2018 In Between Grand Slam Thread

Hector Savage

So Federer gets a day off and Djokovic plays tonight, will have to play tomorrow.

ATP bends over backwards for Federer - I wish he'd just F off and retire.

jr86

That has always been the way in the Tour Finals, nothing to do with Federer - its just the way the format is

He's been nothing more than mediocre yet can still top his group and will probably make the final of a tournament containing the Top 8 in the World. I despair for the next generation

That said if Federer is going to still be ND's main competition in 2019 the latter ain't gonna lose too much sleep over that

Johnmb

Hector Savage wrote: »

So Federer gets a day off and Djokovic plays tonight, will have to play tomorrow.

ATP bends over backwards for Federer - I wish he'd just F off and retire.

Two of the silliest comments I've read in a while. Scheduling is always like this, it's down to the luck of the draw. Sometimes Federer has benefitted, sometimes he's lost out as a result. Anyone who has followed tennis over the years would be fully aware of this. It happens in other tournaments as well due to the way they like to schedule certain rounds.

And why should he retire? He's had what most players would consider a career making season, still clearly one of the current best players in the world.

Christy42

Johnmb wrote: »

Hector Savage wrote: »

So Federer gets a day off and Djokovic plays tonight, will have to play tomorrow.

ATP bends over backwards for Federer - I wish he'd just F off and retire.

Two of the silliest comments I've read in a while. Scheduling is always like this, it's down to the luck of the draw. Sometimes Federer has benefitted, sometimes he's lost out as a result. Anyone who has followed tennis over the years would be fully aware of this. It happens in other tournaments as well due to the way they like to schedule certain rounds.

And why should he retire? He's had what most players would consider a career making season, still clearly one of the current best players in the world.

A lot of people feel like the old guard should move over and let the Young guns through.

I feel like the young guns need to force the old guard out of the game by beating them in earlier and earlier rounds. Until they do that Fed should stick around and dazzle us all!

Johnmb

Christy42 wrote: »

A lot of people feel like the old guard should move over and let the Young guns through.

I feel like the young guns need to force the old guard out of the game by beating them in earlier and earlier rounds. Until they do that Fed should stick around and dazzle us all!

You're 100% correct. The old guard has never moved over to let the young guns through in any previous generation, the young guns have always forced the old guard out. Until young guns force Federer, and Nadal, and Djokovic, out they have no reason to end their careers. I'll never understand why those people think the top players should make way, it's not a charity. Do they go on football boards saying that Real and Barca should withdraw from La Liga to give the other teams a chance to win?

Rikand

So Zverev beat roger this evening.

Djoko cruised against ando

jr86

Hopefully regardless of what happens tomorrow that Zverev can use this as a building block for 2019.

The sport badly needs a new superstar

Meanwhile the current star of the sport breezed past Anderson today. Novak is hungry and focused again, I expect him to hoover up title after title in 2019

jr86

Wow, delighted for Zverev. Straight sets and comfortable as well. Makes an upgrade on his Masters wins

Now hopefully 2019 is the year he finally starts to make shapes at the Slams

dominatinMC

And that's why I don't expect Djokovic to stroll to every title in 2019 as some have predicted. First Khachanov, and now Zverev does it in straights. The young guns are coming...the majors will be next imo. I think we're going to get a long awaited first time winner in 2019

jr86

Novak won the last two tournaments that truly counted though. The US Open he won it pulling up.

You've much more faith in the younger generation than I do

He wasn't at the races today but he's been struggling a bit with illness the past few weeks and things probably just caught up with him today.

He'll be fully focused for the big 4 events next year and when it truly counts I can't see him losing to anyone in those if he's fit - bar maybe Rafa at the French

mickmackey1

Amazing how lethargic Djokovic looked, esp considering it was straight sets all the way this week. He fails to equal Fed's WTF haul. 31 is still a real veteran in tennis, Nadal crocked at 32 and Federer still winning at 37 just because he's unique and the GOAT.

Royale with Cheese

Djokovic is always struggling with something...

Zverev has done it over 3 sets before and has got absolutely nowhere in the grand slams thus far, he still has a fair way to go.

jr86

31 isn't veteran at all anymore

Times have changed a lot in tennis

Didn't realise that Zverev has Lendl as coach now.

That could make the difference.

over 5 sets he has yet to go past the 1/4's but he seems to be playing with real confidence and aggression now - the signs are that he'll be a lot better in the slams from now on.

Remember he's still only 21.

