Mainad
Bionic Poster
Lol...I'm trying to picture Mustard as Norma: " He IS big! It's the tennis courts that got small!"
:wink:
Last edited:
Jim Courier: Rafael Nadal no longer favourite in Paris
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
Lol...I'm trying to picture Mustard as Norma: " He IS big! It's the tennis courts that got small!"
:wink:
daddy
Legend
It's Deja Vu all over again:
Last year, Djokovic was the favorite among the pundits to win the FO and Federer picked Nadal :shock:
since I am a Nadal fan, I hope the result will be the same
You know, last year and probably in 2011 Novak was the favorite but the ONLY reasoning behind that was that he can beat Rafa on clay. First he did not even manage to get past good old Fed and then when he did he found out why is el toro king of clay. This year it's very different since not only that he can almost certainly beat Rafa in the best of 5 unlike before, but Rafa is much more vulnerable by other players.
In my mind Rafa can not beat Novak in this years RG. So either Novak goes out ( which is far from impossible, he lost a set to every opponent in Rome bar Federer and his performances are not that sublime at all, he just manages not to lose ) or Rafa goes out ( also possible, look at him losing to Fognini and Murray, or even better look at the form, movement and shotmaking which are lacking ) before they meet. It would be weird to see them play each other given all the circumstances UNLES Rafa winds up in Novak's quarter of the draw.
So I don't expect them to clash at all. I give it 15% chance, before the draw, and we'll talk after the draw about favorites.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Well, Mustard got vindicated last year, so who knows?
I was extremely skeptical about Rafa winning RG last year and look what happened. I am even more skeptical this year but I am not going to rule out Nadal completely. He's one of the favorites. In whatever order you want to put those is not so important after all.
I think that with Murray not being #2 and Nadal out of top 4, the draw is going to play a bigger part than usual.
RG is also more open than usual this year, so I don't think I would want to bet big money on any particular player winning it.
Djoko has an iron grip over the field but otoh RG is the one slam he has never won (even in his other best year: 2011 and he didn't even lose to Rafa that year). So there is a lingering doubt whether he will be able to cross that finish line
Nadal has had an iron grip over RG historically but it is the Finnish line (ha ha) he seems so dangerously close to step over with that dismal form of his.
Murray is a complete unknown, 1st season he's produced such convincing results on the surface.
In those circumstances, I'd rather settle down and enjoy the ride than play the game of categorical predictions and get into catfights about picks.
Big_Dangerous
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah that's nuts. I can think of at least 3-4 players that are better on clay than Nishikori right now.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
I believe once the draw is out, Nadal will be back to being the firm favorite leaving Novak behind.
G A S
Hall of Fame
at the moment nishikori is far from being a favorite.
Motor city
New User
Agree with this.
If somehow Federer won this it would be a great story line so late in his career to win a slam on his arguably weakest surface. He was right with Djokovic in Rome except for a couple points in the last two games of the first set and first two of the second set. That ten minute stretch changed the match, could RG be different? I'd like to see the drama of a good match around that storyline.
If a young guy wins I'd like it to be against an old guard in the final.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Mustard thinking Nadal is the favourite isn't the problem, it's the fact that he never seems to entertain the notion that any other player is in with a shout! That would make sense if we were in 2008 but someone ought to remind him we're now in 2015 and a lot of things have changed.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
But you have been saying repeatedly ad nauseam that you think Nadal is going to win it like he does every year so why are you complaining about Mustard thinking so as well?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
But you have been saying repeatedly ad nauseam that you think Nadal is going to win it like he does every year so why are you complaining about Mustard thinking so as well?
I'm not, it's just that he never seems to mention other players when the discussion comes up. It's almost as if Djokovic doesn't even exist in his world lol.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
In some ways I can understand Mustard being sour right now. Sunday really wasn't a good day for him since Djokovic overtook his all time favourite player in most clay Masters 1000s plus Rome titles and has now won the same amount of outdoor titles(43), soon to be passed as well. It might sound petty, but you'd better believe I was thinking of him after it all went down. :grin:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
But in all seriousness, who really cares which player has more Masters 1000s? It is a great accomplishment to win all of those Masters 1000s but slams are what make a player's legacy. I can't speak for Mustard but I am sure he will care much more if Djokovic wins the FO and Nadal finally loses. If somehow Nadal wins a 10th title, you better hide from Mustard, lol.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Plenty cares. Masters have been around for 25 years. It has history.
I'm pretty sure for every year that goes, masters 1000s will be regarded more and more highly, cause it gets more and more history. You can't only think ''what does people feel about it now?'', it is about long-term too.
Just like masters have become greater and greater since the 90s. So in 20+ years more, you can imagine what people will think of it and it will only make those who have m1000 even more impressive.
Thing is, masters 1000s are mandatory and are played with full fields. Meaning all best players in the world, and to win you need to beat them just like in slams. Difference is it is bo3 and played during one week.
