Australian Open 2018

Chivito550

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The second set was proof, if it was needed, of what makes Bo3 so entertaining. Halep was hanging together midway through that set but she dug in and clung on because if she lost the match was over. A Bo5 match and that set would probably have been written off.

There are more dud women’s finals than classics. Way more. Using the exception to disprove the norm is the height of tomfoolery.

I’d be strongly in favour of best of 5 from at least quarter finals on. Best of 5 is what separates a slam from a regular event. People who think men should play best of 3 need their heads examined.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Chivito550 wrote: »

There are more dud women’s finals than classics. Way more. Using the exception to disprove the norm is the height of tomfoolery.

I’d be strongly in favour of best of 5 from at least quarter finals on. Best of 5 is what separates a slam from a regular event. People who think men should play best of 3 need their heads examined.

There have been as many dud Bo5 finals as Bo3. People think because a match lasted 5 hours it was better. That's rarely ever true. People cite that Djokovic/Nadal match from a few years ago as an epic 5 setter, ignoring the fact that there was about 2 sets of actual good tennis.

Anyway, this is an argument that comes up every time there's a Slam and the same arguments come up and we go round in circles. Nobody ever changes their opinions and the players still play what they play.

walshb

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Tennis at the highest level is a very physical game. It is absolutely absurd that you would think Federer is somehow immune to this and able to defy the aging process.

Immune to what? I never said he was immune to anything...

What are you implying as regards Federer being successful at tennis aged 36?

I am sure it’s not a cakewalk for Federer. Tennis is a tough game..

dominatinMC

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There have been as many dud Bo5 finals as Bo3. People think because a match lasted 5 hours it was better. That's rarely ever true. People cite that Djokovic/Nadal match from a few years ago as an epic 5 setter, ignoring the fact that there was about 2 sets of actual good tennis.

Anyway, this is an argument that comes up every time there's a Slam and the same arguments come up and we go round in circles. Nobody ever changes their opinions and the players still play what they play.

If you're going to cite a 5 set match in your argument for Bo3, that Djokovic-Nadal match isn't one that I'd choose. Although there were dips in quality at times, it was full of drama, excitement, tension, etc. Tennis can be about more than just exquisite shot-making, which there was plenty of in this match as well. I realise that classifying a match as a "classic" or "epic" is a subjective process, but the fact remains that the majority of tennis commentators, fans, and even the wider general public, consider that match to be a classic.

mickmackey1

Too much mileage on the clock this tournament for Halep, only herself to blame for taking 4 hours to beat Davis. Woz finally wins in her 43rd Slam, only 3 others have waited longer.

Floppybits

Well done Wozniacki, great to see her finally get over the line. Doesn't matter the amount of slams she had to play to get there, the thing is she got there. I can see her winning a couple more now that she had cracked it.

Great to see Darren Cahill come up and congratulate Wozniacki.

mickmackey1

This is how close she came to going out!

Chivito550

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There have been as many dud Bo5 finals as Bo3. People think because a match lasted 5 hours it was better. That's rarely ever true. People cite that Djokovic/Nadal match from a few years ago as an epic 5 setter, ignoring the fact that there was about 2 sets of actual good tennis.

Anyway, this is an argument that comes up every time there's a Slam and the same arguments come up and we go round in circles. Nobody ever changes their opinions and the players still play what they play.

IMO an epic 5 setter always trumps an epic 3 setter. I was actually at the longest women’s slam match in history in 2011 which went on for nearly 5 hours which was pure drama, but from the 5 slams I’ve been to that’s the only women’s match that sticks in the memory, while there’s a good 4-5 men’s I can recall fondly.

I can’t understand why anybody would advocate dropping men’s from 5 down to 3. If they are worried about matches being too long then speed up the damn courts back to the way they used to be, and stop the homogeneous nature of tennis. Bring back the specific court specialists. Let’s see serve and volley return to Wimbledon and hard Court, and let’s see the return of the dirt rats.

