Djokovic (1) vs Nishikori (6) - 2016 Rome Masters semifinal

[Meles]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq066-sAEW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x06zG-FODxo

Dude, Nalbandian was no pushover.

Get real. The guy made one slam final. Nishikori if he keeps up his recent play and health is in route to eclipse Nalbandian.

Nalbandian is better than Murray?

I will watch these avidly since you've posted them, so I can fully appreciate Nalbandian, a player I sadly saw little of because more of just a slam watcher back then.

 

[tennis_pro]

Get real. The guy made one slam final. Nishikori if he keeps up his recent play and health is in route to eclipse Nalbandian.

I doubt it. This even considering Nalbandian heavily underachieved in his career. There is almost 0 chance of Nishikori winning more than 1 WTF + 2 MS in his career.

Nalbandian is better than Murray?

When did I say Nalbandian was better than Murray? I replied to you mocking him for being a weakling which clearly he was not. Federer hardly had an easy match with him.

 

[cc0509]

Yeah it happened again with the DF, etc. in the tiebreaker, but look at the broken string incident in the match. Nishikori let that disrupt him on his first break opportunity, but he still came back to break. Ninja is learning. He is in top form right now. He improved what he did versus Madrid and many would say that Madrid was a more favorable surface for Nishikori. Many said Nishikori would not compete well at Rome and French Open because not his best clay surface. The progress is amazing. Ninja may yet put a throwing star in the neck of someone's French Open hopes.

Nah. I don't think Nishikori will be the one to spoil Djokovic's FO dreams after that dejection from the Rome loss. Nishikori was so close but imploded in the tiebreaker. That will probably be a scarring loss for him moving forward for a while. I'm not sure how far he will get at the FO, we'll need to see his draw.

 

[mightyrick]

You are comparing apples and oranges talking Laver. Sampras vs Agassi was a horrible rivalry. I'd take Murray vs Djokovic any day where Murray likely has the advantage on grass and is very close on clay. A lot of really bad Sampras vs Agassi matches. Murray is uncompetitive on hard courts versus Djokovic, but at least he stole the 2012 US Open. Refresh my memory if Agassi ever had such a glorious victory over Sampras.

What are you on about? Sampras/Agassi head-to-head was at 20-14. You think that was horrible? That's 58% versus 48%. That rivalry was EXCELLENT. It was awesome every time they took the court. The entire tennis world sizzled because you never knew what would happen. Both played peak to peak. And Laver/Rosewall is not apples to oranges. It is great rivalries we are talking about. Laver/Rosewall is probably one of the top three of all time.

You know what the Djokovic/Murray head-to-head is? Of course you do. 23-9. And for their last twelve meetings? 1-12. That is not a rivalry. That is a guy at peak who has no competition and is slaughtering Murray.

Actually as far as fields, this is incorrect as Federer likely would have won the last three majors without Djokovic around.

And you think this speaks well of the field? You actually believe that at 35 years old, Djokovic is going to be in better form than he is now?

Murray is exceptional on grass and now clay. The clay field is off the chart this year. Djokovic could be taken down by Nadal, Nishikori, Murray, or possibly Thiem on clay. We are seeing this depth of field in Rome.

Oh really? In what universe do you possibly see this happening? You actually think Thiem could take out Djokovic on clay? LOL. My god, you are nuts.

Djokovic may have been a bit lucky in parts of 2015, but he has been in supreme form that boggles the imagination since the US Open.

Actually, his supreme form doesn't boggle the imagination. Any more than Federer's did. Any more than Sampras' did. Any more than Connors' did. Supreme form is expected from a peak all-time-great.

The thing that boggles the mind is how much the current field and tennis generation sucks.

 

[cc0509]

Murray is exceptional on grass and now clay. The clay field is off the chart this year. Djokovic could be taken down by Nadal, Nishikori, Murray, or possibly Thiem on clay. We are seeing this depth of field in Rome.

Are you on drugs?

The clay field is off the charts? Not in this universe.

Djokovic won't be taken down at the FO by a mentally dejected Nishikori after that Rome fiasco and Thiem isn't good enough yet to sniff Djokovic's jockstrap. Stop it already!

 

[tennis_pro]

I will watch these avidly since you've posted them, so I can fully appreciate Nalbandian, a player I sadly saw little of because more of just a slam watcher back then.

The problem with Nalbandian is that he didn't put his heart into the sport, was inconsistent, had fitness issues (especially after 2006) and was a bit of a choker.

But when he was on (and he often was against Federer which is the point of this discussion) he was absolutely devastating. One of the best backhands ever.

 

[gn]

Nah. I don't think Nishikori will be the one to spoil Djokovic's FO dreams after that dejection from the Rome loss. Nishikori was so close but imploded in the tiebreaker. That will probably be a scarring loss for him moving forward for a while. I'm not sure how far he will get at the FO, we'll need to see his draw.

I guess he won't be dejected. He was catching up in the 3rd set anyway. If anything, he would take positives from yesterday's match.
I don't see how saving two MPs in TB can be seen as implosion. I would say he was tactically wrong for not putting conservative first serves in the TB.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

He has a week to rest before the FO, what are you talking about? You guys are hilarious and act like Djokovic isn't the most well-conditioned tennis pro on the circuit. He doesn't get tired from a couple of long best of three sets, he can go for five-six hours in back to back best of five matches as we have seen often. Don't make excuses. He'll want to win this one and make sure he keeps his positive momentum against his main rivals (if you can call them that) for the FO. He won't want to give Murray any kind of mental edge so if Murray wins this one it's fair and square and it makes it a bit more interesting for the FO.

Whoa. Who says I am making an excuse? I am concerned about him pushing himself too hard before RG. He has played some gruelling tennis starting from the Madrid final, and I don't care what anyone says, he is NOT a machine. He was exhausted after AO, should never have won IW and Miami back to back. Completely exhausted practicing in MC, that loss was coming. And now he just navigated an insanely hard draw just to meet Murray in the final. Does he want to win? Sure. Does he NEED to win? No, he doesn't. Needs outweigh the wants, and he needs to be careful not to overcook himself heading into Paris. He has played enough, if Murray is lacklustre, then of course go for it, but choose your battles wisely, this isn't Miami or Shanghai, where there is no slam on the horizon. He is days away from arguably tournament that makes or breaks him historically. Does Murray winning this give uber confidence to Murray, not sure, because even Murray knows he sleepwalked to the final, while Djokovic had the real battles...the Madrid match for me was far more telling.

And no, I never said Murray winning it won't be fair and square, but don't put your head in the ground like an ostrich and say that Djokovic didn't have the toughest draw possible, while Murray didn't have the easiest. You know better than that, and so do I.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nah. I don't think Nishikori will be the one to spoil Djokovic's FO dreams after that dejection from the Rome loss. Nishikori was so close but imploded in the tiebreaker. That will probably be a scarring loss for him moving forward for a while. I'm not sure how far he will get at the FO, we'll need to see his draw.

Yeah that kind of loss is tough to recover from, especialy facing the same person. Nadal recovered from the 2012 Australian Open gut wrenching defeat, but only due to immediately changing surfaces (when playing Djokovic).

 

[nowhereman]

4-3

Whoever made that final thread needs to be punished.

 

[RS92]

I did say "between 2015 - now". Last year was 2015. Or have I been in cryogenesis again?

I just asked because I don't remember well if it was there or in other tournament.

 

[Meles]

What are you on about? Sampras/Agassi head-to-head was at 20-14. You think that was horrible? That's 58% versus 48%. That rivalry was EXCELLENT. It was awesome every time they took the court. The entire tennis world sizzled because you never knew what would happen. Both played peak to peak. And Laver/Rosewall is not apples to oranges. It is great rivalries we are talking about. Laver/Rosewall is probably one of the top three of all time.

You know what the Djokovic/Murray head-to-head is? Of course you do. 23-9. And for their last twelve meetings? 1-12. That is not a rivalry. That is a guy at peak who has no competition and is slaughtering Murray.



And you think this speaks well of the field? You actually believe that at 35 years old, Djokovic is going to be in better form than he is now?



Oh really? In what universe do you possibly see this happening? You actually think Thiem could take out Djokovic on clay? LOL. My god, you are nuts.



Actually, his supreme form doesn't boggle the imagination. Any more than Federer's did. Any more than Sampras' did. Any more than Connors' did. Supreme form is expected from a peak all-time-great.

The thing that boggles the mind is how much the current field and tennis generation sucks.

Check out the slam finals between Agassi and Sampras. Nothing to write home about.

And Murray wins today and people said he would not beat Djokovic on clay. Thiem is not a better clay court player, but he's a matchup threat for the world number one.

Name a better field on clay than the last few years with Murray now a serious threat. Its not even close.

Djokovic's US Open win and the way he played on his own serve with break points has not been an isolated phenomenon of late for him. GOAT stuff.

 

[Meles]

Are you on drugs?

The clay field is off the charts? Not in this universe.

Djokovic won't be taken down at the FO by a mentally dejected Nishikori after that Rome fiasco and Thiem isn't good enough yet to sniff Djokovic's jockstrap. Stop it already!

