With just one masters left, who's the current favorite for the French?

Who is the favorite to lift the Coup des Mousquetaires?


  • Total voters
    136
  • Poll closed .
Federer over Nadal? LOL

At best Federer is fourth best. At worst, Nadal is third best.
I don't know what's so funny here. Federer had match points against Thiem, he did much better against him than what Nadal did in Barcelona. Federer also would have never lost to Fognini or Tsitsipas on clay. Federer's chances to win RG are obviously very low but I believe there are many players who are afraid of him more than they are afraid of current Nadal.
 
I don't know what's so funny here. Federer had match points against Thiem, he did much better against him than what Nadal did in Barcelona. Federer also would have never lost to Fognini or Tsitsipas on clay. Federer's chances to win RG are obviously very low but I believe there are many players who are afraid of him more than they are afraid of current Nadal.
Wrong
 
one of those cases where TTW seems to deviate meaningfully from the betting market (Nadal tiniest of favorite still).

Which raises the question: is that because we are smarter than them, or dumber?

i have my suspicions
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
I don't know what's so funny here. Federer had match points against Thiem, he did much better against him than what Nadal did in Barcelona. Federer also would have never lost to Fognini or Tsitsipas on clay. Federer's chances to win RG are obviously very low but I believe there are many players who are afraid of him more than they are afraid of current Nadal.
I don't even know how to respond to this one.

 
I still have Nadal by a whisker. I would say:

Nadal: 3/1
Djoker: 3.5/1
Thiem: 6/1
Tsitsipas: 10/1

I think that Fed can make the quarters with some clutch play and some luck. And that would be a great result. I would put Fed at 30/1.

I hope that Fed makes me eat my words by reaching the semis. But I just don’t see that happening. A top 30 guy is going to push Fed to 5 sets in a grind fest before the quarters. This will gas Fed. But I sure hope that I am wrong.
 
I still have Nadal by a whisker. I would say:

Nadal: 3/1
Djoker: 3.5/1
Thiem: 6/1
Tsitsipas: 10/1

I think that Fed can make the quarters with some clutch play and some luck. And that would be a great result. I would put Fed at 30/1.

I hope that Fed makes me eat my words by reaching the semis. But I just don’t see that happening. A top 30 guy is going to push Fed to 5 sets in a grind fest before the quarters. This will gas Fed. But I sure hope that I am wrong.
seems fair

Fed will almost inevitably get caught in some battles even before the deep rounds, and his stamina/recovery seems more fragile than ever, so a QF would be a lovely result at RG.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
I still have Nadal by a whisker. I would say:

Nadal: 3/1
Djoker: 3.5/1
Thiem: 6/1
Tsitsipas: 10/1

I think that Fed can make the quarters with some clutch play and some luck. And that would be a great result. I would put Fed at 30/1.

I hope that Fed makes me eat my words by reaching the semis. But I just don’t see that happening. A top 30 guy is going to push Fed to 5 sets in a grind fest before the quarters. This will gas Fed. But I sure hope that I am wrong.
I think with Thiem moving up to fourth seed, Federer will be targeting a semi appearance here. Of course all depends on the draw, but I feel with the mindset Federer currently has, he is looking for that semi heading into Paris.
 
and 50% of the time when Fed and Novak won Madrid, they didn't win the French, and roughly half the times (3/7) Nadal has won the French since 2009 (when Madrid switched to clay), he didn't win Madrid.

So I'd say the predictive value of Madrid isn't terribly high indeed.
Yeah, predictive value of Madrid can only exist in the heads of stat nuts. Prepostrous to even contemplate Madrid as indicative except for form shown during that week.
 
I don't know what's so funny here. Federer had match points against Thiem, he did much better against him than what Nadal did in Barcelona. Federer also would have never lost to Fognini or Tsitsipas on clay. Federer's chances to win RG are obviously very low but I believe there are many players who are afraid of him more than they are afraid of current Nadal.
On the line for a FedFan TM membership.

Jeebus.

:-D:-D:-D
 
And another thing: Thiem has just won his biggest title on Hard, making him a main contender for the title in Paris is a tad far-fetched. Thiem is just one of the leading outsiders after the big three.
 