Federer didn't win his first slam until very nearly 23 (literally a few weeks from 23) in a weaker era and didn't get past the 4th round in any slam in the year prior to his first slam at Wimbledon

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

Didn't realise that Zverev has Lendl as coach now.

That could make the difference.

over 5 sets he has yet to go past the 1/4's but he seems to be playing with real confidence and aggression now - the signs are that he'll be a lot better in the slams from now on.

Remember he's still only 21.

Federer didn't win his first slam until very nearly 23 (literally a few weeks from 23) in a weaker era and didn't get past the 4th round in any slam in the year prior to his first slam at Wimbledon

Fake News.

Federer was 21.

He made 2 quarters aged 19.

Weaker era my hole. Weaker than an era where OAPs are dominating?

so what?

Zverev has also made a 1/4. point is Fed had an unimpressive record in GS before winning. The breakthrough comes, not necessarily after reaching multiple semi finals.

Oaps were winning then with old Agassi, Sampras still around

Hewitt and Roddick were hardly players for the ages.

It was weaker.

jr86

In fairness the early 00s was an extremely weak period, WTA was much better to follow back then

At least now the big 3 are still active and competitive, and Murray was world number 1 until a year and a half ago - and may still win titles yet. Guys like Wawrinka, Cilic and Del Potro would have cleaned up back then

lostcat

Strange final from Djokovic after looking imperious all week, but, fair play to Zverev.

I agree with the above posters that one of the young guns could just click and win a slam without making three or four semis first, however I cant see anyone doing a Djokovic '11 next year and coming from nowhere to win basically everything. I didn't see Djokovic doing it in 11 either though...

Its been a good season I think, and a hopeful one for the future. I was afraid in January that it would be a rerun of 2017 with an even older Federer and Nadal winning everything that mattered. Djokovic came back to close out that possibility in some style, and he has now in turn been straight setted in the last two finals of the year by young fellas.

It certainly adds some interest to what was looking a bit like a Djokovic owned 2019. He is still going to be very hard to stop in the Slams I think.

Floppybits

Great win for Zevrev yesterday and lets hope he can kick on from this. The issue is that grand slams are a different beast and that you need to built up a few of them to get the stamina to last the 5 sets. This is the advantage that the older players have over the younger ones. As said hopefully he can kick on from this and not do a Dimitrov and disappear into the pack. He seems to have the team in place now with Lendl joining the ranks.

Joe_ Public

Floppybits wrote: »

Great win for Zevrev yesterday and lets hope he can kick on from this. The issue is that grand slams are a different beast and that you need to built up a few of them to get the stamina to last the 5 sets. This is the advantage that the older players have over the younger ones. As said hopefully he can kick on from this and not do a Dimitrov and disappear into the pack. He seems to have the team in place now with Lendl joining the ranks.

Not saying you’re wrong but at what age should stamina stop being an advantage for older players? Or to put another way, would Federer still enjoy a stamina advantage over 5 sets over the likes of Zverev? Sounds a bit odd to me anyway.

Floppybits

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not saying you’re wrong but at what age should stamina stop being an advantage for older players? Or to put another way, would Federer still enjoy a stamina advantage over 5 sets over the likes of Zverev? Sounds a bit odd to me anyway.

Its not really, if you look at the amount of 5 set matches the older guys have played over the years vs what the younger guys play, it takes time. As fit a Zevrev is until he gets a few of those 4 - 5 hour 5 set battles under his belt he will struggle against these guys. 3 setters are a sprint, 5 setters are a marathon and it is how you manage yourself in the 5 setters that will win you the matches. That is not something that you can coach or train for the only way is to play them.

Federer is at the oppostie end to Zevrev, you can see Fed cant handle back to back 5 setters and that is only going one way, unfortunately the great man can beat age, Zevrev is going the other way, the more 5 setters he can play the more he will improve his game management and be able to pace himself.

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

so what?

Zverev has also made a 1/4. point is Fed had an unimpressive record in GS before winning. The breakthrough comes, not necessarily after reaching multiple semi finals.

Oaps were winning then with old Agassi, Sampras still around

Hewitt and Roddick were hardly players for the ages.

It was weaker.

So what? The point is you have your facts wrong. You got Federer's age wrong.

Sampras was gone by the time Federer started winning. Agassi was the only OAP winning, but he was hardly dominating.

Chivito550

Chivito550 wrote: »

So what? The point is you have your facts wrong. You got Federer's age wrong.

Sampras was gone by the time Federer started winning. Agassi was the only OAP winning, but he was hardly dominating.