Name a better clay field coming into the French. Nobody has done it because there isn't one.

 

[Meles]

I guess he won't be dejected. He was catching up in the 3rd set anyway. If anything, he would take positives from yesterday's match.
I don't see how saving two MPs in TB can be seen as implosion. I would say he was tactically wrong for not putting conservative first serves in the TB.

Exactly. Nishikori is slowly learning. We can still crap on his potential stamina issues and he does not have a big serve game which is a huge, huge strike against him. Djokovic has certainly improved and taken big match play to new highs. The other players are maning up. Murray did it in the Rome final today. Nishikori is heading in the right direction.

 

[Meles]

Yeah that kind of loss is tough to recover from, especialy facing the same person. Nadal recovered from the 2012 Australian Open gut wrenching defeat, but only due to immediately changing surfaces (when playing Djokovic).

Are you sure. Nishikori seemed to have recovered from the Madrid loss quite well.

 

[Gary Duane]

That match was very tight. Nishi was about to fold 5-1 by getting broken for 2nd time in the 3rd set. But he saved 2 BPs, then held serve to break Novak and leveled it up 4-all. Quite a good performance from someone who is not 'mentally' strong. Really feel for Nishikori. Hope he gets some respect here. Among all, he is the only one whose game is quite exciting to watch when Federer is not around. He will have a shot at FO if things falls in his favour. His body is getting stronger and he is consistent as well. Wishing he ends up as year end No.4. As for Novak, he is not only solid but luck is on his side as well.

For sure Thiem is exciting, and he's one of the younger ones I would LOVE to see really take off!

 

[cc0509]

Whoa. Who says I am making an excuse? I am concerned about him pushing himself too hard before RG. He has played some gruelling tennis starting from the Madrid final, and I don't care what anyone says, he is NOT a machine. He was exhausted after AO, should never have won IW and Miami back to back. Completely exhausted practicing in MC, that loss was coming. And now he just navigated an insanely hard draw just to meet Murray in the final. Does he want to win? Sure. Does he NEED to win? No, he doesn't. Needs outweigh the wants, and he needs to be careful not to overcook himself heading into Paris. He has played enough, if Murray is lacklustre, then of course go for it, but choose your battles wisely, this isn't Miami or Shanghai, where there is no slam on the horizon. He is days away from arguably tournament that makes or breaks him historically. Does Murray winning this give uber confidence to Murray, not sure, because even Murray knows he sleepwalked to the final, while Djokovic had the real battles...the Madrid match for me was far more telling.

And no, I never said Murray winning it won't be fair and square, but don't put your head in the ground like an ostrich and say that Djokovic didn't have the toughest draw possible, while Murray didn't have the easiest. You know better than that, and so do I.

Yes, Djokovic had a harder draw and tougher matches than Murray did but I doubt Djokovic was physically tired. What I think it looks like is that Djokovic is a little mentally frazzled as the pressure of the FO gets closer. He was completely losing it a few times this week, i.e. at the umpires, himself,etc. Obviously he is the favorite for the FO but it is true he is also more vulnerable on clay than he is on hc. He could be injured for two years and come back cold to win the AO probably but it's a different story mentally at the FO. With Nadal playing a little better and Murray taking this win, I think it puts a little bit more doubt into Djokovic's head and it makes it much more interesting for the majority of viewers because IMO Djokovic, Murray or Nadal could win the FO (obviously other players have a chance depending on the draw but probably much less of a chance.)

 

[cc0509]

Name a better clay field coming into the French. Nobody has done it because there isn't one.

Please! You must have just started watching tennis two years ago. The clay court field with many clay court specialists was much stronger in previous eras. Don't even go there. Nishikori and Thiem are nothing on clay compared to the clay court specialists of the past.

 

[cc0509]

Yeah that kind of loss is tough to recover from, especialy facing the same person. Nadal recovered from the 2012 Australian Open gut wrenching defeat, but only due to immediately changing surfaces (when playing Djokovic).

And Nishikori is mentally fragile to begin with vs the Big Four.

 

[abmk]

Name a better clay field coming into the French. Nobody has done it because there isn't one.

2008 for one ( going to elaborate on this one )

Nadal at his peak ( winning MC, barca, hamburg )
Djokovic winning Rome, semi at MC ( l to federer) , semi at hamburg ( l to nadal )
Federer - final at MC( l to nadal), final at hamburg ( l to nadal )

2009 :

again, the same

Nadal
Federer
Djokovic

2005 for another :

Nadal
Federer
Coria
Gaudio

1993 :

Courier
Bruguera
Medevedev
Muster

1994 :

Bruguera
Courier
Berasategui
Muster


2000 :

kuerten
ferrero
norman
safin
kafelnikov
corretja

2001 :

kuerten
ferrero
corretja
kafelnikov

Is that enough or do you need more ?

you need to lay off with too many stats ......plenty of us have watched tennis in the past.... this CC field is weak compared to many of the years before.

 

[mightyrick]

Name a better field on clay than the last few years with Murray now a serious threat. Its not even close.

You think the clay field in the last few years is the best ever????

 

[Meles]

Please! You must have just started watching tennis two years ago. The clay court field with many clay court specialists was much stronger in previous eras. Don't even go there. Nishikori and Thiem are nothing on clay compared to the clay court specialists of the past.

Again another failure to name a field.

 

[cc0509]

Again another failure to name a field.

I was too lazy to list them all. See abmk's post #1320 above. This is NOT a strong clay field and Thiem will not beat Djokovic, Murray or Nadal at the FO. Get a grip.

 

[Meles]

2008 for one ( going to elaborate on this one )

Nadal at his peak ( winning MC, barca, hamburg )
Djokovic winning Rome, semi at MC ( l to federer) , semi at hamburg ( l to nadal )
Federer - final at MC( l to nadal), final at hamburg ( l to nadal )

2009 :

again, the same

Nadal
Federer
Djokovic

2005 for another :

Nadal
Federer
Coria
Gaudio

1993 :

Courier
Bruguera
Medevedev
Muster

1994 :

Bruguera
Courier
Berasategui
Muster


2000 :

kuerten
ferrero
norman
safin
kafelnikov
corretja

2001 :

kuerten
ferrero
corretja
kafelnikov

Is that enough or do you need more ?

you need to lay off with too many stats ......plenty of us have watched tennis in the past.... this CC field is weak compared to many of the years before.

I love it. A response!
2015 and 2016 feature:
1. Serbia Novak Djokovic (Final) 55.5% points won clay season
2. Switzerland Roger Federer (Quarterfinals) 53.8% points won (above career average)
3. United Kingdom Andy Murray (Semifinals) 54.6%
4. Czech Republic Tomáš Berdych (Fourth round) 52.5%
5. Japan Kei Nishikori (Quarterfinals) 53.8%
6. Spain Rafael Nadal (Quarterfinals) 54.6%
7. Spain David Ferrer (Quarterfinals) 53.8%
8. Switzerland Stan Wawrinka (Champion) 52.9%
14. France Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (Semifinals) 52.5%

Tsonga knocked Berdych out last year and made SF and will be 7 seed this year. All the other seeds made it to QF. Berdych should be 8 seed again and is clearly in massive decline this year. Ditto Ferrer, but Ferrer was in good form last Spring and was really able to pad his rankings. Ditto for Berdych. Nadal was obviously weaker last year, but Murray and Nishikori started building a good clay resume and Djokovic had a stunning year. For comparison sake players like Courier and Muster for their career check in at 53.2% and 53.4% points won. Its a superlative field this year and last year as all the top players are proficient on clay and fan favorites Berdych and Ferrer won't be missed with players like Thiem, Zverev, and even Kyrgios rolling along on clay. Veterans Cuevas, Kohlschreiber, and Monaco also doing well in 2016. Nadal is much stronger and Murray may be improved over 2015 after a rocky start (did not lose a set in Rome.)

Lets compare with these great years from the past:
1993 - Courier ~<56%, Brugerra ~>55%, Muster (a great clay court career) failed to make QF, Medvedev ~53%, a solid year and no doubt that Courier and Breugerra was a clash of the titans that year, but Djokovic matched the Courier clay numbers and with Wawrinka's performance in 2015 and the other top players its hard to say even at the top, that 1993 was a better field. Edberg made QFs that years was reputable clay court player. On balance the top 8 was better in 2015 either by seed or QF participants.

1994 - Courier ~>54%, Brugerra ~<56% , Muster failed to make QF, Beresatigue ~53%(final) - Another nice Brugerra year, QF Magnus Larsson a paltry 50.7% points won for career, Sampras and Ivansanvic in QFs well no further comparison necessary with 2015 and 2016. Its not even close.