I think with Thiem moving up to fourth seed, Federer will be targeting a semi appearance here. Of course all depends on the draw, but I feel with the mindset Federer currently has, he is looking for that semi heading into Paris.
I sure hope that you are right. That would be amazing.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
It's all down to Nadal or Djokovic. Thiem is not a contender. He doesn't stand a chance in beating one of these guys in BO5 at RG.

To me it's pretty clear that he was the second best on clay in a vacuum where Djokovic was out of contention.
 
I think with Thiem moving up to fourth seed, Federer will be targeting a semi appearance here. Of course all depends on the draw, but I feel with the mindset Federer currently has, he is looking for that semi heading into Paris.
Like you said, at best Roger Federer can be fourth favorite!

But he will play a five setter or even a four setter at RG will make him tired for the next round. Roger can target SF but that's an optimistic thing. Hope he avoids guys who can defend a lot in the earlier rounds. But that's unlikely. From round 3 onwards Roger may have to play longer matches.

I will be delighted if he could make SF and a QF is the most likely result and thts also optimistic considering he didn't reach any QF after Wimbledon 2018
 
I think this is pushing it a bit far.

It does tell us something about the players' form curves. As long as we don't read too much into it.
I don't know about the length of form curves, but Djokovic seems to be the only one who can tweak and time his form curves, going by last year's Wimbledon, Cinc, US Open, and Melbourne. No other player on the tour seems to have that ability. Comparable to Ronnie O'Sullivan in Snooker.

But percentages of Madrid glory linked to Paris glory is more than a bit too much for me... More like desperation presented as assuredness based on vague causal relationships.
 
Unfortunately Novak Djokovic looks the most likely RG winner at present.
Nadal seems in serious trouble - optimists on this site have their heads in the sand.
Sadly, I doubt if Roger can cut it. He can be overpowered by Thiem and suffocated by Djokovic. Nevertheless, he does have a chance, depending on the draw and how things work out.
My only caveat would be that Djokovic had an easy draw at Madrid, including a walk over (he gets those so often!) and played two young guys who had just had big wins. Both Them and Tsitsipas were mentally wiped out when they faced Novak. They have to learn to take these big wins in their stride. Which I believe they will do. It's not a question of 'cojones'. Thiem and Tsitsipas didn't lie down; they fought as hard as they could, especially Them, they just were a) exhausted, mentally and physically; and b) haven't found the solution. Eventually Roger found a solution to Nadal (off clay, certainly). Now there's a new problem and there will at some point be a new solution to the man who plays the most unattractive tennis on the tour.
Djokovic plays an incredibly dreary game, just suffocating opponents and slowly squeezing them to death like a boa constrictor. It's not good tennis to watch, it's mechanical and robotic, but it is what it is and someone will have to figure out a way to punch holes in his wall. He is an unattractive player with an unattractive style of tennis. I still wish people would explain what they see to like about him (Of course Serbians like him; I understand that and Serbia had a tough time).
Excellent post, thanks for sharing. I do agree with your overall point about the young guns, that they would improve.

Still, overall, I feel that the younger players don't have that extra gear in slams that Fedalovic have. Djokovic, in particular, has been insanely ruthless in slams. He won the last 3 slam finals without even losing a set! I can't recall anyone who did that, not even Federer. So yeah, I do not expect the likes of Thiem, TsiTsipas, Zverev, Fognini etc to be any sort of threats to Novak. I still felt that Fedal would be greater threats as they can perform at the big stage without pressure.

And yes, Djokovic's game is not the most attractive to watch, exactly because of the reasons you pointed out. But a lot of people who are fans are because of the player, his domination etc. Not just because of the style of tennis. He's bound to have fans. That being said, it's hard to see Djokovic getting the same following as Federer or even Nadal have. Mainly because he co-existed with them and his playing style and previous antics about beefs with the crowds etc. Still, he will the dominant force in tennis for the next few years, and possibly could become the putative GOAT, so his base will definitely increase.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Voting for Nadal makes ZERO sense. This year is looking like 2015 or worse for Nadal. He's not managed to win the French when he's performed so poorly in the Warmups.
You've forgotten about 2014. Nadal hardly ever loses to his Spanish compatriots on clay, but lost to Ferrer at Monte Carlo and to Almagro at Barcelona. He was being blown off the court by Nishikori at Madrid until Kei suffered an injury, and then he limped his way to the final of Rome before losing to Nole.