CassieManson

Floppybits wrote:

Well done Wozniacki, great to see her finally get over the line. Doesn't matter the amount of slams she had to play to get there, the thing is she got there. I can see her winning a couple more now that she had cracked it.

Did anyone hear Wozniacki's comment to her agent at the end of her speech? It seemed to be a bit controversial but I couldn't make it out.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

CassieManson wrote: »

Did anyone hear Wozniacki's comment to her agent at the end of her speech? It seemed to be a bit controversial but I couldn't make it out.

She just said she might finally get on the cover of Elle now.

Ardillaun

Great matches on the Ladies side. Halep had better shots, esp. the forehand, but ran out of steam. I’m delighted for Wozniacki after all those years of effort.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

NOT SURE WHAT THAT LAST POST WAS ABOUT BUT LET'S STICK TO THE TENNIS ACTULLY HAPPENING IN AUSTRALIA.

Ardillaun

Not my post?

I'm sure it's disappointing for Halep but she played well and kept going for those angled forehand winners. In general, her forehands and backhands were much deeper than Wozniacki's. If she keeps the same semi and final playing standard up she should win a Grand Slam event.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Ardillaun wrote: »

Not my post?

No. Sorry. I deleted a post by someone who has since been banned by someone else for being a "spambot". Dragging up quotes from last weeks posts.

Ardillaun

I must say I marvel at the power a slight person like Halep can generate on the forehand. Her timing must be rather good.

mickmackey1

Bit scrappy at the mo, Fed not taking full advantage of Cilic's nerves.

TomSweeney

This match needs Nadal.
Mens tennis is in big trouble when an almost 37 yr old can just saunter his way to the title.

Pistachios & cream

I actually think this match would be better as a best of 3. Cilic would have a better shot then.

TomSweeney

YES!! Game on !!!

WickIow Brave

Anyway, bit of joke the roof is closed to help Federer although if Cilic needs to rely on the roof being open and extreme heat to win he doesn't deserve to be winning anyway.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I HAVE DELETED SEVERAL POSTS AND BANS WILL BE HANDED OUT IF YOU CONTINUE AS YOU WERE

TomSweeney

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I HAVE DELETED SEVERAL POSTS AND BANS WILL BE HANDED OUT IF YOU CONTINUE AS YOU WERE

OK fair enough, my last post was a bit off topic, but earlier on in this thread
(few days back) some poster was making very good points about the next gen not being
good enough and Federer can just walk titles easily (and Nadal USO 2017, FO 2017)
They were good posts but were just deleted - so we can't criticise the big 2 of mens tennis ?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TomSweeney wrote: »

OK fair enough, my last post was a bit off topic, but earlier on in this thread
(few days back) some poster was making very good points about the next gen not being
good enough and Federer can just walk titles easily (and Nadal USO 2017, FO 2017)
They were good posts but were just deleted - so we can't criticise the big 2 of mens tennis ?

You know that's not why I deleted the posts today. Also this is the Australian Open thread, its not the Nadal vFederer thread. That discussion comes up every Slam and derails every Slam thread. If people insist on having that argument then take it to a different thread. But as I said, that's not why the posts this morning were removed.

Rekop dog

Cilic showing lots of character here. Looked on the ropes 10 minutes ago.

TomSweeney

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You know that's not why I deleted the posts today. Also this is the Australian Open thread, its not the Nadal vFederer thread. That discussion comes up every Slam and derails every Slam thread. If people insist on having that argument then take it to a different thread. But as I said, that's not why the posts this morning were removed.

So why were they removed ?
or are we talking about the same posts ...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

TomSweeney wrote: »

So why were they removed ?
or are we talking about the same posts ...

They breached forum rules and if you don't know why then you probably shouldn't be posting here. That is the last I am saying about it. Stick to the tennis.

Mantis Toboggan

Great rally

Rekop dog

Funny how a wildly off topic stream of crap about Sandgrens personal life wasn't deleted and other things are. You can't pick and choose things to censor based on your own agenda. It's inconsistent and poor modding.

WickIow Brave

Fair play Cilic, doing very well to get in the match here.

walshb

The flow is with Cilic now.