2000 - kuerten, ~<54%, some close five setter and a great champion and example of how a big server can break through on clay
ferrero ~53%, nice player
norman ~>55% points. Loved this guy and had a pretty easy draw to get to the Final (Squillara SF really weak)
safin ~>52% (Safin beat Pioline to make QF, great for Safin, but not saying much)
kafelnikov (a joke FO champ if ever there was one, 51% points, and Kuerten took 5 sets to beat him!, next!)
corretja (reputable QF at 52%, career average)
A great and exciting tournament and QF participants, but with Norman as the points leader, this is just a weaker field than 2015/2016

2005 - Coria was in this one and that makes it really nice, but he lost R16 to Davydenko (doink!), Federer top year on clay around 56%, Nadal 57% - early Ferrer, Robredo in QF and Puerta just about DQs the whole event. No doubt that top 2 was great in 2005, but the top 8 much weaker than 2015 and 2016. No doubt an interesting tournament with Safin, Agassi, Nalbandian, and Moya in the top 16, but a lot of these names no where near the top of their clay game. Coria is kind of the poster child for lack of serve game on clay costing a player.

2008 - Nadal ~58%, Federer ~55.5%, Djokovic ~55.5% thats a killer top 3, a nice year, but probably a weaker draw than 2009 except for Nadal in dominate, dominate form. The top seeds were many of the usual suspects from the last years, but very young versions not at the top of their game. Federer was still being robbed of French Opens this year by the King.

2009 - Nadal ~56%, Soderling ~53%, Federer ~55.5%, Djokovic ~>54%, Fernando Gonzalez, Gael Monfils, Andy Murray, Delpo, Robredo - despite Nadal being subpar this year this was a very nice group of players. 2015 had more depth with Wawa doing his thing and Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all checking in with heavy weight numbers. This was a very nice tournament for sure and Delpo making the semi was nice. Kohly took out Djokovic which is not a surprise. Kohly back on his game in 2016 too.

The top two players in 2005, 2008, and 2009 in Federer and Nadal were really something at that time, but had much less competition from the top players. Of these I like 2009 the most because Delpo and Soderling added a lot to the field, but the top was much weaker because Nadal had an off year on clay. Comparing that with 2015, we have the top 8 seeds all with SF or better at the French except for Nishikori who still had a great year and doing very well in 2016. 2009 might nudge out 2015, but 2016 might nudge out both. Honorable mention to 1993 where Brugerra and Courier had a great clash.

Fun looking and remembering these years, but the current crop of players all are great on clay, so that is hard to beat even if Nadal and Federer are no longer at their peak. Nadal looks on track to play better than his 2009 for sure and may end up better than 2014.

 

[Meles]

I was too lazy to list them all. See abmk's post #1320 above. This is NOT a strong clay field and Thiem will not beat Djokovic, Murray or Nadal at the FO. Get a grip.

He's a dark horse CC, nothing more. He's beaten Nadal, Wawrinka, and Ferrer when they were in the top ten. He took Murray to 3 sets in Miami in 2015. Thiem's #1 seed in Nice, bottom feeding again, so you are probably right, but he's still a darkhorse that could pull off the upset. He's won 5 tournaments in less than a year.

 

[cc0509]

He's a dark horse CC, nothing more. He's beaten Nadal, Wawrinka, and Ferrer when they were in the top ten. He took Murray to 3 sets in Miami in 2015. Thiem's #1 seed in Nice, bottom feeding again, so you are probably right, but he's still a darkhorse that could pull off the upset. He's won 5 tournaments in less than a year.

And win the whole tournament? That wouldn't be a dark horse pick it would be a pitch black horse!

 

[abmk]

I love it. A response!
2015 and 2016 feature:
1. Serbia Novak Djokovic (Final) 55.5% points won clay season
2. Switzerland Roger Federer (Quarterfinals) 53.8% points won (above career average)
3. United Kingdom Andy Murray (Semifinals) 54.6%
4. Czech Republic Tomáš Berdych (Fourth round) 52.5%
5. Japan Kei Nishikori (Quarterfinals) 53.8%
6. Spain Rafael Nadal (Quarterfinals) 54.6%
7. Spain David Ferrer (Quarterfinals) 53.8%
8. Switzerland Stan Wawrinka (Champion) 52.9%
14. France Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (Semifinals) 52.5%

Tsonga knocked Berdych out last year and made SF and will be 7 seed this year. All the other seeds made it to QF. Berdych should be 8 seed again and is clearly in massive decline this year. Ditto Ferrer, but Ferrer was in good form last Spring and was really able to pad his rankings. Ditto for Berdych. Nadal was obviously weaker last year, but Murray and Nishikori started building a good clay resume and Djokovic had a stunning year. For comparison sake players like Courier and Muster for their career check in at 53.2% and 53.4% points won. Its a superlative field this year and last year as all the top players are proficient on clay and fan favorites Berdych and Ferrer won't be missed with players like Thiem, Zverev, and even Kyrgios rolling along on clay. Veterans Cuevas and Monaco also doing well in 2016. Nadal is much stronger and Murray may be improved over 2015 after a rocky start (did not lose a set in Rome.)

Lets compare with these great years from the past:
1993 - Courier ~<56%, Brugerra ~>55%, Muster (a great clay court career) failed to make QF, Medvedev ~53%, a solid year and no doubt that Courier and Breugerra was a clash of the titans that year, but Djokovic matched the Courier clay numbers and with Wawrinka's performance in 2015 and the other top players its hard to say even at the top, that 1993 was a better field. Edberg made QFs that years was reputable clay court player. On balance the top 8 was better in 2015 either by seed or QF participants.

1994 - Courier ~>54%, Brugerra ~<56% , Muster failed to make QF, Beresatigue ~53%(final) - Another nice Brugerra year, QF Magnus Larsson a paltry 50.7% points won for career, Sampras and Ivansanvic in QFs well no further comparison necessary with 2015 and 2016. Its not even close.

2000 - kuerten, ~<54%, some close five setter and a great champion and example of how a big server can break through on clay
ferrero ~53%, nice player
norman ~>55% points. Loved this guy and had a pretty easy draw to get to the Final (Squillara SF really weak)
safin ~>52% (Safin beat Pioline to make QF, great for Safin, but not saying much)
kafelnikov (a joke FO champ if ever there was one, 51% points, and Kuerten took 5 sets to beat him!, next!)
corretja (reputable QF at 52%, career average)
A great and exciting tournament and QF participants, but with Norman as the points leader, this is just a weaker field than 2015/2016

2005 - Coria was in this one and that makes it really nice, but he lost R16 to Davydenko (doink!), Federer top year on clay around 56%, Nadal 57% - early Ferrer, Robredo in QF and Puerta just about DQs the whole event. No doubt that top 2 was great in 2005, but the top 8 much weaker than 2015 and 2016. No doubt an interesting tournament with Safin, Agassi, Nalbandian, and Moya in the top 16, but a lot of these names no where near the top of their clay game. Coria is kind of the poster child for lack of serve game on clay costing a player.

2008 - Nadal ~58%, Federer ~55.5%, Djokovic ~55.5% thats a killer top 3, a nice year, but probably a weaker draw than 2009 except for Nadal in dominate, dominate form. The top seeds were many of the usual suspects from the last years, but very young versions not at the top of their game. Federer was still being robbed of French Opens this year by the King.

2009 - Nadal ~56%, Soderling ~53%, Federer ~55.5%, Djokovic ~>54%, Fernando Gonzalez, Gael Monfils, Andy Murray, Delpo, Robredo - despite Nadal being subpar this year this was a very nice group of players. 2015 had more depth with Wawa doing his thing and Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all checking in with heavy weight numbers. This was a very nice tournament for sure and Delpo making the semi was nice. Kohly took out Djokovic which is not a surprise. Kohly back on his game in 2016 too.

The top two players in 2005, 2008, and 2009 in Federer and Nadal were really something at that time, but had much less competition from the top players. Of these I like 2009 the most because Delpo and Soderling added a lot to the field, but the top was much weaker because Nadal had an off year on clay. Comparing that with 2015, we have the top 8 seeds all with SF or better at the French except for Nishikori who still had a great year and doing very well in 2016. 2009 might nudge out 2015, but 2016 might nudge out both. Honorable mention to 1993 where Brugerra and Courier had a great clash.

Fun looking and remembering these years, but the current crop of players all are great on clay, so that is hard to beat even if Nadal and Federer are no longer at their peak. Nadal looks on track to play better than his 2009 for sure and may end up better than 2014.

Like I said before, don't look too much into the numbers. Look at what happened and how good the players are.

some corrections/contradictions :

1. nadal was not sub-par in 09, he won Rome(d djokovic), Monte Carlo ( d djokovic ), barca (d ferrer IIRC) and was in the final of madrid. He had a sub-par day vs soderling at RG, that's it. I can bet, you, if that soderling turns up today, he takes down rafa of today in straights, oh and yeah, he beats everyone else ( except maybe a very top form djokovic ) . Comparing 09 rafa with 16 rafa is hilarious. 09 rafa would've beaten murray at madrid ( obviously ), he'd have beaten djokovic at rome as well.

2. federer with such a high % of points won has done squat except for rome final ( no other final in any masters and obviously not at RG ). who gives a sh*t to those numbers - partly due to playing lower ranked players and partly due to playing a title like Istanbul .....federer from 2004-2011 was obviously much better.

3. what great things did kei do on clay last year ? l to murray in madrid , l to djokovic in rome , tsonga @ RG ? only barca title, which isn't saying that much. this year again, only impressive thing was the rome match vs djokovic , nothing much else.