Playing well in the warmups would definitely make Nadal the clear favorite, but not playing well doesn't mean he's no longer the favorite. I don't think he or Nole is winning RG, but still give the edge to Rafa over Nole (who hardly ever plays Roland Garros with focus, and who will be under tremendous pressure winning another NCYGS).
 
Honestly that is the last thing I understand. Why should the heritage of a sportsman be important when deciding for whom someone roots and for whom not? For me it can only be about the way someone performs his sport. Otherwise I just couldn’t be interested.

But Djokovic has his qualities which surely makes it understandable for me why he has his fans.

A player who just refuses to lose and is able to counter any other style, be it Nadal’s on clay or Federer’s on grass, is truly something special. By the way, that is only possible because he also CAN play a good attacking game as well, otherwise he wouldn’t be that great, but rather another Hewitt.
I never said Djok. doesn't attack. My beef is his game absolutely lacks any aesthetic dimension or thrill. I know there are 2 schools of thought: 1) winning is everything, tennis players should be warriors, beating your chest like a gorilla etc etc; 2) how you win matters in aesthetic and spectacle terms. Tennis is a spectacle and should be beautiful to watch. There is nothing beautiful about Nole's game. However well he moves, it looks ugly

I am not in favour of nationalism, but you must surely have noticed how intensely nationalist tennis is (like all sports). I see that as a negative, but it exists. I therefore merely noted that Serbian fans are likely to back Djokovic, indeed I have been at tennis matches where sitting near a group of them was an unnerving and unpleasant experience as they were so aggressive.
 
People should really stop overrating Nadal. So far he didn't do anything this year which can convince me that he can win RG. Some are giving too much credit to his clay dominance. As great as it was, he can still play bad on that surface.
This statement is just based on nothing. Every year when he won RG he won a few clay tournaments as well. What makes you think that he is better in BO5 format? Especially now when he looked tired in the third set against Tsitsipas.
Why are you so aggressive in trying to convince everyone that Nadal has no chance?
 
Nadal is the favourite until proven otherwise, which means the moment he actually loses at RG again, if he does.

That's it.
It's a completely reasonable take, but I don't think "that's it" is fair.
Nadal *has* stumbled into RG before and won it. But

a) he is older. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic try their best to make us forget it, but they are not the players they were at their best
b) the "field" is better. The number of non-elite players who have a legit chance to beat an elite on clay is just greater than it has been in the past. For much of Nadal's reign, the 2nd tier of players was (excluding Wawrinka) guys who would rather play on a river of molten lava than on clay, and the best on clay were non-threatening types like David Ferrer. The depth of 2nd tier players who are comfortable on clay means none of the elite can get away with days off the way they could in the past.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
It's perfectly understandable that many will give the respect Nadal deserves and place him as the favorite at RG. But he has declined in movement, speed and FH accuracy. He was visibly gassed at the end of the Stef match the other day. Could anyone last year imagine him losing in the semis of all the tune ups, and losing to Fognini and Tsistsipas?

For me, Novak is the favorite. Even if he loses in Rome, he's still the man to beat in Paris.
 
A bit tricky and thus more fun this year. Nadal's been **** (for the whole 2019 pretty much, even at AO he only beat an off Tsitsipas). Djokovic's not playing good recently either: beat Thiem and Tsi who is both spend physically and mentally but at least it will give him confidence. Thiem has the best form going in but he's a mental midget. So it depends a lot on draw. Rome will tell more hopefully.
 
1. The Nadal because of the RG conditions. Suits him just perfectly. He will rise his game by then I think. Will be tougher to beat him there mentally
2. Pepovic. Brilliant in Madrid but horrendous before that. What Djokovic will show up in Rome and RG?
3. Thiem. Can win but not likely. Got no variety. Bash bash bash.
4. Fedr. First clay tournament in years and he has MPs vs Thiem. Very strong. Can beat Nadal but not Djokovic.
5. ****sipas.
6. Zverev
7. The Fog
 
