if he doesn't perform well enough to win. If thereby he loses, so be it.
 
Last edited:

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
I am so sorry I said "deserves", to paraphrase your sentence that it was a shame that Tiafoe won, that there was no point in him defeating Tsitsipas, and that Tsitsipas should have won. :)

Let's eliminate the word "deserves", OK? I still say the same thing - saying that Tsitsipas should have won, as he is the one with immediate potential to win a slam whereas Tiafoe doesn't; and that there was no point in Tiafoe defeating Tsits, makes NO sense. Tsits didn't play well enough to win. That's on him, not anyone else. He is not owed a victory if he doesn't perform well enough to win. If thereby he loses, so be it.
But what is the point of Tiafoe beating Tsitsipas if Tiafoe is not a contender for the title?
Why do we want a weak player in the QF or SF?
They get too nervous on big occasions and play really bad tennis when it matters most.......and then we get a lopsided SF and its bad for the tournament.
 

Jai

Professional
But what is the point of Tiafoe beating Tsitsipas if Tiafoe is not a contender for the title?
Why do we want a weak player in the QF or SF?
:rolleyes: there would be no sport if we applied this false standard. The point of Tiafoe beating Tsitsipas is, simply, that he played better than him on that day. That's it. No more point is needed. Besides, the version of Tsitsipas who played yesterday would have been a "weak player" in the QF or SF anyway. So one could even say, what would be the point in saying Tiafoe's win had no point? :)
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
:rolleyes: there would be no sport if we applied this false standard. The point of Tiafoe beating Tsitsipas is, simply, that he played better than him on that day. That's it. No more point is needed. Besides, the version of Tsitsipas who played yesterday would have been a "weak player" in the QF or SF anyway. So one could even say, what would be the point in saying Tiafoe's win had no point? :)
So you are indicating that if Tsitsipas plays 5 matches at Wimbledon, his level of tennis will be identical in the 1st Round to his level in the QF?
You are brand new to tennis........if you think everyone peaks in the 1st Round.
And especially in this case........because Tsitsipas played the full 2 weeks at Roland Garros and did not play on grass at all........while Tiafoe had the opposite preparation and played 9 matches on grass....
 

Jai

Professional
So you are indicating that if Tsitsipas plays 5 matches at Wimbledon, his level of tennis will be identical in the 1st Round to his level in the QF?
You are brand new to tennis........if you think everyone peaks in the 1st Round.
And especially in this case........because Tsitsipas played the full 2 weeks at Roland Garros and needs time to adjust to grass........while Tiafoe had the opposite preparation....
Sigh. I am pointing out the fallacy of your statement, that's it. You are going on and on how Tiafoe beating Tsitsipas has no point. All I'm saying is, this statement makes no sense because if Tsits didn't play well enough to win that match, then that is the whole point of the loss. He wasn't good enough to win. :)

As to how he could have performed in a hypothetical QF or SF, how can we know? He may well have played better than Round 1, not saying no. BUT all I'm saying is, he did not play well enough to progress. That's it, end of story for him this Wimbledon.

I get the sense we are talking past each other at this point, so let's drop it. Tsits has already underperformed and lost, beating around the bush further on this topic is not my cup of tea :)
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
Sigh. I am pointing out the fallacy of your statement, that's it. You are going on and on how Tiafoe beating Tsitsipas has no point. All I'm saying is, this statement makes no sense because if Tsits didn't play well enough to win that match, then that is the whole point of the loss. He wasn't good enough to win. :)

As to how he could have performed in a hypothetical QF or SF, how can we know? He may well have played better than Round 1, not saying no. BUT all I'm saying is, he did not play well enough to progress. That's it, end of story for him this Wimbledon.

I get the sense we are talking past each other at this point, so let's drop it. Tsits has already underperformed and lost, beating around the bush further on this topic is not my cup of tea :)
As I said from the very beginning, "So its better for Wimbledon if Tsitsipas advances".......And that is not up for debate.
Nobody can logically say Wimbledon benefits from Tiafoe advancing and seriously weakening an entire quarter of the draw.
You simply have no sound argument........and you keep getting stuck on who deserved to win the match....
 

bnjkn

Semi-Pro
Tiafoe did not allow Tsitsipas to adjust properly for grass. Hypothetical-Tsitsipas is at least a quarterfinalist at W21.
 

Jai

Professional
As I said from the very beginning, "So its better for Wimbledon if Tsitsipas advances".......And that is not up for debate.
Nobody can logically say Wimbledon benefits from Tiafoe advancing and seriously weakening an entire quarter of the draw.
You simply have no sound argument........and you keep getting stuck on who deserved to win the match....
This is from your post above on this topic. "Always a shame when Tiafoe wins........you know he's never going to amount to anything...."

I don't agree with this at all, which is what I'm saying. It isn't a shame he won yesterday, it's on Tsits that he could not bring his game to bear. The way you are phrasing your argument does not seem very valid to me. If it does to you, it's OK. Whatever works for you. :)
 
Last edited:

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Tiafoe is wasting a spot in the draw.
Tsitsipas is a real player, with a real future.
Tiafoe is a mental midget, with no future.
Always a shame when Tiafoe wins........you know he's never going to amount to anything....
Do agree that Tsitsipas had a much better chance of going deep... This is a HUGE break for Djoker.
One of his two top threats is already OUT in Round One. Now leaves Medvedev.
Followed by ... Federer. :rolleyes:
What a weak pathetic draw!



upload from web
 
Last edited:

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
If a player with NO slam winning potential meets a player with NO slam winning potential........it doesn't matter who wins.
But if a player with NO slam winning potential meets a player with SLAM WINNING POTENTIAL (and in the case of Tsitsipas its immediate slam-winning potential), then you know who should win? The player with a chance of winning the slam....

What is the point of Tiaofoe eliminating Tsitsipas?
All it does is open the draw for a lowly ranked player (whoever beats Tiafoe in the next match or two) to make the QF and weaken the draw dramatically....

Do you want the slam to be weak?
I'm no Tsitsipas fan........but I don't want this slam to be weak.
Tiafoe = WEAK.
lol
are you still upset about all those Nadal losses in early rounds?
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
But what is the point of Tiafoe beating Tsitsipas if Tiafoe is not a contender for the title?
Why do we want a weak player in the QF or SF?
They get too nervous on big occasions and play really bad tennis when it matters most.......and then we get a lopsided SF and its bad for the tournament.
so letting Tsitsipas to start the tournament straight from SF would be good for the tournament?
 
Top