4. In each of the years I mentioned, the top 2 or top 3 are each better than anyone not named djokovic at present

5. as far as 94 is concerned, atleast sampras had come into RG winning Rome. You OTOH are glorifying thiem, who's done nothing of significance in masters.

6. Muster was stopped in 93 by courier, in 94 , had a gruelling 5-setter with agassi and then lost to rafter in the next round

7. Norman's SFist in 2000 RG was weak, but in the QF, he beat safin.

8. Just because majority of the top 8 seeds made it to the QF doesn't necessarily mean it was strong, not if majority of them aren't that good clay courters in the first place or not in that great form ...

9. Nadal having heavy-weight numbers in 2015 ? what the hell did he do last year, of significance ? seriously, get out of the numbers for once ....

I'm sorry, but the bolded statement is utter BS. None of the others except djokovic( murray, thiem , berdych, nishikori, ferrer, tsonga ) would stand a chance of beating prime fedal at RG , maybe a remote chance in clay masters vs federer ( not vs prime nadal ) ..

maybe stan vs federer in a masters, but not at RG, ditto for stan vs rafa ...(though I doubt even that at masters )

 

[Meles]

And win the whole tournament? That wouldn't be a dark horse pick it would be a pitch black horse!

Your anti Thiem bias is showing. Thiem would need a miraculous draw and events to unfold to win the tournament. He might have one big win. Hmmmm. Hmmmm. Let's imagine the Thiem dream draw CC.
First round undeserving wild card, R64 Pospisil, R32 Tomic, R16 Wawrinka (ripe for the picking and Thiem has beaten him on clay right after Wawa won Monte Carlo in 2014), QF Berdych, SF tired Murray, Ninja, or Nadal, Final tired Djoko, Ninja, or Nadal. With some surprise upsets this dream could become easier.

Its a Thiem dream CC and he wouldn't have to break a sweat til the SF. That's a dark horse.

 

[Meles]

Like I said before, don't look too much into the numbers. Look at what happened and how good the players are.

some corrections/contradictions :

1. nadal was not sub-par in 09, he won Rome(d djokovic), Monte Carlo ( d djokovic ), barca (d ferrer IIRC) and was in the final of madrid. He had a sub-par day vs soderling at RG, that's it. I can bet, you, if that soderling turns up today, he takes down rafa of today in straights, oh and yeah, he beats everyone else ( except maybe a very top form djokovic ) . Comparing 09 rafa with 16 rafa is hilarious. 09 rafa would've beaten murray at madrid ( obviously ), he'd have beaten djokovic at rome as well.

2. federer with such a high % of points won has done squat except for rome final ( no other final in any masters and obviously not at RG ). who gives a sh*t to those numbers - partly due to playing lower ranked players and partly due to playing a title like Istanbul .....federer from 2004-2011 was obviously much better.

3. what great things did kei do on clay last year ? l to murray in madrid , l to djokovic in rome , tsonga @ RG ? only barca title, which isn't saying that much. this year again, only impressive thing was the rome match vs djokovic , nothing much else.

4. In each of the years I mentioned, the top 2 or top 3 are each better than anyone not named djokovic at present

5. as far as 94 is concerned, atleast sampras had come into RG winning Rome. You OTOH are glorifying thiem, who's done nothing of significance in masters.

6. Muster was stopped in 93 by courier, in 94 , had a gruelling 5-setter with agassi and then lost to rafter in the next round

7. Norman's SFist in 2000 RG was weak, but in the QF, he beat safin.

8. Just because majority of the top 8 seeds made it to the QF doesn't necessarily mean it was strong, not if majority of them aren't that good clay courters in the first place or not in that great form ...

9. Nadal having heavy-weight numbers in 2015 ? what the hell did he do last year, of significance ? seriously, get out of the numbers for once ....

I'm sorry, but the bolded statement is utter BS. None of the others except djokovic( murray, thiem , berdych, nishikori, ferrer, tsonga ) would stand a chance of beating prime fedal at RG , maybe a remote chance in clay masters vs federer ( not vs prime nadal ) ..

maybe stan vs federer in a masters, but not at RG, ditto for stan vs rafa ...(though I doubt even that at masters )

I don't think you understand the bolded statement. I am talking about the group of players and strength of field. Yes Nadal was awesome in 2008 and 2012 and the greatest clay court player of all time (Borg maybe), but he is only one part of the group. As we saw last year for Djokovic in dominating form, a deeper field can be a whole lot of trouble. Lesson repeated at Rome today.

Nadal is so much better than anyone else on clay that yes 2015 Nadal would have been quite competitive with previous fields. 2015 Nadal isn't likely beating peak Courier or Brugera, but he'd be a tough out for any other FO champs since 1990. Djokovic is easily the greatest clay court player not to win a French Open.

Sampras! 1994 Rome, he got by Correjta and the draw was a joke the rest of the way. Sampras was horrible on clay.

I definitely use numbers as a check. Nadal was sub par in 2009 and was hitting the ball short much of the tournament. The points numbers are way down and that wasn't from just one match on clay. 2016 is still going on and if Nadal has a reputation for peaking at the French, so the jury is out on Nadal, but his points numbers the last few tournaments may be in the 56-57% range. Federer still has hope of making a run and on clay is close if not better than 2010-2011. I like Soderling, but he wasn't God. He busted through the draw in 2009 with the Nadal win and did the same to 2010 Federer. Soderling is an example of what a player with a big first serve game can do. He would usually win 76% of first serve points (Nadal would be 70%) and in the Nadal and Fed wins he served 4% above his normal first serve percent which is the danger factor (Juan Monaco would be the polar opposite). That is what Clayray is doing in 2015 and 2016. He just crushed Djokovic in the Rome final (could have easily been up two breaks in both sets.) Murray's return game is much, much better than Soderling. Soderling has very nice numbers those years and has an extra danger factor as described, but he wasn't Stanimal dangerous.

Safin? That was probably Safin's best French. In 2002 he squeeked through to a semi, but he was number 2 seed with an easy draw.

Good point on Muster in 1993. The shocker to me on Muster is he only made two deep runs in his career at the French. Muster was very clutch, but is kind of the opposite of Soderling in that his tepid first serve points won numbers (and lowish first serve percentage) seemed to hold him back in the big events.

Thiem is at the start of his career by today's standards and Nishikori is far from done and next couple years could easily be peak years for him and with the Nadal eclipse fading on clay. Thiem may just pan out as a mini-Muster, but Thiem has a very potent first serve offense; the very thing that held Muster back.

The French Open in the past has been a bit of a mess with the dominant US and Australian players (Courier excepted) not being to good on the red stuff. This would really mess up the seeding and so I like your example of 1993 Muster. He was 15th seed and of course got Courier who was number 2. Otherwise the seeds were a lot of big serve type players (top 16 follow):
United States Pete Sampras (Quarterfinals)
United States Jim Courier (Finals)
Sweden Stefan Edberg (Quarterfinals)
Germany Boris Becker (Second round)
Croatia Goran Ivanišević (Third round)
Czech Republic Petr Korda (Second round)
United States Ivan Lendl (First round)
United States Michael Chang (Second round)
Germany Michael Stich (Fourth round)
Spain Sergi Bruguera (Champion)
Ukraine Andrei Medvedev (Semifinals)
Netherlands Richard Krajicek (Semifinals)
Czech Republic Karel Nováček (Quarterfinals)
South Africa Wayne Ferreira (Second round)
Austria Thomas Muster (Fourth round)
United States MaliVai Washington (Fourth round)

That's 9 players in bold that are really quite bad on clay. With the European dominated tour today its much, much harder to get through these events as all the players are quite good on clay. Of the current top 16, I'd only rate Raonic, Cilic, and perhaps Goffin as poorer on clay. None of them are horrible on clay and quite capable of playing to their seeds much of the time. If you want to say the group of top players is weak on US Open hard courts I might get on board with you, but on clay they are much stronger as a group with a lot of depth to the field.

 

[Meles]

Whoa. Who says I am making an excuse? I am concerned about him pushing himself too hard before RG. He has played some gruelling tennis starting from the Madrid final, and I don't care what anyone says, he is NOT a machine. He was exhausted after AO, should never have won IW and Miami back to back. Completely exhausted practicing in MC, that loss was coming. And now he just navigated an insanely hard draw just to meet Murray in the final. Does he want to win? Sure. Does he NEED to win? No, he doesn't. Needs outweigh the wants, and he needs to be careful not to overcook himself heading into Paris. He has played enough, if Murray is lacklustre, then of course go for it, but choose your battles wisely, this isn't Miami or Shanghai, where there is no slam on the horizon. He is days away from arguably tournament that makes or breaks him historically. Does Murray winning this give uber confidence to Murray, not sure, because even Murray knows he sleepwalked to the final, while Djokovic had the real battles...the Madrid match for me was far more telling.

And no, I never said Murray winning it won't be fair and square, but don't put your head in the ground like an ostrich and say that Djokovic didn't have the toughest draw possible, while Murray didn't have the easiest. You know better than that, and so do I.

Exactly on point. Djokovic wanted to win today's Rome match and you could see it and the effort in the 2nd. Mercifully Murray closed beautifully with excellent serving and Nole was just a bit off even with his juices flowing due to the last three days (don't forget Belluci.)

