So, Nadal got out of the hardest group

Leandro2045

Rookie
Nadal was 6-1 against Tsitsipas who additionally was not even in good form and Rublev folded like a cheap tent playing his master and idol. Pretty good group for Nadal.

Schwartzman would be a walking bye for him but Zverev just beat him on indoor court in Paris and Medvedev is in top form. It's questionable would he got out of this group.
Nadal :

10-1 vs Schwartzman (5-0 on Hard-courts)
3-0 vs Medvedev (3-0 on Hard-courts)
5-2 vs Zverev (2-2 on Hard-courts)

6-1 vs Tsitsipas (4-0 on Hard-courts)
2-0 vs Rublev (2-0 on Hard-courts)
9-6 vs Thiem (1-2 on Hard Courts)


Essentially there was no difference between Schwartzman/Rublev and Medvedev/Tsitsipas for Rafa he's literally 21-2 against them (14-0 on Hard-courts)

The only "relevant" tough opposition for him was Zverev/Thiem and he got Thiem.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
Nadal :

10-1 vs Schwartzman (5-0 on Hard-courts)
3-0 vs Medvedev (3-0 on Hard-courts)
5-2 vs Zverev (2-2 on Hard-courts)

6-1 vs Tsitsipas (4-0 on Hard-courts)
2-0 vs Rublev (2-0 on Hard-courts)
9-6 vs Thiem (1-2 on Hard Courts)


Essentially there was no difference between Schwartzman/Rublev and Medvedev/Tsitsipas for Rafa he's literally 21-2 against them (14-0 on Hard-courts)

The only "relevant" tough opposition for him was Zverev/Thiem and he got Thiem.
2 out of the 3 matches went to the limit against Med. It's only easy on paper.

Now granted Thiem and Medvedev were always gonna land in different groups based on rankings.

You are gonna see tomorrow how easy Medvedev is if he can replicate his recent form.
 

Bamoos

Semi-Pro
Well done to him but he hasn’t impressed me at all. He basically beat Tsisipas by moonballing and keeping the ball in play, which speaks volumes.
 

Leandro2045

Rookie
2 out of the 3 matches went to the limit against Med. It's only easy on paper.

Now granted Thiem and Medvedev were always gonna land in different groups based on rankings.

You are gonna see tomorrow how easy Medvedev is if he can replicate his recent form.
Rafa would always prefer to play Daniil rather than Thiem for a simple reason, he's the aggressor in the match-up.

Thiem takes the game to Rafa while Medvedev defacto game is to sit around and endure on long rallies from the baseline.

You don't need power to beat Medvedev just angles, quite the contrary to Thiem.

There's a reason Rafa is 9-6 against Thiem.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
The tournament says that H2H is the deciding factor if 2 players are tied.

Thus, if this tournament is legitimate, then Nadal is the GOAT because of his H2H against Fed.

if it’s not legitimate, then Nadal is the goat anyway because Masters + slams for Ned > masters + slams for Fed, because WTF is illiegitimate.