1. The Nadal because of the RG conditions. Suits him just perfectly. He will rise his game by then I think. Will be tougher to beat him there mentally
2. Pepovic. Brilliant in Madrid but horrendous before that. What Djokovic will show up in Rome and RG?
3. Thiem. Can win but not likely. Got no variety. Bash bash bash.
4. Fedr. First clay tournament in years and he has MPs vs Thiem. Very strong. Can beat Nadal but not Djokovic.
5. ****sipas.
6. Zverev
7. The Fog
I heard the conditions changed this year though. Ironically this happened exactly in the year when Nadal declined.
 

acintya

Hall of Fame
1. The Nadal because of the RG conditions. Suits him just perfectly. He will rise his game by then I think. Will be tougher to beat him there mentally
2. Pepovic. Brilliant in Madrid but horrendous before that. What Djokovic will show up in Rome and RG?
3. Thiem. Can win but not likely. Got no variety. Bash bash bash.
4. Fedr. First clay tournament in years and he has MPs vs Thiem. Very strong. Can beat Nadal but not Djokovic.
5. ****sipas.
6. Zverev
7. The Fog
agree completely but i change 1 for 2
 
Unfortunately Novak Djokovic looks the most likely RG winner at present.
Nadal seems in serious trouble - optimists on this site have their heads in the sand.
Sadly, I doubt if Roger can cut it. He can be overpowered by Thiem and suffocated by Djokovic. Nevertheless, he does have a chance, depending on the draw and how things work out.
My only caveat would be that Djokovic had an easy draw at Madrid, including a walk over (he gets those so often!) and played two young guys who had just had big wins. Both Them and Tsitsipas were mentally wiped out when they faced Novak. They have to learn to take these big wins in their stride. Which I believe they will do. It's not a question of 'cojones'. Thiem and Tsitsipas didn't lie down; they fought as hard as they could, especially Them, they just were a) exhausted, mentally and physically; and b) haven't found the solution. Eventually Roger found a solution to Nadal (off clay, certainly). Now there's a new problem and there will at some point be a new solution to the man who plays the most unattractive tennis on the tour.
Djokovic plays an incredibly dreary game, just suffocating opponents and slowly squeezing them to death like a boa constrictor. It's not good tennis to watch, it's mechanical and robotic, but it is what it is and someone will have to figure out a way to punch holes in his wall. He is an unattractive player with an unattractive style of tennis. I still wish people would explain what they see to like about him (Of course Serbians like him; I understand that and Serbia had a tough time).
Incredibly accurate post.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
You've forgotten about 2014. Nadal hardly ever loses to his Spanish compatriots on clay, but lost to Ferrer at Monte Carlo and to Almagro at Barcelona. He was being blown off the court by Nishikori at Madrid until Kei suffered an injury, and then he limped his way to the final of Rome before losing to Nole.

Playing well in the warmups would definitely make Nadal the clear favorite, but not playing well doesn't mean he's no longer the favorite. I don't think he or Nole is winning RG, but still give the edge to Rafa over Nole (who hardly ever plays Roland Garros with focus, and who will be under tremendous pressure winning another NCYGS).
Nadal was 5 years younger then though.
 
Unfortunately Novak Djokovic looks the most likely RG winner at present.
Nadal seems in serious trouble - optimists on this site have their heads in the sand.
Sadly, I doubt if Roger can cut it. He can be overpowered by Thiem and suffocated by Djokovic. Nevertheless, he does have a chance, depending on the draw and how things work out.
My only caveat would be that Djokovic had an easy draw at Madrid, including a walk over (he gets those so often!) and played two young guys who had just had big wins. Both Them and Tsitsipas were mentally wiped out when they faced Novak. They have to learn to take these big wins in their stride. Which I believe they will do. It's not a question of 'cojones'. Thiem and Tsitsipas didn't lie down; they fought as hard as they could, especially Them, they just were a) exhausted, mentally and physically; and b) haven't found the solution. Eventually Roger found a solution to Nadal (off clay, certainly). Now there's a new problem and there will at some point be a new solution to the man who plays the most unattractive tennis on the tour.
Djokovic plays an incredibly dreary game, just suffocating opponents and slowly squeezing them to death like a boa constrictor. It's not good tennis to watch, it's mechanical and robotic, but it is what it is and someone will have to figure out a way to punch holes in his wall. He is an unattractive player with an unattractive style of tennis. I still wish people would explain what they see to like about him (Of course Serbians like him; I understand that and Serbia had a tough time).
I see plenty of reasons. Although great at the "suffocating" part and forcing extra shots, he is primarily aggressive, a baseliner, with a fantastic two handed backhand, all the things that are a big plus in my book. Not Fed-level "flashy" for sure, but his groundstrokes are still great to watch, a lot of times to me it seems that he makes it look easy too. Whether he is dominating or having a challenging battle, I find it fascinating watching him solve his opponents. Watching someone who, although doesn't have a GOAT-like forehand of Fedal or a monstrous Pete serve, is such a complete player with many dangerous shots and barely any weaknesses, I always wonder how is he going to get the better of his rival in the next point, or the next match or beyond. And he is a cool guy off the court as well as a nice bonus, not taking himself seriously every second... Djokovic is stunning on many levels, and tennis would have been much poorer in the last 13 years or so without him in the mix.
 