Thiem is the one seed at Nice. He's definantly more erractic and has been playing every week since February except for Barcelona. Over playing rarely works (Nadal possible exception, but the injuries.)

 

[Meles]

He has a week to rest before the FO, what are you talking about? You guys are hilarious and act like Djokovic isn't the most well-conditioned tennis pro on the circuit. He doesn't get tired from a couple of long best of three sets, he can go for five-six hours in back to back best of five matches as we have seen often. Don't make excuses. He'll want to win this one and make sure he keeps his positive momentum against his main rivals (if you can call them that) for the FO. He won't want to give Murray any kind of mental edge so if Murray wins this one it's fair and square and it makes it a bit more interesting for the FO.

Looked tired today and it was obvious in the first set. At majors you have a day off between those big matches. The Nadal and Nishikori sets were pretty greuling after the Belluci three setter. Nishikori probably did a great job of running Djoko. Murray won everything easy this week and so was 100% fresh.

 

[abmk]

I don't think you understand the bolded statement. I am talking about the group of players and strength of field. Yes Nadal was awesome in 2008 and 2012 and the greatest clay court player of all time (Borg maybe), but he is only one part of the group. As we saw last year for Djokovic in dominating form, a deeper field can be a whole lot of trouble. Lesson repeated at Rome today.

Nadal is so much better than anyone else on clay that yes 2015 Nadal would have been quite competitive with previous fields. 2015 Nadal isn't likely beating peak Courier or Brugera, but he'd be a tough out for any other FO champs since 1990. Djokovic is easily the greatest clay court player not to win a French Open.

Sampras! 1994 Rome, he got by Correjta and the draw was a joke the rest of the way. Sampras was horrible on clay.

I definitely use numbers as a check. Nadal was sub par in 2009 and was hitting the ball short much of the tournament. The points numbers are way down and that wasn't from just one match on clay. 2016 is still going on and if Nadal has a reputation for peaking at the French, so the jury is out on Nadal, but his points numbers the last few tournaments may be in the 56-57% range. Federer still has hope of making a run and on clay is close if not better than 2010-2011. I like Soderling, but he wasn't God. He busted through the draw in 2009 with the Nadal win and did the same to 2010 Federer. Soderling is an example of what a player with a big first serve game can do. He would usually win 76% of first serve points (Nadal would be 70%) and in the Nadal and Fed wins he served 4% above his normal first serve percent which is the danger factor (Juan Monaco would be the polar opposite). That is what Clayray is doing in 2015 and 2016. He just crushed Djokovic in the Rome final (could have easily been up two breaks in both sets.) Murray's return game is much, much better than Soderling. Soderling has very nice numbers those years and has an extra danger factor as described, but he wasn't Stanimal dangerous.

oh no, Soderling was just as much , if not more than Stanimal dangerous.

he got through a draw of ferrer, nadal, davydenko, gonzalez in 2009 RG
got through federer and berdych in 2010 RG

Forget the stats for a second, he was up against one of the most daunting tasks - beating peak nadal at RG and he did it.

nadal wasn't sub-par in 2009 RG. He was a bit off in the 1st match, played very well in the 2nd and played brilliantly in the 3rd vs hewitt to demolish him. By the time hewitt match was done, I remember thinking, is this 2008 all over again ? who is going to beat nadal ?

For nadal in 2009, point numbers are way down compared to what !?

2015 nadal, you need to get serious. on form would be beaten by not just peak courier/bruguera, but by federer, muster, ferrero, kuerten etc ...

the field today is not deeper. What happened in Rome is an imbalanced draw, that's it. Murray had nothing much to do until the finals ....djokovic had to deal with nadal and nishi ...

as far as what happened in 2015 RG is concerned, I know you love 'clayray', but djokovic should've pummeled him and finished him off in 3 IMO. He did that for the first 2 sets and then slumped giving murray the chance to strike back. When djoko found his top gear again, he smashed murray 6-1 in the final set.

Thiem is at the start of his career by today's standards and Nishikori is far from done and next couple years could easily be peak years for him and with the Nadal eclipse fading on clay. Thiem may just pan out as a mini-Muster, but Thiem has a very potent first serve offense; the very thing that held Muster back.

I'm talking about the current, not about the future. When Thiem does something worthwhile in a Masters or RG, then we can talk. Until then its just potential ..

The French Open in the past has been a bit of a mess with the dominant US and Australian players (Courier excepted) not being to good on the red stuff. This would really mess up the seeding and so I like your example of 1993 Muster. He was 15th seed and of course got Courier who was number 2. Otherwise the seeds were a lot of big serve type players (top 16 follow):
United States Pete Sampras (Quarterfinals)
United States Jim Courier (Finals)
Sweden Stefan Edberg (Quarterfinals)
Germany Boris Becker (Second round)
Croatia Goran Ivanišević (Third round)
Czech Republic Petr Korda (Second round)
United States Ivan Lendl (First round)
United States Michael Chang (Second round)
Germany Michael Stich (Fourth round)
Spain Sergi Bruguera (Champion)
Ukraine Andrei Medvedev (Semifinals)
Netherlands Richard Krajicek (Semifinals)
Czech Republic Karel Nováček (Quarterfinals)
South Africa Wayne Ferreira (Second round)
Austria Thomas Muster (Fourth round)
United States MaliVai Washington (Fourth round)

That's 9 players in bold that are really quite bad on clay. With the European dominated tour today its much, much harder to get through these events as all the players are quite good on clay. Of the current top 16, I'd only rate Raonic, Cilic, and perhaps Goffin as poorer on clay. None of them are horrible on clay and quite capable of playing to their seeds much of the time. If you want to say the group of top players is weak on US Open hard courts I might get on board with you, but on clay they are much stronger as a group with a lot of depth to the field.

and the other 7 quite clearly make a strong clay field, clearly strong than the current one. The current one doesn't have more than 6-7 in good form on clay either.

current top players is weak on USO hard courts ? hmm, lets see :

1. djokovic on medium-fast to fast HC > djokovic on clay
2. federer on medium-fast to fast HC >>> federer on clay , on current form, it should be >>>>>
3. murray on medium-fast to fast HC > murray on clay
4. stan on clay > stan on medium-fast to fast HC
5. nadal on clay > nadal on medium-fast to fast HC
6. nishikori on medium-fast to fast HC > nishi on clay
7. tsonga on medium-fast to fast HC > tsonga on clay
8. berdych on medium-fast to fast HC > berdych on clay
9. raonic on medium-fast to fast HC > raonic on clay
10. gasquet on medium-fast to fast HC ~ gasquet on clay

medium-fast HC to fast HC field is clearly better.

how the hell is federer of current not poorer on clay ?
djokovic and murray are also poorer on clay compared to medium to fast HCs.

 

[Meles]

oh no, Soderling was just as much , if not more than Stanimal dangerous.

he got through a draw of ferrer, nadal, davydenko, gonzalez in 2009 RG
got through federer and berdych in 2010 RG

Forget the stats for a second, he was up against one of the most daunting tasks - beating peak nadal at RG and he did it.

nadal wasn't sub-par in 2009 RG. He was a bit off in the 1st match, played very well in the 2nd and played brilliantly in the 3rd vs hewitt to demolish him. By the time hewitt match was done, I remember thinking, is this 2008 all over again ? who is going to beat nadal ?

For nadal in 2009, point numbers are way down compared to what !?

2015 nadal, you need to get serious. on form would be beaten by not just peak courier/bruguera, but by federer, muster, ferrero, kuerten etc ...

the field today is not deeper. What happened in Rome is an imbalanced draw, that's it. Murray had nothing much to do until the finals ....djokovic had to deal with nadal and nishi ...

as far as what happened in 2015 RG is concerned, I know you love 'clayray', but djokovic should've pummeled him and finished him off in 3 IMO. He did that for the first 2 sets and then slumped giving murray the chance to strike back. When djoko found his top gear again, he smashed murray 6-1 in the final set.



I'm talking about the current, not about the future. When Thiem something worthwhile in a Masters or RG, then we can talk. Until then its just potential ..




and yet the other 7 quite clearly make a strong clay field, clearly strong than the current one.

current top players is weak on USO hard courts ? hmm, lets see :

1. djokovic on medium-fast to fast HC > djokovic on clay
2. federer on medium-fast to fast HC at this stage of his career >>> federer on clay
3. murray on medium-fast to fast HC > murray on clay
4. stan on clay > stan on medium-fast to fast HC
5. nadal on clay > nadal on medium-fast to fast HC
6. nishikori on medium-fast to fast HC > nishi on clay
7. tsonga on medium-fast to fast HC > tsonga on clay
8. berdych on medium-fast to fast HC > berdych on clay
9. raonic on medium-fast to fast HC > raonic on clay
10. gasquet on medium-fast to fast HC ~ gasquet on clay

medium-fast HC to fast HC field is clearly better.

how the hell is federer of current not poorer on clay ?
djokovic and murray are also poorer on clay compared to medium to fast HCs.

haha. You are a hard core Soderling homer and that is OK because I really like him too. Ferrer was not quite as good a returner in 2009 as his career average. Gonzalez probably formidable. Not crazy about Davydenko on clay either. 2010 Berdy was strong on clay! Wow. Just goes to show how dangerous Soderling could be because he won a lot of first serve points on clay. Clayray won a whopping 82% of his first serve points against the world number one in Rome. That really was the tale of the match and very reminiscant of what Wawrinka did to Djokovic. All big first serve point winners on clay. hmmmm (kind of like Thiem.)

