Who could have predicted Novak would be 1-2 in RR ?

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
As Cahill said today, "this court is faster than Wimbledon, so Roger has his chances. It's a pity the surfaces slowed down on most of the courts, it's hurt Federer the most." (P-Mac: "I won't argue that one, Killer.")
I was more interested if anyone else has noticed that trend. As for the other stuff, Federer's game is now most effective on low-bouncing medium to medium slightly fast courts. Superfast courts don't suit him anymore due to his age, so I take it Cahill was making a retrospective comment on the last decade or so.

:cool:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Crazy WTF.

Maybe Nadal winning it all comes next.
Not even I had this in the cards. I'm pretty sure based on his poor serve points won numbers against Federer that Nole's serve arm may be short circuiting. Rather amazing given the serving clinic he gave in Paris.o_O Looked like his serve fell off in the first set of the Thiem match. Listening to his press conference he noted it, but did not blame it for the match. Will be interesting to see how Davis Cup Finals in Madrid go for him.:unsure:
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
They tried that in 1982 to 1985 and then gave up on that idea.
Yeah, that was a colossal mistake by the ATP! I can still remember the Grand Slam Cup which was lame as well, but can't recall any matches! It seemed as if Becker and Graf owned that era with 6 major events in their country along with a YEC called the GSC! The US only had 8 with the USO and that disparity had to change! It's not that surprising the elites are having more trouble with the NG'rs! Nadal should be on his way back on his honeymoon if not for the colossal "choke" of Medvedev! I can't imagine Nadal putting forth a lot of effort now that Nole's been eliminated! His #1 YE ranking is secure until the AO anyway! :unsure:
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
One always looks like a beast playing Berretini.

The Novak of today was a shadow of the past. Wonder why he never had one of those days @ USO 10, USO 11, Wimb 14, Wimb 15, USO 15, AO 16 or Wimb 19
Ya can't win 'em all! He had an opportunity, but couldn't take advantage of it! A couple errors in the match with Thiem may have made all the difference! Who knows? :unsure:
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
One always looks like a beast playing Berretini.

The Novak of today was a shadow of the past. Wonder why he never had one of those days @ USO 10, USO 11, Wimb 14, Wimb 15, USO 15, AO 16 or Wimb 19
Thiem lost two of three to Berrettini this autumn and had to go three to do that. I think the moment caught up with the Italian...his first year making a slam run and now qualifying for WTF.
 
The bigger question is:

Does the WTF get elevated past exhibition status if Nadal wins the event ?
I don't think so, he would have to win it 5 times for that to happen ;)

In all seriousness, there are still several things to be changed in the tournament. regardless of who wins. Why having RRs if you play only three matches in the group?
 

zipplock

Semi-Pro
I don't think so, he would have to win it 5 times for that to happen ;)

In all seriousness, there are still several things to be changed in the tournament. regardless of who wins. Why having RRs if you play only three matches in the group?
... Because it's the only way to guarantee at least 3 top 10 opponents in any tournament. That's kind of the point ...
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
How the mighty were brought down in the span of 5 days...

Rewind back to Sunday when Thiem barely scraped past Fed and Djokovic thumping Berretini... And Fed fast surface peak was a myth and Novak was a lock for 6th YEC..
 

coloskier

Legend
When is the last time that Nadal beat Fed off of clay????? The answer is 2014. Since then Fed is 6-1, with Nadals only win at FO.
 
D

Deleted member 763691

Guest
When is the last time that Nadal beat Fed off of clay????? The answer is 2014. Since then Fed is 6-1, with Nadals only win at FO.
But does hardcourt count?
Clay and grass has been around forever.
Hardcourt, not so much :)
Heck, hardcourt didn't even have a slam until recent decades....
 
... Because it's the only way to guarantee at least 3 top 10 opponents in any tournament. That's kind of the point ...
But why 3?
Why not 4?
Or even 5?

Still, only the top 2 of each group would pass to the next round and battle it out in SF's and in Finals.

With a 5 people group, you would have a true top ten tournament, not just top 8, if you like the number 10 more.
But why even top 10? The idea of RR's in any sport (as I see it), is to have more and more games to avoid luck from having a lot of importance, if a great player or team loses a match because of a fluke they aren't out but can still prove they are worth it. Imagine Federer losing his third match because of a tiebreak in a KO tournament when you know he could still win the rest of his matches if it were a RR one.

And luck loses importance as more matches and more matches are played in a RR format, I like RR, it's just that 3 RR matches it's still too few, if they are going to have RR they should play more matches. I think this tournament is worth 1500 points, but it only takes the winner 5 matches to be champion!! It's almost a grandslam (pointwise) but you play fewer games than in Indian Wells. This would create scheduling problems because a 5 people group (or a 6 people group) isn't a power of 2, but if it's an important tournament it shouldn't shy away from scheduling more games as grandslams manage to do with 128 players playing.