Masters does not have a history like a slam and never will of course, it will never be regarded more highly than slams, but it will create a history if we thing for the future. It already has, but it is getting bigge So, plenty will care in the future.
Last edited:
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
K
King Fed WW
Guest
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
jim courier needs to read my sig.....
NatF
Bionic Poster
No, they don't try as hard. Guys will tank or skip masters to be ready for slams. The whole clay season the talk has been Nadal gaining his form from the masters events to defend the French Open. They're stepping stones in the grand scheme of things. Though the biggest of them like Rome are great in their own right too.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
it does not matter whether they try or not......nobody cares about mickey master tournaments......slams are the full and final settlement for a tennis player's legacy......rafa does not need to win every jack tournament......he proved as early as 19 that he can beat the best on tour on any surface......he ousted agassi on a slow hardcourt and ousted ljubohohohaha on lightening fast madrid indoor court in 2005......
so there is nothing left to prove......his injuries made the careers of a lot of players......should he be fit, you will see him destroy everyone at roland garros......
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Nadal still has most Rome titles with 7!
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I was talking about Muster, not Nadal. :wink:
batz
G.O.A.T.
Are you for real? Murray hasn't lost before the QF in the last 16 slams he has played - but apparently he's susceptible to an early exit at slams? Not Roger or Rafa or Stan or Cilic or Berdych or Nishikori or Milos or Ferrer or any other player on tour not named Novak - people who have actually lost early at slams in the same period on multiple occasions - the guy who hasn't lost early, he's the one you call out? OK mate. There probably is a universe where what you're saying is reasonable - but we sure as hell aren't living in it.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Stating a fact gets me put on ignore?
I am talking about now. Nadal has won the last 5 French Opens (including the last one), and is the reigning champion (present tense).
You talk such nonsense, and you certainly don't speak for me. Of course other players are in with a shout of winning this French Open, and Nadal is more vulnerable than at any time since at least 2011. Nadal should still be the favourite because he has won the last 5 French Opens, and 9 of the last 10. That is such a dominant record that it cannot be over-ridden in terms of importance by recent successes in best of 3 sets tournaments. They just don't have the same weight.
Djokovic has put himself in a position similar to 2011, and now he has experience on his side. He has an excellent chance of finally winning the French Open. Nadal, unlike Djokovic, has not only won this event, but utterly dominated it for years and years.
I'm touched by your concern.
Nah. I didn't give him hell after last year's French Open. What's annoying is when one refuses to learn from one's past mistakes. Nadal deserves respect as the dominant French Open champion. He's earned it.
I'm amazed that you think that I'm so bothered that Djokovic has overtaken Muster in the number of Italian Open titles
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
^^^ Don't pretend that the thought didn't occur to you mate. :wink:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Completely different eras, mate. What Muster did on clay in 1995-1996 was very special.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
It was clearly only about RG. Murray has never beaten a top-10 player there, and of his five last participations there, he has three losses to the likes of Gonzales, Berdych and Ferrer. Clearly it's not insane to suggest that he potentially could lose there in the fourth round to someone like Monfils—which is what was originally said in the post you answered to. Alluding that he is not more upset-prone there than Nadal, which you are now doing whether you consciously intend to or not, because of their performance in all slams and not just RG, is nothing short of ridiculous.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I have no idea what you're talking about. Murray lost to Nadal twice (in semi) and Ferrer once in his last 3 participations at RG. What happened before that is totally irrelevant because it's plain and obvious that current Murray is playing much better on the surface.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Meant three of the last five. Should be deducible, no?
It's not "completely irrelevant", although he is currently looking better, yes. But we can't discard the whole of history because of one mere tournament. Even you understand as much. I hope.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Recent history is: Murray lost to Nadal twice out of 3 participations. The rest is old history, nothing to do with "recent".
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
But all the record books care about is 4 Italian Opens > 3. And if Nole wins RG he'll be above Muster on clay overall!
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Where did I say recent? The fact is that he was a top 4 player in all of those mentioned. Recent history is also that he almost lost to the player in question, Monfils, last year, and also needed five against Kohli. He has also never defeated a top-10 player there—recent or not.
So yes, the point still very much stands, whether you're able to admit it or not. Although he might not, Murray could very well lose in the fourth round, and is much more likely to do that than the two favorites.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Is Rafa more prone to upsets in slams than Murray over the last 5 years? Yes. Is Rafa more likely to be upset than Murray at RG 2015? No.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, but that was not what you responded to. No one was talking about "slams over the last 5 years", they were talking about the chance of Murray losing in the 3rd or 4th round of Roland Garros. You bought in Nadal's and Murray's performance over all slams, which is not particularly pertinent to the matter in question.
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
I am hoping djokovic falls flat on his face but I doubt it. He will win GS.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I like how it is the biggest Djoko haters who have the highest faith in his success
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Oops, I forgot it was Muster, not Nadal, who is his all-time favourite player! :wink:
Last edited:
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
First thing I thought of when first viewing this. Stan and Berdych....but no Federer?