Nadal went from a whopping 58% points won to around 55.5% in 2009. Still FO winner level stuff. (Still freaked out that Berdy was in the ball park with this... haha and guess what he had killer first serve points won that year at 79%, 5 above his career average.) Its a hard pill to swallow, but with Berdy in the mix that year, that really was a great, great year.

As far as current crop:
1. djokovic on medium-fast to fast HC > djokovic on clay -- yes, but Djokovic is a great clay court player
2. federer on medium-fast to fast HC at this stage of his career >>> federer on clay --- same point as Djokovic
3. murray on medium-fast to fast HC > murray on clay --- before 2015, yes, now, absolutely not, clay and grass are Murray's best surfaces and he is just very good on hard courts and that is all he's ever been (2009 was crazy good points numbers interestingly).
4. stan on clay > stan on medium-fast to fast HC
5. nadal on clay > nadal on medium-fast to fast HC
6. nishikori on medium-fast to fast HC > nishi on clay --- nope, Nishi much better games won numbers on clay this year and last
7. tsonga on medium-fast to fast HC > tsonga on clay --- Tsonga's scored two SFs at his home major, but yes that is right and normally the case for Monfils too
8. berdych on medium-fast to fast HC > berdych on clay --- in 2016 Berdy fell off the cliff on clay, so emphatic yes
9. raonic on medium-fast to fast HC > raonic on clay
10. gasquet on medium-fast to fast HC ~ gasquet on clay --- pretty much

Federer currently much better on hard courts than clay, but he's still very good on clay. In his prime he was great.

Obviously because of differences on Nishikori and Murray I can't agree with you on hard courts being better than clay. My perception is that we don't currently have a superlative US open hard court player. Federer is awfully good and major worthy, but just not Djokovic's best major.

A lot of really nice up and comers and wiley veterans just outside this top group in 2016. You may discount them all you want, but they are a much bigger threat on clay than other surfaces. Zverev, Pouille, Cuevas, Kohlschreiber, and Monfils stand out. I must admit I am leary of Monfils because his performance this year on clay was a big surprise in Monte Carlo. Monfils still better on hard courts in my book unless he proves this wrong at the French. Thiem and Monfils are 6 and 7 in the ATP race this year. Even Coric is a bit better on clay than hard courts, so the youth movement so far this year is on clay.

Its a shame Federer's comeback from knee surgury has been derailed so much. He himself was not originally intending to play much clay, but I still think he could be a big spoiler for Murray or even Djokovic this year at the French.

 

[abmk]

haha. You are a hard core Soderling homer and that is OK because I really like him too. Ferrer was not quite as good a returner in 2009 as his career average. Gonzalez probably formidable. Not crazy about Davydenko on clay either. 2010 Berdy was strong on clay! Wow. Just goes to show how dangerous Soderling could be because he won a lot of first serve points on clay. Clayray won a whopping 82% of his first serve points against the world number one in Rome. That really was the tale of the match and very reminiscant of what Wawrinka did to Djokovic. All big first serve point winners on clay. hmmmm (kind of like Thiem.)

Nadal went from a whopping 58% points won to around 55.5% in 2009. Still FO winner level stuff. (Still freaked out that Berdy was in the ball park with this... haha and guess what he had killer first serve points won that year at 79%, 5 above his career average.) Its a hard pill to swallow, but with Berdy in the mix that year, that really was a great, great year.

he was bound to come down after that great year in 08, wasn't he ? Doesn't mean nadal was sub-par.

and no, I'm not reading much into Murray's stats over a sub-par djokovic. ( who came into the final fried given the draw)

I was watching/following at that time and trust me, I am not freaked out that berdych is in the ball park. He was playing very well.

I saw what soderling was doing at those 2 RGs as well, he was just as good, if not better than stan. Just had a clearly harder task.

davydenko smashed verdasco in the previous match. No way was the QF vs soderling expected to so one-sided, but soderling just dominated him. you are big on nishikori/thiem etc, who have a grand total of zero RG SFs b/w them, but not on davydenko who has 2 RG SFs ? in-form, he was clearly better than both on clay.

As far as current crop:
1. djokovic on medium-fast to fast HC > djokovic on clay

-- yes, but Djokovic is a great clay court player
2. federer on medium-fast to fast HC at this stage of his career >>> federer on clay --- same point as Djokovic
3. murray on medium-fast to fast HC > murray on clay --- before 2015, yes, now, absolutely not, clay and grass are Murray's best surfaces and he is just very good on hard courts and that is all he's ever been (2009 was crazy good points numbers interestingly).
4. stan on clay > stan on medium-fast to fast HC
5. nadal on clay > nadal on medium-fast to fast HC
6. nishikori on medium-fast to fast HC > nishi on clay --- nope, Nishi much better games won numbers on clay this year and last
7. tsonga on medium-fast to fast HC > tsonga on clay --- Tsonga's scored two SFs at his home major, but yes that is right and normally the case for Monfils too
8. berdych on medium-fast to fast HC > berdych on clay --- in 2016 Berdy fell off the cliff on clay, so emphatic yes
9. raonic on medium-fast to fast HC > raonic on clay
10. gasquet on medium-fast to fast HC ~ gasquet on clay --- pretty much

Federer currently much better on hard courts than clay, but he's still very good on clay. In his prime he was great.

Obviously because of differences on Nishikori and Murray I can't agree with you on hard courts being better than clay. My perception is that we don't currently have a superlative US open hard court player. Federer is awfully good and major worthy, but just not Djokovic's best major.

A lot of really nice up and comers and wiley veterans just outside this top group in 2016. You may discount them all you want, but they are a much bigger threat on clay than other surfaces. Zverev, Pouille, Cuevas, Kohlschreiber, and Monfils stand out. I must admit I am leary of Monfils because his performance this year on clay was a big surprise in Monte Carlo. Monfils still better on hard courts in my book unless he proves this wrong at the French. Thiem and Monfils are 6 and 7 in the ATP race this year. Even Coric is a bit better on clay than hard courts, so the youth movement so far this year is on clay.

Its a shame Federer's comeback from knee surgury has been derailed so much. He himself was not originally intending to play much clay, but I still think he could be a big spoiler for Murray or even Djokovic this year at the French.

federer was a great clay court player, but he isn't one now and even when he was, he was clearly better on the USO HCs. not even remotely close.
djokovic clearly better than USO HCs than on clay ...

your point at that time was comparision b/w USO HCs and clay.

we don't have a superlative RG player either ( atleast form wise ). but the one who's the best on both of them currently ( djokovic ) is clearly better at the USO than at RG.

murray - grass his best surface, HC next, clay last. yes, even now. He just didn't have a Kevin Anderson to knock him out at RG like he did at the USO. He's not better on clay than on fast HC even now. He won Montreal beating a fresh djokovic last year and at cincy was taken out by federer in the SF ( federer who obliterated the field at that event - including djokovic ). If you had even a slightly below prime nadal , playing just as well, trust me, he'd have smashed murray even worse at MC or at madrid this year.

Nishikori has a USO final beating along the way - Raonic, Wawrinka, Djokovic. Come back when he does something remotely close at RG.

as far as kohlscreiber is concerned, he's almost equally good on every surface ( grass, clay, HCs ) ... the likes of Raonic, Kyrgios, Tomic are clearly better on HC/grass than on clay. nishi is not worse on HCs than he's on clay. thiem is probably the only one who is clearly better on clay than on HC.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yes, Djokovic had a harder draw and tougher matches than Murray did but I doubt Djokovic was physically tired. What I think it looks like is that Djokovic is a little mentally frazzled as the pressure of the FO gets closer. He was completely losing it a few times this week, i.e. at the umpires, himself,etc. Obviously he is the favorite for the FO but it is true he is also more vulnerable on clay than he is on hc. He could be injured for two years and come back cold to win the AO probably but it's a different story mentally at the FO. With Nadal playing a little better and Murray taking this win, I think it puts a little bit more doubt into Djokovic's head and it makes it much more interesting for the majority of viewers because IMO Djokovic, Murray or Nadal could win the FO (obviously other players have a chance depending on the draw but probably much less of a chance.)

He looked physically tired to me and it showed, his mind was willing, but his body was not and that was building the frustration imo. Murray still beat a very strong willed opponent out there and deserves it, but no way was Djokovic fully there physically. People talk about how Nadal was tired before Federer match in Madrid 09, only tough match he played that year and it was in afternoon. Djokovic several tough matches in a row, and his semi was late into the night and over 3 hours long. Sorry, but for me no way he was going to be fresh for the final against an opponent who blew a lucky loser off the court in the other semi.