I would like it more that way, more fair in my opinion. And at least we wouldn't have the possibility of someone being #1 in a group with only one match won.
 

timnz

Legend
Yeah, that was a colossal mistake by the ATP! I can still remember the Grand Slam Cup which was lame as well, but can't recall any matches! It seemed as if Becker and Graf owned that era with 6 major events in their country along with a YEC called the GSC! The US only had 8 with the USO and that disparity had to change! It's not that surprising the elites are having more trouble with the NG'rs! Nadal should be on his way back on his honeymoon if not for the colossal "choke" of Medvedev! I can't imagine Nadal putting forth a lot of effort now that Nole's been eliminated! His #1 YE ranking is secure until the AO anyway! :unsure:
I like the round robin. You can see Federer has gotten better by the match. If he got knocked out after playing Theim we would have missed out on the Djokovic/Federer match. And Sampras would have zero WTF's, because he lost in the round robin in all 5 of his WTF wins. Obviously he was playing well enough to go on to win all 5 of the tournaments!
 
But why 3?
Why not 4?
Or even 5?

Still, only the top 2 of each group would pass to the next round and battle it out in SF's and in Finals.

With a 5 people group, you would have a true top ten tournament, not just top 8, if you like the number 10 more.
But why even top 10? The idea of RR's in any sport (as I see it), is to have more and more games to avoid luck from having a lot of importance, if a great player or team loses a match because of a fluke they aren't out but can still prove they are worth it. Imagine Federer losing his third match because of a tiebreak in a KO tournament when you know he could still win the rest of his matches if it were a RR one.

And luck loses importance as more matches and more matches are played in a RR format, I like RR, it's just that 3 RR matches it's still too few, if they are going to have RR they should play more matches. I think this tournament is worth 1500 points, but it only takes the winner 5 matches to be champion!! It's almost a grandslam (pointwise) but you play fewer games than in Indian Wells. This would create scheduling problems because a 5 people group (or a 6 people group) isn't a power of 2, but if it's an important tournament it shouldn't shy away from scheduling more games as grandslams manage to do with 128 players playing.

I would like it more that way, more fair in my opinion. And at least we wouldn't have the possibility of someone being #1 in a group with only one match won.
Format is great. It is different and unique. We don’t need the same type of tourneys at every corner, and we don’t need any other players past 8. If you have a problem with not making the SF because of going 2-1, then don’t lose. @Centrius want it to be knockout, well it could be for some, as someone is likely to go 2-1 and still not make the SF.
 

Centrius

Professional
Format is great. It is different and unique. We don’t need the same type of tourneys at every corner, and we don’t need any other players past 8. If you have a problem with not making the SF because of going 2-1, then don’t lose. @Centrius want it to be knockout, well it could be for some, as someone is likely to go 2-1 and still not make the SF.
Fed fans never fail to deliver.:rolleyes:
 
Format is great. It is different and unique. We don’t need the same type of tourneys at every corner, and we don’t need any other players past 8. If you have a problem with not making the SF because of going 2-1, then don’t lose. @Centrius want it to be knockout, well it could be for some, as someone is likely to go 2-1 and still not make the SF.
I see, but I fundamentally disagree, I at least would enjoy it with more players keeping the RR format.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
I think Novak's personal trash can drummer was feeling the heat this week and quit. Now he doesn't know when serves are going wide or T.

Record before Houston got busted: 1-0

Record after Houston got busted: 0-2

#WakeUpSheeple
 
You like Fred more.Don't you?
What does that have to do with my comments? Do I like Djoker? No. But not everything has to do with him or even Fed. The format has helped Djoker more than it has helped Fed. Fed beat Djoker in the RR a few years ago and then lost to him in the finals...
 

Centrius

Professional
What does that have to do with my comments? Do I like Djoker? No. But not everything has to do with him or even Fed. The format has helped Djoker more than it has helped Fed. Fed beat Djoker in the RR a few years ago and then lost to him in the finals...
Why you don't want the knock out format then?
 
Why you don't want the knock out format then?
Because I like variety, and like the idea of players playing the same opponents but being able to compare them since they play the same draw, and I like the idea of players playing twice in the same tourney. It adds a different feel to it. How often do players play each other twice in the same tourney? Only at WTF. For me, it is simply different, and I like that.
 

Centrius

Professional
Because I like variety, and like the idea of players playing the same opponents but being able to compare them since they play the same draw, and I like the idea of players playing twice in the same tourney. It adds a different feel to it. How often do players play each other twice in the same tourney? Only at WTF. For me, it is simply different, and I like that.
Fair points but I don't like the idea of a tourney champ that lost not one but even two matches.
 
Top