*buzzer* 'wrong!'
batz
G.O.A.T.
The matter in question is why single out Murray, given his record in slams? Even his record @ RG over the last 5years doesn't suggest he is a prime candidate for an early exit. Can he lose early? Of course he can - but I ask again, why single him out as someone likely to? Also, he has just won two titles back to back and is undefeated this season on clay - does that count for nothing whatsoever?
Last edited:
syc23
Professional
History doesn't always have relevance. How else did you explain Murray winning Wimbledon? Oh yeah, he's never won it before so no chance of that happening....
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Is this the Monfils he bagelled in the final set last year? :wink:
Clearly, ALL players could potentially lose in the 4th round of RG to an on-fire opponent. Murray hasn't lost prior to the quarter-finals at RG since 2010 while Federer lost in the 4th round there only last year! So did Ferrer while Wawrinka never made it past the 1st round! Yet, here we go again with various people targetting Murray as the one most likely to lose early! You must understand how tiresome and illogical this gets us for Murray fans like batz and me!
Last edited:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Batz, The hype train on Murray is so huge after the 2 titles. I just wanted to remind those folks that upsets at RG for Murray is something not out of the realm of possibilities and we need to tone down considering his history at RG and his clay prowess in general (not just for last 2 weeks).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Lol...what hype train? Various people keep trying to persuade us that he is the one most likely to go out early despite having consistently made the quarter-finals for the last 5 years unlike the likes of 2014 4th rounders Federer and Ferrer and well-known 1st rounders, Nishikori and Wawrinka!
And do I have to remind you that this thread is about Courier picking Nishikori as 2nd best favourite to win behind Djokovic! So remind me again.......who is being hyped here?
Hype train for Murray? Chance would be a fine thing! (But if anyone were to hype him, don't you think he would have earned it a bit more than Nishikori?)
Last edited:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Lol...what hype train? Various people keep trying to persuade us that he is the one most likely to go out early despite having consistently made the quarter-finals for the last 5 years unlike the likes of 2014 4th rounders Federer and Ferrer and well-known 1st rounders, Nishikori and Wawrinka!
And do I have to remind you that this thread is about Courier hyping Nishikori as 2nd best favourite to win behind Djokovic!
Hype train for Murray? Chance would be a fine thing! (But if anyone were to hype him, don't you think he would have earned it a bit more than Nishikori?)
Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych seem safe bets at this time.
Murray is always up and down if you look at his career. I know you try to separate the majors and just the last 5 years, but they don't give the whole picture. We need to look beyond the last 2 weeks and more specifically his clay records across all tournaments. His grass and HC prowess is irrelevant.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Clearly a response to folks like Mainad proclaiming Murray to be a bigger fave than Nadal. I don't think anyone counts Murray as the most upset-prone player in the whole field, but when people start to push him as the favorite up there wit Djokovic, it's going a bit far.
Where did I ever say his two clay titles counts for nothing? Look, I'm a fan of Murray as well, but I don't see why some of his fans have to go into full defense mode at every single perceived negative evaluation.
I'm not saying history will repeat itself to a tee. I'm saying München and Madrid doesn't take Murray into Djokovic and Nadal's league when it comes to RG.
Yes, Monfils. Nice bagel, but still went five.
12-10 in the fifth against Kohli in, yes, the 3rd round, if that's better.
Not all players are equally upset-prone. Murray is clearly more steady than most, at RG too. But Djokovic has been impervious on the clay for years. Nadal's RG record speaks for itself. The point is that it's ridiculous to elevate Murray to close second fave after Djokovic, and ahead of Nadal. That's why you got reactions such as these.
How tiresome it is for Murray fans? I'm a fan of him too, but I think it's much more tiring when his fans read everything as some evil-minded anti-Murray conspiracy, even when it's fair questioning of him.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
This all started when I took exception to the idea that Nishikori must be considered 2nd favourite behind Djokovic! When former champions like Jim Courier buy into this sort of hype, then that is why Murray fans like batz and me get frustrated. I couldn't care less about Nadal being considered 2nd favourite because there is plenty of justification for that unlike with Nishikori!
Fair comment and I never meant to suggest that they did despite what I might have said! !
Nadal once got taken to 5 sets by Isner and Djokovic almost lost to Monfils a few years back. So what? The important fact is that they all won those matches.
As I already said, point taken!
We never mind fair questioning of him at all. It's when we see him constantly getting judged by harsher standards than are applied to other players that it brings out the lion in us!
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Players and fans care in that the Masters 1000s are launching pads for the slams where players can get their momentum going and help give them confidence. They are great titles to have but they mean little to a player's overall legacy. The only time the Masters 1000 events are scrutinized happens when two players have the same number of slam titles. In that case other stats will be used to further compare the careers of two players.
Other than that you simply cannot compare the historical significance of slams to Masters 1000s and fans who do have an agenda. Masters 1000s will never be on the same level as the slams no matter how many fans on a tennis forum blabber on to the contrary.
Nice try though.
Similar threads