I didn't get federer's age wrong you muppet.

the year before he won Wimbledon in 2003 (when nearly 23) he didn't get past the 4th round in any GS as I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Career_statistics

Sampras won the US open in 2002 so well around when Fed was Zverev's current age.

get your facts straight.

you don't have a bog.

PlaneSpeeking

glasso wrote: »

I didn't get federer's age wrong you muppet.

the year before he won Wimbledon in 2003 (when nearly 23) he didn't get past the 4th round in any GS as I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Career_statistics

Sampras won the US open in 2002 so well around when Fed was Zverev's current age.

get your facts straight.

you don't have a bog.

Roger Federer was born on 8 August 1981, he won his first Wimbledon in early July 2003 when aged 21 years and 11 months. Not even CLOSE to being "nearly 23".

Zverev will be 21 years and 11 months in March. He won't have won a slam by then, I doubt he'll ever win more than 2 or 3, he's not the first wunderkind I've seen and the same people wet themselves each time one comes along.

You're just embarassing yourself at this point.

PlaneSpeeking

Chivito550 wrote: »

So what? The point is you have your facts wrong. You got Federer's age wrong.

Sampras was gone by the time Federer started winning. Agassi was the only OAP winning, but he was hardly dominating.

Chivato - you're spot on FYI.

Floppybits

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Zverev will be 21 years and 11 months in March. He won't have won a slam by then, I doubt he'll ever win more than 2 or 3, he's not the first wunderkind I've seen and the same people wet themselves each time one comes along.

Jeez that's a bold prediction to make.

I know Zverev hasn't really made much of impression in the Grand Slams but I think he will.

The lads going on about Federer being 21 or 23 when he won his first have to realise the advancements made in the sports science that means that players can stay in peak condition longer than they ever did. There have been huge advancements made since the start of this decade in how players train, diets and recovery that has prolonged there careers.

If Federer was playing back in the 90's he would have been finished by 32. So criticising Zverev for not making a huge impact by 21 is being very unfair. If you want to critcise any players I think you need to look at the Tsonga's, Berdychs and Dimitrovs of this world who had to live up to their potentials.

he was a few weeks (Mid July vs Aug 8) from being 22 so pretty much 22. miscalculated a year. still older than Zverev is now.

he was wrong about Sampras - he was still winning GS's when Federer was the same age as Zverev is now. (US open 2002)

in any case the original point is that Federer himself didn't show much form in terms of winning a GS in the time / year before he actually won his first one.

in 2002 he bombed out of Wimbledon (his strongest GS later) in the first round, Australian 4th round, US 4th round, French 1st round.

PlaneSpeeking

glasso wrote: »

he was a few weeks (Mid July vs Aug 8) from being 22 so pretty much 22. miscalculated a year. still older than Zverev is now.

he was wrong about Sampras - he was still winning GS's when Federer was the same age as Zverev is now.

You're actually wrong - Sampras won his last of 14 Grand Slams (the US) in 2002, at the time Federer was 21 and a few weeks, he'd not won a Slam at that point.

I have zero idea why you would even attempt to diminish the achievements of the greatest player ever but it's a futile task. Have at it though.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You're actually wrong - Sampras won his last of 14 Grand Slams (the US) in 2002, at the time Federer was 21 and a few weeks, he'd not won a Slam at that point.

I have zero idea why you would even attempt to diminish the achievements of the greatest player ever but it's a futile task. Have at it though.

I'm not trying to diminish Fed's achievements - where did you get that idea?

yes Sept 2002 when Federer was trying to win his first slam. that was pretty much Sampras finished but if winning a slam is not "active" then what is.

the whole original discussion was about Zverev not showing any form to win a GS.

the point is that although Fed had got to 2 1/4's in 2001, in 2002 he didn't show at all in the slams, before winning in July of the following year.

so therefore who is to say that Zverev can't up his game in the 5 set matches and win in 2019.

I think that Lendl will be a deciding factor in giving him the mental strength to go towards doing it.

It was the deciding factor for Murray.

It's only mental strength and concentration that is holding Zverev back. The tools and talent he already possesses. And unlike someone like kyrgios he is not a flake.

Chivito550

glasso wrote: »

I didn't get federer's age wrong you muppet.

the year before he won Wimbledon in 2003 (when nearly 23) he didn't get past the 4th round in any GS as I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Career_statistics

Sampras won the US open in 2002 so well around when Fed was Zverev's current age.

get your facts straight.

you don't have a bog.

The only muppet here is yourself.