 

[Meles]

he was bound to come down after that great year in 08, wasn't he ? Doesn't mean nadal was sub-par.

and no, I'm not reading much into Murray's stats over a sub-par djokovic. ( who came into the final fried given the draw)

I was watching/following at that time and trust me, I am not freaked out that berdych is in the ball park. He was playing very well.

I saw what soderling was doing at those 2 RGs as well, he was just as good, if not better than stan. Just had a clearly harder task.

davydenko smashed verdasco in the previous match. No way was the QF vs soderling expected to so one-sided, but soderling just dominated him. you are big on nishikori/thiem etc, who have a grand total of zero RG SFs b/w them, but not on davydenko who has 2 RG SFs ? in-form, he was clearly better than both on clay.



federer was a great clay court player, but he isn't one now and even when he was, he was clearly better on the USO HCs. not even remotely close.
djokovic clearly better than USO HCs than on clay ...

your point at that time was comparision b/w USO HCs and clay.

we don't have a superlative RG player either ( atleast form wise ). but the one who's the best on both of them currently ( djokovic ) is clearly better at the USO than at RG.

murray - grass his best surface, HC next, clay last. yes, even now. He just didn't have a Kevin Anderson to knock him out at RG like he did at the USO. He's not better on clay than on fast HC even now. He won Montreal beating a fresh djokovic last year and at cincy was taken out by federer in the SF ( federer who obliterated the field at that event - including djokovic ). If you had even a slightly below prime nadal , playing just as well, trust me, he'd have smashed murray even worse at MC or at madrid this year.

Nishikori has a USO final beating along the way - Raonic, Wawrinka, Djokovic. Come back when he does something remotely close at RG.

as far as kohlscreiber is concerned, he's almost equally good on every surface ( grass, clay, HCs ) ... the likes of Raonic, Kyrgios, Tomic are clearly better on HC/grass than on clay. nishi is not worse on HCs than he's on clay. thiem is probably the only one who is clearly better on clay than on HC.

Davydenko was very good in 2008 and 2009 on clay as you say, but that was it as far as point stats (~53.5% points.) His career numbers are quite forgettable at 50% points won on clay.

As I look at Federer and Djokovic's career numbers they literally rank 2 and 3 for me in clay courters since 1990 and I'm not convincd that Courier had a better career or peak year on clay. One could argue for Brugerra's peak being very, very special. They both suffer because of Nadal. I'm not so sure that they are radically better hard court players than clay, especially US Open hard courts for Djokovic. The both would have had quite a few RG titles without Nadal around.

By the peak stats of Davydenko in others in a few years, I see that Thiem statistically is nothing special. Nishikori is close. It appears that the career stats are very deceptive on clay for some players (Davydenko). Others like Soderling, Kuerten, and Brugerra you know that they had some special peak years and that was pretty much it.

You are way outdated on Murray's clay game; you need to reevaluate. The statistics from last year showed he had a very strong clay game and he's had the results to back it up. Your judgement on the current game looks very shakey.

Djokovic as I say has had his stats pummeled in Rome. He is way down from last year and the one loss to Murray does not explain the drop; looks like blood in the water to me. Thiem's stats are better on hard courts than clay this year; facts are stubborn things even for myself who views Thiem as clay court player. Nishikori much better on clay last two years than hard courts; not even close on points or games stats.

Prime Nadal would smash anyone; I'm not sure what your point is with that. Nadal 2016 would win most FO's. 2015 would be a contender at most FOs. If you think Djokovic and Federer are not extremely strong on clay, well the numbers for their career and peak years say otherwise.

You are crazy if you think Anderson would knock Murray 2015+ out of the French Open, or Raonic, or Isner or really anyone else short of a top, top player. Murray is far too good on clay now. He is a much weaker hard court player. He has never had slam winning hard court numbers. He's just not a great hard court player. Murray is an excellent competitor, but by the stats he's really had no chance to rack up slams. He might have snuck through in Australia if Djokovic wasn't around. He's got what it takes on grass and clay for sure.

 

[abmk]

Davydenko was very good in 2008 and 2009 on clay as you say, but that was it as far as point stats (~53.5% points.) His career numbers are quite forgettable at 50% points won on clay.

By the peak stats of Davydenko in others in a few years, I see that Thiem statistically is nothing special. Nishikori is close. It appears that the career stats are very deceptive on clay for some players (Davydenko). Others like Soderling, Kuerten, and Brugerra you know that they had some special peak years and that was pretty much it.

that's what I said. I didn't need to see the stats for that. I know how well they were playing at those points of time.

As I look at Federer and Djokovic's career numbers they literally rank 2 and 3 for me in clay courters since 1990 and I'm not convincd that Courier had a better career or peak year on clay. One could argue for Brugerra's peak being very, very special. They both suffer because of Nadal. I'm not so sure that they are radically better hard court players than clay, especially US Open hard courts for Djokovic. The both would have had quite a few RG titles without Nadal around.

I'm a federer fan and I rank him behind kuerten. Bruguera/Courier is debatable.

Djokovic isn't ahead of any of them or muster/ferrero for that matter unless he wins an RG.

Both federer and djokovic are clearly better at the USO than at RG. Both their play and their results show that. Fedal have denied djokovic 5 times at RG ( 08, 11-14) ...ditto at USO ( 07-11 ) .

You are way outdated on Murray's clay game; you need to reevaluate. The statistics from last year showed he had a very strong clay game and he's had the results to back it up. Your judgement on the current game looks very shakey.

I'm not out-dated on Murray's clay game at all. He was mediocre before 2015. He is good on clay now, but nothing special.

What I saw in the RG semi-final was that djokovic was all over him in the 1st 2 sets , he then had a let down and let murray get away with the next 2 sets. When he found his mojo back, he took him apart in the final set 6-1.

Trust me, if the djokovic who turned up vs nadal in the Rome QF turned up vs murray in the final, Murray would've lost.

What makes you think someone who knows/noticed davydenko's level of play on clay in those year's , berdych's in 2010, soderling's in RG 09/10 wouldn't notice if Murray was doing something really special.

Hint : He isn't. Its good, maybe even very good, but not special. Stanimal of last year RG or soderling of 2009/2010 RG or del potro of 2009 RG over present Murray and it isn't even close IMO.

Djokovic as I say has had his stats pummeled in Rome. He is way down from last year and the one loss to Murray does not explain the drop; looks like blood in the water to me. Thiem's stats are better on hard courts than clay this year; facts are stubborn things even for myself who views Thiem as clay court player. Nishikori much better on clay last two years than hard courts; not even close on points or games stats.

again, you don't need stats for that. Djokovic lost to vesely at MC in 1R. He got bagelled by Belluci at Rome, lost a set 2-6 to nishi while hampered a bit by injury. And lost convincingly in the final to murray mainly because of the draw.

Prime Nadal would smash anyone; I'm not sure what your point is with that. Nadal 2016 would win most FO's. 2015 would be a contender at most FOs. If you think Djokovic and Federer are not extremely strong on clay, well the numbers for their career and peak years say otherwise.

you got it wrong. 2015 nadal would not be a contender at most FOs. 2016 nadal, at present would be a contender, but not winning most FOs.

You are crazy if you think Anderson would knock Murray 2015+ out of the French Open, or Raonic, or Isner or really anyone else short of a top, top player. Murray is far too good on clay now. He is a much weaker hard court player. He has never had slam winning hard court numbers. He's just not a great hard court player. Murray is an excellent competitor, but by the stats he's really had no chance to rack up slams. He might have snuck through in Australia if Djokovic wasn't around. He's got what it takes on grass and clay for sure.

I didn't say anderson would knock out murray at 2015 RG. Just that someone as good/comfortable as anderson was at the USO - but instead at RG, would do so, a clay equivalent so to speak.

re : murray on HC vs clay ....you are absolutely crazy. Did you start watching tennis in 2015 ?

you waste too much time on game%, point % stats instead of focussing on what actually happened.

Murray of 2015 AO >> Murray of 2015 RG.
Murray of 2016 AO > Murray of 2015 RG ( slightly )
yeah, he got upset at USO 15, but he didn't have to deal with a clay equivalent of anderson.

...

never had slam winning #s ? you are crazy ..

Murray came into 2008 USO final beating JMDP and nadal. ( had won cincy beating djokovic )
He was pre-tournament fav for 2009 AO
came into 2010 AO final having lost only one set ( to cilic in the SF ) , having also beat in-form nadal in the QF
took djokovic to the brink in 2012 AO.
beat djokovic at 2012 USO
played arguably his best match at the AO in 2013 AO SF vs federer and would've had a good shot at winning it if not for blisters in the final
again, reached the 2015 AO final in good form ..

has 10 masters titles on HC.

lets look at the only year with 'slam winning numbers' for murray - 2009 , 85.7% service games and 35% return games. er, wait, he crashed out in 4R to verdasco at the AO and 3R to cilic at the USO that year.

djokovic had in 2008 88.2% service games and 27.3% return games. He won AO, YEC and IW that year. But I guess those are not 'slam winning numbers' . How the hell did he win AO, losing only 1 set ?

Is epic fail a good enough way to describe it ?


you are too obsessed with these numbers. Watch some of the matches/see some of the results ... will give you a better idea.
Those numbers are only for a check and can be misleading a lot of times.