GSM Ned
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
I missed the 1st set but Zverev served 75% and made 38 winners/19 ues. Did I miss something here?
He was good except when it mattered. Like being the better player throughout the whole of the second set but still mugging up the breaker. First set wasn't anything special from him. I might rate Tsits's performance better just due to taking that break.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
He was good except when it mattered. Like being the better player throughout the whole of the second set but still mugging up the breaker. First set wasn't anything special from him. I might rate Tsits's performance better just due to taking that break.
I didn't see the entire match so I can't give a full opinion but he only really made one bad error in the tiebreak to lose his minibreak from what I saw and then Djokovic locked down, hit big serves when he needed them, and made some good passing shots. It's like I read one thing but the stats and my eye test sees another. Lol
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
I didn't see the entire match so I can't give a full opinion but he only really made one bad error in the tiebreak to lose his minibreak from what I saw and then Djokovic locked down, hit big serves when he needed them, and made some good passing shots. It's like I read one thing but the stats and my eye test sees another. Lol
Fair, I'll give you that, but he still underperformed relative to his level in the whole set. There were lots of times where he put himself in excellent positions to break (times that I don't think were reciprocated as often) but just screwed up in the end. Djokovic was basically donating some of his service games to Zed but the latter gently refused his offer. It was one of those completely inexplicable set losses where one player had the much better stats but still lost. And I don't think the majority of it was because of the winner's mental strength.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Fair, I'll give you that, but he still underperformed relative to his level in the whole set. There were lots of times where he put himself in excellent positions to break (times that I don't think were reciprocated as often) but just screwed up in the end. Djokovic was basically donating some of his service games to Zed but the latter gently refused his offer. It was one of those completely inexplicable set losses where one player had the much better stats but still lost. And I don't think the majority of it was because of the winner's mental strength.
But he only had 3 breakpoints in the match. I don't know about much better stats but he did win more points in the 2nd set, 45 to 43 so I'll give you that. Djokovic served impressively though. 121 average for the match and 123 average in the 1st set at 68%? That's pretty high for him. I don't know but I can't quite agree with a lot of posts I'm reading about this match.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
But he only had 3 breakpoints in the match. I don't know about much better stats but he did win more points in the 2nd set, 45 to 43 so I'll give you that. Djokovic served impressively though. 121 average for the match and 123 average in the 1st set at 68%? That's pretty high for him. I don't know but I can quite agree with a lot of posts I'm reading about this match.
There were a few games in the second set which were close, but Zverev just kept missing easy shots time after time. He should have broken at least once.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
As the Thiem match showed, they can lose also on purpose. It is in the rules of the tournament, so that doesn't render the final achievement insignificant.

:cool:
It does. The premise of a season ending championship is great. Should be really prestigious. The format of this though makes it meaningless. What is the point of Medvedev and Diego playing tonight?
 

GabeT

Legend
The tournament says that H2H is the deciding factor if 2 players are tied.

Thus, if this tournament is legitimate, then Nadal is the GOAT because of his H2H against Fed.

if it’s not legitimate, then Nadal is the goat anyway because Masters + slams for Ned > masters + slams for Fed, because WTF is illiegitimate.

GSM Ned
You realize this argument is nonsense, right?
not bad for trolling though, will give you an A-
 

tudwell

Legend
It does. The premise of a season ending championship is great. Should be really prestigious. The format of this though makes it meaningless. What is the point of Medvedev and Diego playing tonight?
Prize money and 200 points. That's more than you get for winning a Masters quarterfinal. Which Schwartzman has only done twice in his career. That's a pretty sizable boost for him. (It would be interesting to look at just how many matches he's contested worth 200 points or more – probably just a handful.)

But I agree they should do away with the h2h component of qualification. You could still end up with dead rubbers if one guy won his first two matches easily enough and everyone else has struggled, but it would be harder, and there would generally be a bigger incentive to keep your level up for your third match.
 

GabeT

Legend
While the word "tank" can be used a bit too freely, Thiem had very little incentive to give full effort versus Rublev, as he was already through to the semis-- and I think had even clinched the #1 seed in his group.

It's much different than not giving full effort in a knockout match. (I did not see the Novak-Med match, but I'm not sure why Novak - if true - would not go all out in a second RR match, having clinched nothing. Hopefully, he plays much better in a few hours, or he deserves to be eliminated.)

That's one of the things I don't care about this tourney - you don't really know who in the draw is both healthy and inspired to go all-out.
yeah, we keep misusing the word "tank". It's not like the top players don't want to win all, but many times they just are note there 100%. You could see that in the Sonego match (missed Thiem-Rublev). Once he was behind Novak simply didn't give it his all, and with good reason since he had already obtained what he wanted.

And you can see that in the results of recent years. There was a time when the Big 3 (or Big 4) dominated everything. Now masters are much more open to other players but the Big 3 (and lately just Nadal and Novak) continue to dominate slams.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Prize money and 200 points. That's more than you get for winning a Masters quarterfinal. Which Schwartzman has only done twice in his career. That's a pretty sizable boost for him. (It would be interesting to look at just how many matches he's contested worth 200 points or more – probably just a handful.)

But I agree they should do away with the h2h component of qualification. You could still end up with dead rubbers if one guy won his first two matches easily enough and everyone else has struggled, but it would be harder, and there would generally be a bigger incentive to keep your level up for your third match.
Why not have the top 16 in straight knock out format? You would have more in form players and more drama.
 
Top