I never said Djok. doesn't attack. My beef is his game absolutely lacks any aesthetic dimension or thrill. I know there are 2 schools of thought: 1) winning is everything, tennis players should be warriors, beating your chest like a gorilla etc etc; 2) how you win matters in aesthetic and spectacle terms. Tennis is a spectacle and should be beautiful to watch. There is nothing beautiful about Nole's game. However well he moves, it looks ugly
I’m a Federer fan as well, so of course I appreciate his style and everything he stands for. But on the other hand tennis isn’t a sport with style points and rightly so, which means Djokovic doesn’t perform his Sport "wrong" or something like this. I totally agree about the gestures and such things. That is totally unnecessary.

I am not in favour of nationalism, but you must surely have noticed how intensely nationalist tennis is (like all sports). I see that as a negative, but it exists. I therefore merely noted that Serbian fans are likely to back Djokovic, indeed I have been at tennis matches where sitting near a group of them was an unnerving and unpleasant experience as they were so aggressive.
Honestly I only notice that in team sports (of course mostly when national teams play, and then I have no problem with it as long as it stays fair). Tennis is an example where nationalism doesn’t play a big role IMO. Otherwise the Big 3 wouldn’t have that much huge fans from all around the world. Because most countries have good players, but still all real fans root for their favourite player over their countrymen.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I see plenty of reasons. Although great at the "suffocating" part and forcing extra shots, he is primarily aggressive, a baseliner, with a fantastic two handed backhand, all the things that are a big plus in my book. Not Fed-level "flashy" for sure, but his groundstrokes are still great to watch, a lot of times to me it seems that he makes it look easy too. Whether he is dominating or having a challenging battle, I find it fascinating watching him solve his opponents. Watching someone who, although doesn't have a GOAT-like forehand of Fedal or a monstrous Pete serve, is such a complete player with many dangerous shots and barely any weaknesses, I always wonder how is he going to get the better of his rival in the next point, or the next match or beyond. And he is a cool guy off the court as well as a nice bonus, not taking himself seriously every second... Djokovic is stunning on many levels, and tennis would have been much poorer in the last 13 years or so without him in the mix.
Now that's a big understatement (bolded part).
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I see plenty of reasons. Although great at the "suffocating" part and forcing extra shots, he is primarily aggressive, a baseliner, with a fantastic two handed backhand, all the things that are a big plus in my book. Not Fed-level "flashy" for sure, but his groundstrokes are still great to watch, a lot of times to me it seems that he makes it look easy too. Whether he is dominating or having a challenging battle, I find it fascinating watching him solve his opponents. Watching someone who, although doesn't have a GOAT-like forehand of Fedal or a monstrous Pete serve, is such a complete player with many dangerous shots and barely any weaknesses, I always wonder how is he going to get the better of his rival in the next point, or the next match or beyond. And he is a cool guy off the court as well as a nice bonus, not taking himself seriously every second... Djokovic is stunning on many levels, and tennis would have been much poorer in the last 13 years or so without him in the mix.
Take Djokovic out of the equation these last 13 years and Fed would be the clear-cut GOAT, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Take Djokovic out of the equation these last 13 years and Fed would be the clear-gut GOAT, IMO.
People say Djoker has stopped Nadal from being GOAT and protected Feds legacy,
But It looks like Djoker has done more damage to Fed than Nadal maybe ( if we count the no. Of Masters WTFs Weeks at no. 1 records Novak snatched away from Fed)
 
Top