 

[mightyrick]

you are too obsessed with these numbers. Watch some of the matches/see some of the results ... will give you a better idea.
Those numbers are only for a check and can be misleading a lot of times.

You are talking to a millennial whose only really tennis spectating experience outside of prime Djokovic is looking at numbers, reading Wikipedia, or watching Youtube highlights/outtakes. We're talking about a guy who supposedly enjoyed analyzing Sampras' game at 8 years old. Very little is experiential.

@Bobby Jr actually pointed out in another thread that there is actual psychological bias that a ton of these kids have -- the Dunning-Kruger bias. I was absolutely amazed to find out there was a scientifically recognized psychological effect/bias like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Their study points to a great Darwin quote: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge". It couldn't be more true on this board and in this section (as well as Tips/Tricks). It reminds me of that scene in "Good Will Hunting" where Robin Williams tells Matt Damon's character (who was an orphan)... "Do you think that I'd actually know about the kind of person you are, how hard your life has been, and what you've gone through because I read 'Oliver Twist'? "

Couldn't be more true.

 

[Meles]

that's what I said. I didn't need to see the stats for that. I know how well they were playing at those points of time.



I'm a federer fan and I rank him behind kuerten. Bruguera/Courier is debatable.

Djokovic isn't ahead of any of them or muster/ferrero for that matter unless he wins an RG.

Both federer and djokovic are clearly better at the USO than at RG. Both their play and their results show that. Fedal have denied djokovic 5 times at RG ( 08, 11-14) ...ditto at USO ( 07-11 ) .





I'm not out-dated on Murray's clay game at all. He was mediocre before 2015. He is good on clay now, but nothing special.

What I saw in the RG semi-final was that djokovic was all over him in the 1st 2 sets , he then had a let down and let murray get away with the next 2 sets. When he found his mojo back, he took him apart in the final set 6-1.

Trust me, if the djokovic who turned up vs nadal in the Rome QF turned up vs murray in the final, Murray would've lost.

What makes you think someone who knows/noticed davydenko's level of play on clay in those year's , berdych's in 2010, soderling's in RG 09/10 wouldn't notice if Murray was doing something really special.

Hint : He isn't. Its good, maybe even very good, but not special. Stanimal of last year RG or soderling of 2009/2010 RG or del potro of 2009 RG over present Murray and it isn't even close IMO.



again, you don't need stats for that. Djokovic lost to vesely at MC in 1R. He got bagelled by Belluci at Rome, lost a set 2-6 to nishi while hampered a bit by injury. And lost convincingly in the final to murray mainly because of the draw.



you got it wrong. 2015 nadal would not be a contender at most FOs. 2016 nadal, at present would be a contender, but not winning most FOs.



I didn't say anderson would knock out murray at 2015 RG. Just that someone as good/comfortable as anderson was at the USO - but instead at RG, would do so, a clay equivalent so to speak.

re : murray on HC vs clay ....you are absolutely crazy. Did you start watching tennis in 2015 ?

you waste too much time on game%, point % stats instead of focussing on what actually happened.

Murray of 2015 AO >> Murray of 2015 RG.
Murray of 2016 AO > Murray of 2015 RG ( slightly )
yeah, he got upset at USO 15, but he didn't have to deal with a clay equivalent of anderson.

...

never had slam winning #s ? you are crazy ..

Murray came into 2008 USO final beating JMDP and nadal. ( had won cincy beating djokovic )
He was pre-tournament fav for 2009 AO
came into 2010 AO final having lost only one set ( to cilic in the SF ) , having also beat in-form nadal in the QF
took djokovic to the brink in 2012 AO.
beat djokovic at 2012 USO
played arguably his best match at the AO in 2013 AO SF vs federer and would've had a good shot at winning it if not for blisters in the final
again, reached the 2015 AO final in good form ..

has 10 masters titles on HC.

lets look at the only year with 'slam winning numbers' for murray - 2009 , 85.7% service games and 35% return games. er, wait, he crashed out in 4R to verdasco at the AO and 3R to cilic at the USO that year.

djokovic had in 2008 88.2% service games and 27.3% return games. He won AO, YEC and IW that year. But I guess those are not 'slam winning numbers' . How the hell did he win AO, losing only 1 set ?

Is epic fail a good enough way to describe it ?


you are too obsessed with these numbers. Watch some of the matches/see some of the results ... will give you a better idea.
Those numbers are only for a check and can be misleading a lot of times.

Haha you do know the numbers. Please explain to me the promise of Murray in 2009 and what went wrong? Its not unusual for a player to produce such numbers, but not capitalize fully on them. Was Murray "tanking" sets in 2009? I was a huge fan and he's really never delivered on the promise of 2009.

Obviously Djokovic has a game well attuned to the Australian Open. The service games won was a very respectable number, so Djokovic was able to win with a lesser return. The Djokovic games won numbers are compatible with an upset major winner and he failed to win again until 2011. The Auz open matches for Djokovic are nothing amazing except for the straight set win over Fed and the ground was probably set with his victory over Fed in 2007.

Murray Auz Open he beat Cilic and Nadal to get there; nice but not amazing given Nadal not on clay.

Who is the clay equivalent of Anderson? (Thiem?)

On clay Murray won 86% of his serve games on 2015 and 35% of return games. 2016 hard so far he is at 86/30. 2016 Clay so far is 83/38 and the serve game is clearly on the ascension. Murray in 2016 clay, SF, F, Win.... maybe first French Open.

So who are your top 8 players at the French Open? I'm leaning toward's Murray as #1.

 

[abmk]

Haha you do know the numbers. Please explain to me the promise of Murray in 2009 and what went wrong? Its not unusual for a player to produce such numbers, but not capitalize fully on them. Was Murray "tanking" sets in 2009? I was a huge fan and he's really never delivered on the promise of 2009.

too passive. good enough vs most players and very consistent. Not good enough vs zoning players/top players.

Obviously Djokovic has a game well attuned to the Australian Open. The service games won was a very respectable number, so Djokovic was able to win with a lesser return. The Djokovic games won numbers are compatible with an upset major winner and he failed to win again until 2011. The Auz open matches for Djokovic are nothing amazing except for the straight set win over Fed and the ground was probably set with his victory over Fed in 2007.

nope, the tsonga win was amazing too, given the form tsonga was in.

Murray Auz Open he beat Cilic and Nadal to get there; nice but not amazing given Nadal not on clay.

it wouldn't be amazing, but a downright miracle if it happened at RG. Nope, cilic and nadal at AO, will take that !

Who is the clay equivalent of Anderson? (Thiem?)

can't think of an exact match, but maybe a zoning berdych/gonzalez ...

On clay Murray won 86% of his serve games on 2015 and 35% of return games. 2016 hard so far he is at 86/30. 2016 Clay so far is 83/38 and the serve game is clearly on the ascension. Murray in 2016 clay, SF, F, Win.... maybe first French Open.

So who are your top 8 players at the French Open? I'm leaning toward's Murray as #1.

1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Murray
4. Stan

 

[Meles]

too passive. good enough vs most players and very consistent. Not good enough vs zoning players/top players.



nope, the tsonga win was amazing too, given the form tsonga was in.



it wouldn't be amazing, but a downright miracle if it happened at RG. Nope, cilic and nadal at AO, will take that !



can't think of an exact match, but maybe a zoning berdych/gonzalez ...



1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Murray
4. Stan

Gonzalez strong at French this year? xxxxxxxx Gonzalez?

2009 makes sense. Not a great serve game probably for Murray.

Wawrinka looking bad. Call in the dogs if he goes out today versus Ramos-Vinalos in Geneva.

Haha. A zoning Berdy in 2016 might go down respectably in two sets to Thiem. Don't say Berdy can beat Thiem!

 

[Meles]

You are talking to a millennial whose only really tennis spectating experience outside of prime Djokovic is looking at numbers, reading Wikipedia, or watching Youtube highlights/outtakes. We're talking about a guy who supposedly enjoyed analyzing Sampras' game at 8 years old. Very little is experiential.

@Bobby Jr actually pointed out in another thread that there is actual psychological bias that a ton of these kids have -- the Dunning-Kruger bias. I was absolutely amazed to find out there was a scientifically recognized psychological effect/bias like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Their study points to a great Darwin quote: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge". It couldn't be more true on this board and in this section (as well as Tips/Tricks). It reminds me of that scene in "Good Will Hunting" where Robin Williams tells Matt Damon's character (who was an orphan)... "Do you think that I'd actually know about the kind of person you are, how hard your life has been, and what you've gone through because I read 'Oliver Twist'? "

Couldn't be more true.

You're living in the 90's Clay man.

 

[abmk]

Gonzalez strong at French this year? xxxxxxxx Gonzalez?

2009 makes sense. Not a great serve game probably for Murray.

Wawrinka looking bad. Call in the dogs if he goes out today versus Ramos-Vinalos in Geneva.

Haha. A zoning Berdy in 2016 might go down respectably in two sets to Thiem. Don't say Berdy can beat Thiem!

not this year, I mean a peaking gonzalez/berdych in their primes.